Voting
K Factors; F2B Community Report & Invitation.pdf
The latest revision of the rule text(Acrobat Reader format PDF)
The Judge guide(Acrobat Reader format PDF)
Get Acrobat Reader(5.2MB)
Discussion forum | List of registered users | Login/Registration | Home
Voting
K Factors; F2B Community Report & Invitation.pdf
The latest revision of the rule text(Acrobat Reader format PDF)
The Judge guide(Acrobat Reader format PDF)
Get Acrobat Reader(5.2MB)
Discussion forum
| Only registered users can add comments. |
| Peter Germann | Opening Statement | 12.08.2002 - 16:08:08 |
| F2B Rule Update Dear all: in march 2001 the F2 subcommittee has appointed myself as co-ordinator of the "F2B Working Group" and I was given the task to submit a revised set of F2B rules and Judges Guide by the 15th of November 200. With very substantial help and language expertise from professional contract writer Andy Sweetland, a world-wide group of F2B flyers and judges have volunteered to cooperate. 27 countries and / or individuals have joined in, enabling the F2B Working Group to submit the requested documents on time. The proposal of a revised set of F2B rules, together with the accordingly updated F2B Judges Guide, was published on the FAI website: www.fai.org/aeromodelling/meetings/ "Annex 11 to the agenda (Volume F2 - Class F2B - Reorganised rules and diagrams for class F2B)" and "Annex 12 to the agenda (Volume F2-Class F2B - Annex 4B Judges' Guide)" Sebnitz Meeting Report: On July 18 2002, during the 2002 World Championships in Sebnitz, Germany, the co-ordinator of the F2B Working Group gave a presentation of the revised F2B rules. The meeting was attended by numerous flyers, judges and officials from most of the participating countries: Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Hungary, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain, Argentina, Finland, Switzerland, Italy, United Kingdom, Poland, USA, Republic of South Africa, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Norway. Chair: Dr. Laird Jackson Group repr. Peter Germann Group repr. Claus Maikis Minutes: Dr. Laird Jackson In his opening statement, Dr. Laird Jackson explained the reasons having led to the assignment of the editing task to the Group and he made it clear too, that the Group has acted on instruction of the S/C. Peter Germann then presented a selection of essential points of the updated rule as a whole, with Claus Maikis displaying a number of his great cartoons created for the occasion. Handouts of the presentation were given to the audience. Follwing this, Dr. Laird Jackson chaired a discussion of the vital points and, on request of those present, consultative votes were taken. Subjects discussed: 35 cc motors: Strong opposition due to safety. A reduction to 15 cc was welcomed. Concern was expressed regarding r/c type wireless throttles and other potential remote control systems. Shut-downs seem to be acceptable on reasons of safety. Additions and clarifications of F2B model specifications seem to be needed. Electric motors: Very few against. Weight: Some concern about 3.5 Kg, based on safety. (Despite the current rule allowing 5 Kgs...) 2-Circle procedure: 4 flights for all (3 when the contest is flown in one circle) welcome. Some concern about unequal judging, but acceptable. Judges Break: Judges seem to prefer a longer break every two hours. High-low dropping: Some strictly for high-low dropping to eliminate biasing. China suggested to add the two closest scores instead. No dropping recommended by the more mathematical inclined. No K-Factors: approx. 50 % of those present agree. 0-100 marks bandwith: Found too difficult and then, after explaining: "drop your decimal point", found to be worth tested by a majority. The meeting was commented as being valuable and further discussion was suggested. Further Proceedings 1. ) From reactions and comments received since, a couple of changes or clarifications were applied to the current proposal and a revised version was prepared. It can be downloaded from the Forum site. For ease of file handling the revised text does not contain diagrams. Those remain, for the time being, unchanged and will be re-entered into the document later. 2. ) A dedicated Internet Forum was established for the purpose of discussing vital elements of theF2B Rule revision. The forum is now open to all interested parties: http://www.rcmodely.sk/Controlline/ 3.) Beginning around mid August 2002, essential points of the revised rule will be brought up for discussion on this forum on a one-per-one base and the community is kindly requested to limit returns and inputs, suggestions to the topic in question. 4. ) In order to distribute information as wide as practicable, the F2B Working Group hereby invites organisations and individuals to cooperate. For practical purposes, however, we can communicate via e-mail only, preferrably through this forum. Thank you for co-operating. Peter Germann S/C F2 F2B Delegate and F2B Working Group Coordinator. | Tree | 5 |
| Rene Berger | Future of C/L | 13.08.2002 - 15:22:24 |
| - We should have a open mind to new ideas. - Do whatever is needed for this great hobby and then be able to fly again on sites we used in the past and couldn't anymore because of the nuisances. - Improving judging by making it easier with a better tool. | Tree | 6 |
| Jan Kossmann | Engine Start | 16.08.2002 - 08:54:12 |
| Last night I quickly read through the proposal. I have two comments, one concerning the engine start and the other concerning the points awarded for beginning the take-off within 1 minute.
Firstly, maybe I missed something but I think a clarification concerning the engine start procedure would be advisable. I'm thinking of the use or non-use of electric starters. If I remember correctly the present rules call for the engine to be started by hand. I can find no such requirement in the proposal. Personaly I do not have an nothing against electric starters and maybe they are even necessary for starting such big engines as 35 ccm (which the proposal allows). Secondly, I think that 100 points are too much just for having to released your plane for take-off within 1 minute. According to the present rules you are awarded 10 points for this. 10 points under the present rules are the maximum points that can be awarded just as 100 points are in the proposal. However, the K-factor for the 10 points is only 1 whereas all other maneuvers have higher K-factors. Thus, these 10 points are not a big part of the total score, WHICH I THINK IS CORRECT. Under the proposal there are no K-factors and the 1 minute to take-off are equal to any of the other maneuvres PERFECLY executed, which I think is giving the 1 minute to take-off to much "value". Regards Janos | Tree | 9 |
| Peter Germann | This Forum Discussion Principles and List of Topic | 19.08.2002 - 10:23:07 |
| Dear all:
Please note that the latest version of the rule revision has been made available on the Forum now. For the purpose of this Forum it is called the "Working Copy". The first version is dated August 16 2002 and it will be revised and re-dated whenever needed. You will then be notified accordingly. Initially, the August 16 version is what shall be used as reference and I suggest that you do a printout for practical purposes. The discussion on this Forum will be conducted in a way where I will bring up a topic by quoting the related paragraph number and by adding the reasons explaining why the F2B Working Group feels the change in question is required. From this point in time on, the discussion of the SUBJECT IN QUESTION will be open. By the time the community returns no more, or very few, inputs I will terminate the discussion by saying so and by, if needed, applying the resulting changes to the related paragraph(s) of the Working Copy of the rule. Subjects to be discussed will be, in this order; 1.) Model specifications: paragraph 4.2.2 (Weight, engines, shut-downs, throttles) 2.) Starting of Motors: paragraph 4.2.16 d (Starting by hand no longer required) 3.) Contest Procedures: paragraph 4.2.15 e / & 4.2.19 d (2-circle operation) 4.) Scoring: paragraph 4.2.18 a (0-100, no K-Factors) 5.) Classification and Ranking: paragraphs 4.2.19 d / e Please feel free to suggest the extension of the list, referring to paragraphs you wish to add. Unless requested to do otherwise, I will carry on by presenting topic 1 later this week. Kind regards, Peter Germann, Co-ordinator | Tree | 10 |
| Richard Spurling | Re: Engine Start | 19.08.2002 - 11:16:27 |
| > Jan Kossmann wrote:
> Personaly I do not have an nothing against electric starters and maybe they are even necessary for starting such big engines as 35 ccm (which the proposal allows). My personal feeling is that electric starters should be allowed without penalty. This is purely for safety reasons - big engines, carbon fibre multi-blade knives and human fingers aren't a good mix. I also suspect that using an electric starter will become considered a disadvantage because it is slower than hand starting with a one flick start. Because starters were banned in the past, I feel that their legality should be stated within the new rules rather than just leaving the hand starting requirement out. A secondary consideration is litigation. The way things are going in Australia,it's not hard to imagine a time where electric starters are required for legal reasons. I hope that sort of stupidity doesn't eventuate. > > Secondly, I think that 100 points are too much just for having to released your plane for take-off within 1 minute. I agree with this thought, particularly as it is an all or nothing score. It wouldn't be hard to assign a lower score. Cheers Richard Spurling PS I originally made my comments on this thread by replying to the email from www-data. My reply didn't appear so it looks like you have to come to the forum to post your replies. Be warned. | Tree | 11 |
| Peter Germann | Re: Engine Start | 19.08.2002 - 11:54:44 |
| Thank you for this input, Jan. Is it o.k. if we discuss its content a bit later, in sequence with the schedule I have posted today?
rgds., Peter Germann, Co-ordinator. | Tree | 12 |
| Tim Gee | Primary and secondary control 4.2.2.e&f | 20.08.2002 - 02:16:04 |
| I'm not sure from reading these as to exactly what their aim is:
Under 4.2.2.f, The "secondry control functions" allow for, among other things, the "control of engine/s power". This can in many circumstances control the model's flying height which is a contradiction of 4.2.2.e where the height must only be controlled mechanically. An example of this is where the engine is throttled up in order that line tension is maintained in the overhead eights, where without the extra power the manoeuvre's correct height may not be able to be maintained. In these circumstances the throttle control become integral with the primary control. Regards, Tim Gee. | Tree | 13 |
| Richard Spurling | 4.2.2.h - line length | 20.08.2002 - 03:00:22 |
| Why is there a minimum line length (15m/ 49 ft)?
I can see all sorts of problems with flying on such short lines but isn't that the pilot's choice? If it is simply to allow organisers to build circles as donuts, wouldn't it be fairer to allow users of short lines to step out of the centre circle for the take off and landing? It's a small issue I know, but why have a restriction if there is no need, particularly if pracicality would serve the same end...and there are models that fly very nice patterns with tiny engines. Cheers Richard | Tree | 14 |
| Richard Spurling | Re: Primary and secondary control 4.2.2.e&f | 20.08.2002 - 03:02:56 |
| Tim, is the throttle controlling the model height or allowing the model to maintain it?
Cheers Richard | Tree | 15 |
| Tim Gee | | 20.08.2002 - 03:46:26 |
| Hi Richard,
I would have thought that any act which maintains a height is an act which controls height. Cheers, Tim | Tree | 16 |
| Brian Gardner | 4.2.2 (f) | 20.08.2002 - 06:45:16 |
| I am pretty much comfortable with all the paragraphs in 4.2.2, however paragraph (f) in it's reference to throttles and shutoffs needs some discussions. I realise they are trying to allow for some innovation and the use of electric motors however I feel that the use of throttles or shutoffs gives an advantage for the landing, particularly in wind. If allowing throttles perhaps it would be required for the pilot to give a hand signal when he wants the judging to begin for the landing decent lap. | Tree | 17 |
| Tim Gee | 4.2.2.e & f | 20.08.2002 - 07:06:26 |
| Brian, Check out 4.2.34a which states that the landing doesn't start till the motor has stopped.
Can someone clarify my earlier question as to the aparent contradiction of the above regulations relating to primary and secondary control. I am unclear as to what are the regs are trying to achieve here. Tim | Tree | 18 |
| Tim Gee | 4.2.2. | 20.08.2002 - 10:07:24 |
| Peter, have you fired the starting pistol for discussion on 4.2.2. yet, or are you going to give the rationalle first? | Tree | 19 |
| Holger Suchi | structural changes | 20.08.2002 - 11:19:45 |
| What about testing the structural changes suggested (weight, dimensions,
engines, throttles etc.) using a NEW category in parallel to the old fashione F2B???!!! I agree for safety rules like "hand starting", here is an e-starter a matter of safety! But the rest may be tested and then the future will show wich rules set is favored by the majority! I cold imagine to have a competition with such an open category in parallel, allowing the participant to choose F2B or open class, but not both, to limit the evnt length. All those who wants to experiment would have a field to compete and compare by offical rule for all and those who dont want to do so can proceed. What is the reason against a diversion instead of a hard change? For the matters of judging I suggest the judges to come into the discussion. From pilot's view I'm not able to talk about. Even I feel, that 100 points to be awarded are too much. Can anyone differenciate between a 78 and a 79 in the parts of a second a maneuvre is executed?! Best regards Holger Suchi | Tree | 20 |
| Igor Burger | Re: Primary and secondary control 4.2.2.e&f | 20.08.2002 - 13:10:30 |
| I think Tim is right. New rules should be fully clear. I think the problem of engine controlling can be simply solved by explicit note that Engine is not (or is – depends on final decision) >>>primary function<<<.
But however, I tend to see it as >>>secondary function<<< and I think we should speak about “pitch” controlling instead of “height” controlling in definition of primary function – or at least to clearly state that height is achieved by pitching of model. It is much more compatible with later specifications >>>performed by mechanically-activated flight control elements<<< and following definition of maneuvers components like loops, angular turns and straight segments. In this case we can correctly cut off the engine and lose height by >>>secondary function<<< while we must still controll the pitching by mechanic >>>primary function<<<. We will also save the word “height” for angular definition of size of maneuvers like >>>Maximum height 45 degrees line elevation angle<<<. igor | Tree | 21 |
| Igor Burger | contact | 20.08.2002 - 13:22:13 |
| Sorry for using this forum for contacting - but:
Holger I wanted to ask you to make us a favor regarding score calculation, but you mail stated in your registration shows me an error, can you check it please? sorry again - igor | Tree | 22 |
| Peter Germann | 1st topic for discussion: F2B Model Specifications | 20.08.2002 - 16:48:07 |
| Dear Friends!
This opens the discussion on F2B Model Specifications, as described in the august 16 2002 version of the suggested rule as follows QUOTE: 4.2.2 Model Definition and Specification Powered control line aerobatic model aircraft in which all aerodynamic surfaces except the control surface/s and propeller/s remain fixed during flight (refer to the FAI Sporting Code Section IV, Section 4C Model Aircraft, Part One, General Regulations, paragraph 1.3.2). The following specification limits shall apply: a) Maximum total flying weight (excluding fuel) : 3.5 kg (7 lbs 11ozs), plus 1% b) Maximum wingspan overall: 2.0 metres (6ft 6ins) c) Maximum length overall : 2.0 metres (6ft 6ins) d) Permitted power source/s shall include any power except rocket motors. Piston engine/s shall be subject to a total swept volume limitation of 15cc (0.92 cubic inches) Electric power shall be limited to a maximum no-load voltage of 42 volts. e) Primary Control Function. Control of model flying height shall only be performed by mechanically-activated flight control elements. This function must be controlled by a hand-held control handle manipulated by the pilot located on the ground at the centre of the model's flight circle. No automatic control of the Primary Control Function shall be permitted. f) Secondary Control Functions: The model's secondary control functions may include, but are not limited to: Control of engine/s power, engine/s shut-down, landing gear, landing flaps. Secondary control functions may be controlled by the pilot via wires/cables, or may function completely automatically. The frequency of electromagnetic pulses sent through wires/cables shall not exceed 30 kHz. g) Wireless remote control of any system in the model is not permitted. h) Minimum length of control lines shall be 15.0 metres (49ft), maximum length 21.5 metres (70ft 6ins), to be measured from the centre-line of the grip of the control handle to the centre-line of the propeller. Where models with multiple power sources are used the longitudinal centre line of the model shall be taken as the reference for measurement. Control lines shall be checked in accordance with 4.2.7 during all contests. i) A noise limit of not exceeding 96 dB(A) with a tolerance of plus 2 dB(A) shall apply to all power sources. The noise level shall be checked in accordance with the procedure at 4.2.8. k) Paragraph B3.1 of the FAI Sporting Code Section IV, Volume ABR, Section 4B, page 28 (the builder of the model rule) shall not apply to Class F2B. UNQUOTE The reasons for which the F2B Working Group suggests the above are the following: 4.2.2 a (Max. weight 3.5 Kg / 123 oz) Safety; The current rule allows a max. weight of 5 Kgs. (176 oz) 4.2.2 b and c (Max. span and max. length) Ease of model handling and simpler checking during processing. The current rule allows 150 sq.dm (2'325 sq.in). Given typical F2B model ratios, this would lead to a span of more than 3.5 metres or 138 inches. 4.2.2 d Use of all power sources, except rocket engines. The limitation to piston engines prevents the further development of currently available, alternative sources of power for c/l stunt. Development of model aeroplane power sources such as gas turbines and, in particular, electric motors has made remarkable progress in recent years, with higher efficiency and lower weight to be expected in future. The use of such systems in c/l stunt may not only boost innovation, it could also offer substantial progress in terms of noise reduction. The F2B Working Group therefore recommends to establish guidelines allowing the use of power sources other than piston engines. 15 cc: It is safe to say that future noise limits will be lower, most probably even considerably so. While not particularly difficult to achieve, a significant reduction of noise emitted comes at the price of added weight and reduced power. To compensate such losses, the F2B Working Group has originally suggested to allow motor displacements as large as 35 cc or 2.1 cubic inches. The July 18 2002 Sebnitz meeting has then very clearly demonstrated that such a change is considered as being definitely too much. The current proposal therefore allows 15 cc (0.92 cubic in.) motors for all types of motors (2- and 4-cycle). While this will not allow to carry as much silencing equipment as with larger engines, it should nevertheless prevent the compromising of the models ability to compete, once lower max. noise levels will be set in force. 4.2.2 e Primary Control The availability of small and lightweight devices such as optical horizon sensors, gyros, user programmable controllers and such may lead to the development of automatic or computer assisted flight attitude and/or flight path controllers supporting the pilots effort to fly. The F2B Working Group wishes to prevent such development by defining manual flight control as suggested. 4.2.2 f Secondary Functions Shutdown devices: The F2B Working Group considers the ability to shut down the motor as an important safety item, allowing to terminate a flight in case of imminent danger. Engine Power Control: Legalising in-flight engine power control will boost innovation, thus increasing the attractivity of c/l stunt. The F2B Working Group believes that opening this window of opportunity will trigger the development of automatic on-board power controllers and consequently allowing the use of commonly available r/c motors for c/l stunt. Please note, too, that electric motors (and turbines) cannot properly function without power controllers. 4.2.2 g No Wireless Control In order to prevent possibly dangerous electromagnetic and / or optical interference, the F2B Working Group wishes to totally exclude wireless control systems of any kind. 4.2.2 h Line Lengths To allow uncompromised use of c/l fields built to current FAI standards, the F2B Working Group suggests not to change line lengths. ------------------ This concludes the listing of reasons for to change F2B model specifications. Please take note that the changes allow the uncompromised use of the current fleet of models and that NONE OF THE CHANGES DISCRIMINATES NEITHER EXISTING MODELS NOR CURRENTLY ACTIVE FLYERS IN WHICHEVER FORM. The discussion on paragraph 4.2.2 is now open. Peter Germann, F2B Working Group Co-ordinator | Tree | 23 |
| Tim Gee | 4.2.2.e &4.2.2.f | 21.08.2002 - 02:10:03 |
| Peter, apologies for jumping the gun earlier. Here are some of my thoughts:
1. I don't think the drafting of these two regulations achieves the intentions of the rationalle: Under 4.2.2.f, The "secondary control" functions allow for, among other things, the "control of engine/s power". This can in many circumstances control the model's flying height. Controlling the models height is surely a "primary" form of control and is therefore a contradiction of 4.2.2.e where primary control must be mechanical. If (as is intended in the rationalle) the engine is throttled up in order for example that line tension/correct shape/elevation intersections etc. are achieved in manoeuvres, then this is surely integral with "primary control". Why not simply specify that the use of throttle control is allowed but that no electronic control of elevators and flaps is allowed. 2.4.2.2.f does not specify that secondary control must be exercised by the pilot only. A third party may thefore exercise throttle control as a kind of co-pilot. Was this intended as allowable? 3. I'm not passionate one way or another about allowing throttle control. If it makes the use of radio motors competitive that's good. If it a) increases complexity and b)spawns an expensive cottage industry of "must have" equipment, that's bad and would discourage new and other modellers alike. 4.I do think the use of cut-outs is desirable for safety. Cheers, | Tree | 24 |
| Igor Burger | Forum technical notes | 21.08.2002 - 10:59:31 |
| Dear friends,
I would like to ask you – if you react to an open topic, use please the function “replay”. It will help to keep the tree of messages. If you feel it is necessary to change the “Subject” you can still do it even you use “replay” and than change the “subject” name. So I recommend If Peter opens new topic like “F2B Model Specifications.“, we can react by „replay“ function with specific paragraph number like "4.2.2_a". It will be clear what is it about for first look and it will also allow to use function „tree“ regards igor | Tree | 25 |
| Bruno van Hoek | Re: 4.2.2.h - line length | 21.08.2002 - 15:54:58 |
| This is a very valid point and me too, I don't see why minimum lenght should be defined. | Tree | 26 |
| Bruno van Hoek | Re: structural changes | 21.08.2002 - 16:05:29 |
| First of all, I hope you stayed well out of the floods last week.
Then: I don't see why starting by hand should be considered unsafe. I use a protection on my finger that withstands even carbonprops - I consider these unneccesary, wood is good enough, but that's another item. Most injuries occur while handling the model with the engine already running, so an electric starter would make no difference. Besides, starting the engine by hand is part of the game, and therefore should be kept in the rules as an item on the scoresheet. | Tree | 27 |
| Igor Burger | Re: structural changes | 21.08.2002 - 17:24:37 |
| Bruno, I think you are right – starting the engine by hand is part of the game – but you must consider there are engines, which are not recommended or even not allowed to be started by hand. The example is forcycles where the guide speaks about starting by electric starter or geared engines where the starting by prop is not possible. ... or take a look to electric engines – they are not started at all. J So I think the question turns to question if we want disqualify such engines.
However I do not affraid of this change. In my eyes the carying of an electric starter is carying of another piece of trash and if you can start the engine for first flip, than you will do it by finger anyway, if not – your problem – buy an electric starter. igor | Tree | 28 |
| Igor Burger | Re: 4.2.2.h - line length | 21.08.2002 - 17:29:07 |
| I think there must be a minimal line length specified - do we want agrre with 1mm long lines? 15m could be too much but I would not go under some 5m ... in this case we could see "line moved" instead of "line controlled" models.
igor | Tree | 29 |
| Joan McIntyre | Suggestions on further discussion points | 21.08.2002 - 17:31:43 |
| Peter,
I note that you have started the discussion with Model definition and specification. Will the topic I raised with you on the terminology and wording (definitions) be added to the discussion points? 4.2.1b If they are to be included, I will reserve my comments until the appropriate time. Also the other matters regarding the Four Leaf Clover manoeuvre and specific wording of the level flight description . Regards, Joan | Tree | 30 |
| Peter Germann | Re: Suggestions on further discussion points | 21.08.2002 - 17:57:45 |
| Thank you, Joan. May I suggest that we go through the list of topics 1-5 and that, once we are through, you bring up your points (4.2.1 b & "horizontal" and 38 vs. 42 degrees) when I will invite the Forum to bring up: "Further Matters"?
Kind regards, Peter | Tree | 31 |
| Bill Lee | 4.2.2 Model Definition and Specification Paragraph | 22.08.2002 - 01:12:48 |
| > e) Primary Control Function. Control of model flying height shall only be performed by mechanically-activated flight
control elements. This function must be controlled by a hand-held control handle manipulated by the pilot located on the ground at the centre of the model''s flight circle. No automatic control of the Primary Control Function shall be permitted. Perhaps the Primary Controls should be defined as "mechanically activated flight control elements which control the pitch and/or yaw of the aircraft". | Tree | 32 |
| Richard Spurling | Re: 4.2.2.h - line length | 22.08.2002 - 02:42:15 |
| I feel that with a minimum line length, we may restrict possible models. Already we're having throttles, flaps, cutouts and a wealth of other 'innovations' pushed onto us, yet we restrict the line length. A maximum restriction is good - there has to be some outer limit.
But let's imagine someone playing with alternative motors - electric, CO2, hydrogen, solar(?). These may not have the grunt of our current engines but may be able to perform quite adequately at slow speeds on shorter lines. The 15m minimum would stifle this and if we are serious about encouraging innovation, I feel this restriction needs to be relaxed. How short? I don't think that is an issue. Reality teaches us that there are practical limits to these things and I believe that even if someone did come up with a motor powered by yesterday's cold toast, it would eventually be developed to use the longest lines possible. The only argument I see FOR a minimum line length is the construction of donut flying circles. That is a valid argument but one we can address by allowing the pilot to step out of the centre circle for take off and landing. Cheers Richard | Tree | 33 |
| Richard Spurling | Re: Suggestions on further discussion points | 22.08.2002 - 02:44:40 |
| Peter, I also wanted to ask you about this. I wanted to do it off-list but couldn't find your email address anywhere. Do you have an address you are willing to share with us or would you prefer that we posted to the list.
Incidentally, the 'further matter' I was going to ask about is the same as Joan's. Cheers Richard | Tree | 34 |
| Richard Spurling | Re: 4.2.2 Model Definition and Specification Parag | 22.08.2002 - 02:56:22 |
| "mechanically activated flight
control elements which control the pitch and/or yaw of the aircraft". Unfortunately Bill, increasing the power can also change the pitch of a model. The Rabe rudder affects the yaw of a model and could be described as automatic in that it is not driven by the pilot directly. Would replacing the term 'Primary Control' with 'Aerodynamic Pitch Control' serve the purpose? I feel tempted to just specify 'flaps and elevators' but if we do that, someone will invent something that does the job better and have it automated. Cheers Richard | Tree | 35 |
| Richard Spurling | Re: structural changes | 22.08.2002 - 03:08:27 |
| I agree that the majority of injuries occur after the engine has started. However, there is an obvious risk in hand starting - a few whacks soon teaches you to get your fingers out of the way, but the risk is still there.
I feel electric starters should be allowed for three reasons. 1/ You remove fingers from a place of danger 2/ Litigation may eventually force this rule on us anyway. Yes, I think that stinks but it's the way of the new world. 3/ An electric starter offers no advantage over hand starting unless you have a difficult engine. If you do have a difficult engine, you are more likely to get bitten, so allowing starters does make the sport safer. It's a simple rule to make. People who want to save seconds on the start will hand start so I suspect that most will hand start. People who are not able to hand start (youth, physical limitations, etc) will be able to compete legally. Regardless of finger protection, it will be a few years before I'll be happy letting my sons stick their fingers in a prop and my eldest (at ten) is already learning loops. He'll be flying the pattern by the time he's twelve - is that old enough to stick your finger in front of a carbon fibre prop? We've got a vetran flier here in Australia who still competes. Over the last couple of years, he's been recovering from a stroke. He was fit enough to fly but didn't feel comfortable hand starting - should he be denied a starter? Cheers Richard | Tree | 36 |
| Bill Lee | Re: 4.2.2 Model Definition and Specification Parag | 22.08.2002 - 03:37:22 |
| Richard wrote:
"The Rabe rudder affects the yaw of a model and could be described as automatic in that it is not driven by the pilot directly." As I understand the Rabe Rudder, it is mechanically connected to the other aerodynamic controls, and is, hence, directly/mechanically controlled by the pilot in the same manner as the flaps and elevators. Am I missing something? And he also said: "...replacing the term 'Primary Control' with 'Aerodynamic Pitch Control'.." This may be a better way of saying it. As I read the proposal, what these fancy words are really trying to say is, just as you note, flaps and elevators (and throw in the mechanically linked rudder, too). How do we say it without SAYING it? :-) Bill | Tree | 37 |
| Richard Spurling | Re: 4.2.2 Model Definition and Specification Parag | 22.08.2002 - 05:10:22 |
| Bill wrote: "As I understand the Rabe Rudder, it is mechanically connected to the other aerodynamic controls, and is, hence, directly/mechanically controlled by the pilot in the same manner as the flaps and elevators.
Am I missing something" No Bill, you aren't missing anything. I was thinking that because the pilot isn't saying "I'll add some yaw" and then trying to add it, the system was automatic. I prefer your reading of the system - the Rabe rudder is linked to elevators which are driven directly by the pilot so therefore the rudder is driven by the pilot. The same argument applies to how we usually drive the elevators from the flap horn. Cheers Richard | Tree | 38 |
| Igor Burger | Re: 4.2.2 Model Definition and Specification Parag | 22.08.2002 - 08:53:25 |
| Guys,
I think the word >>>Automatic<<< is not right on this place. I think elevator deflects itself >>>automatically<<< as hand is moved and it is OK I think. In my eyes, we should allow all automatic tricky devices like flaps deflected with elevator, landing flaps with stopped engine, or tricky expo/logo cranks on bellcrank. The only what we should not allow is timed (means self executed) inputs to those >>>control elements<<<. So I think it enough to say: >>> No timed or self executed control of the Primary Control Function shall be permitted. <<< Another question is if we really want disqualify “link by wire” – means R/C servo on elevator or flaps controlled by bellcrank INTERNALLY – means no el.mag. waves – what can replace pushrod. I afraid it is in slight contradiction to >>>mechanically activated flight control elements<<<. BTW what means >>>activated<< igor | Tree | 39 |
| Peter Germann | Re: Suggestions on further discussion points | 22.08.2002 - 09:05:43 |
| Thanks for contributions, Richard. If you wish to extend the list of points 1-5, please feel free to contact me on e-mail: gandg@spiderweb.ch
| Tree | 40 |
| Bruno van Hoek | Re: structural changes | 22.08.2002 - 14:25:24 |
| My opinion on this: You may start your engine anyway you like, but only doing this by hand gives you your 10 starting-points- provided you're airborne within the minute.
Of course I feel that we should come up with some sort of a solution for cases like pictured by Richard (disability). I am not against electric propulsion (on the contrary)but I wouldn't reward switching on an electric motor with any starting-bonus... Summarizing I feel we should reward anyone flying with the gear like we have it now. If one makes the engine-start easier this should not be rewarded. | Tree | 41 |
| Richard Spurling | Re: structural changes | 24.08.2002 - 02:20:48 |
| Unfortunately Bruno, while I agree with your sentiments about starting, I'm not sure that such a rule is enforcable or practical. How do you hand start an electric model and why should you be penalised for your choice of motor? How do you flick start a turbine (raises some interesting imgages that - imagine the length of the chicken stick)? Personally, with good stunt motors being so easy to start, I feel that we need not worry about electric starters or any other form of mechanical starter - you only have a minute to start and take off - that means that anyone using a mechanical or electric starter still has to get the starting procedure right.
At the other end of the flight though, why reward someone using a timer and cut off? Surely there is more skill in getting the fuel/battery charge right, not to mention the setting, etc. I personally feel that any cut offs should be operated by the pilot ie. NO timers. But I'd take it further. Say that cut offs may be fitted but if operated during a flight, you lose your landing points. But of course, this becomes impractical with electric doesn't it. Solutions please? Whatever. I feel a model MUST land with the engine OFF! I know this hurts those that like the idea of landing with the engine idling but we need to keep things even. Having a throttled motor where the pilot can manipulate the throttle to achieve the right glide path discriminates against those without throttles or power sources that can be throttled. I feel that allowing throttled landings may restrict the development of other power plants. Cheers Richard | Tree | 43 |
| Peter Germann | F2B Model Specifications Status Report | 26.08.2002 - 11:15:43 |
|
With very few new Forum inputs on Model Specs coming in since a couple of days, I would now like to summarise the reactions on topic 1 as follows, including inputs received since the first publication of 4.2.2 on the CIAM website, questions asked during the 2002 W/C and the F2B meeting Sebnitz, as well as statements given and remarks made on the F2B Forum: 1.) The community is a bit reluctant when it comes to include rule changes allowing the incorporation of power control technologies into c/l stunt models. While it is obviously accepted that such a change might allow the use of commonly available R/C engines, concern is expressed because this advantage would be compensated by the need to have access to intelligent on-board power controllers and (force) sensors. Also, a group of flyers feels that mastering the engine run is part of the game and should not be left to in-flight pilot control or automatic devices. 2.) The distinction between primary and secondary flight control is not clear. 3.) Acceptance is found when it comes to prevent the use of automatic flight control / assist systems. Rule making and editing is not a "democratic" numbers game where a majority of 51 % dictates what has to be done, regardless of the minority's concern. It is neither a procedure where experts or longtime administrators simply take decisions and print new rules. Instead it is, much like politics, a process where minorities must be fully respected and where continous progress is only made if all parties involved are willing to accept compromises for the sake of the whole. Therefore, in an attempt not to stall the project, I now suggest to abandon the idea of (automatic) power control, trading in its potential for innovation against a higher degree of acceptance of the edited rule as a whole. Consequently, I suggest to modify model specs, when compared to the August 16 2002 version, as follows: ----------------------- 4.2.2 Model Definition and Specification Powered control line aerobatic model aircraft in which all aerodynamic surfaces, except surfaces and elements used to control the flight path, and except propeller/s, remain fixed during flight (refer to the FAI Sporting Code Section IV, Section 4C Model Aircraft, Part One, General Regulations, paragraph 1.3.2). The following specification limits shall apply: a) Maximum total flying weight (excluding fuel …..……. 3.5 kg (7lbs 11ozs), plus 1% b) Maximum wingspan overall ………………………….. 2.0 metres (6ft 6ins) c) Maximum length overall …………………………..…. 2.0 metres (6ft 6ins) d) Permitted power source/s shall include any power except rocket motors. Piston engine/s shall be subject to a total swept volume limitation of 15 cc (0.92 cubic in.) Electric power shall be limited to a maximum no-load voltage of 42 volts. With piston engines no control of the engine/s in-flight (i.e. between release for take-off and landing) power output is permitted. For the purpose of this rule, fuel tanks, exhaust systems and shut-off devices are not considered as being engine power control devices. e) Control of the model's flight path shall be performed by manually activated and mechanically linked flight control elements. This function must be controlled by a hand-held control handle manipulated by the pilot located on the ground at the centre of the model's flight circle. No automatic flight path control is allowed. f) Secondary Functions: May include, but are not limited to: engine/s shut-off, landing gear operation, battery current controllers for electric motors, turbine engine controllers, built-in engine starters. Such functions may be controlled by the pilot via wires/cables, or may function completely automatically. The frequency of electromagnetic pulses sent through wires/cables shall not exceed 30 kHz. g) Wireless (electric, optic, or other) remote control of any system in the model, either by the pilot or by others, is not permitted. h) No change i) No change k) No change ---------------------------------------- Please comment. Peter Germann, Co-ordinator | Tree | 44 |
| Igor Burger | Re: F2B Model Specifications Status Report | 26.08.2002 - 12:47:29 |
| Peter is right – the fuel tanks, exhaust systems, but also construction of engines, intake systems and so are also devices controlling run of the engine. I do not think we should disqualify some of them just because we do not know them yet or we can not name them – like tricky scavening, tricky prop pitch or tricky prop airfoils. I think if we allow different sorces of power like turbines and electric powerplants, we must also allow automatic controll system for them – at least I can not imagine turbine of usefull electric engine without seriouse controll device as mentioned in 4.2.2.f. It is also question of larger piston engine and it safety. I would allow any AUTOMATIC control devices / rpm or speed limiters which are not „in flight“ operable by pilot after the launch.
I beleive it will be acceptable. We also did not touch controlled pitch of prop yet – I am surprised – if I can not controll the engine run, can I control the prop? Is it primary or secondary function. Anyway – Peter I would like to ask you I did not find any voice against the engine controlling – did I miss something? igor | Tree | 45 |
| Peter Germann | Re: F2B Model Specifications Status Report | 26.08.2002 - 14:36:45 |
| 4.2.2. d Variable pitch props
Yes, Igor, we forgot about the variable pitch prop. The reason is that 4.2.2 d intends to prevent in-flight power changes in general (For piston engines) and this excludes a variable pitch prop. For clarification, we may want to state: QUOTE: With piston engines no control of the engine/s in-flight (i.e. between release for take-off and landing) power output, whether direct or via a variable pitch propeller, is permitted. UNQUOTE: Part of the strong feelings against throttles was the fear that sophisticated automatic power controllers, such as computer driven g-force / line tension / altitude / speed signal processors, would trigger a technology "battle" putting those without access to such devices in a bad situation. This is perhaps true and is worth consideration. The opposition against throttled engines was expressed not so much on the Forum but very significantly in articles / letters published and in, sometimes pretty agressive, personal statements. It was, and I am sorry to say so, very clearly indicated to me that a set of rules containing throttles would "never" get the support of specific national Aeroclubs and / or specific Subcommittee members approval. We have to realize that, if we cannot get the WHOLE S/C's approval of the revised rule, then we will in fact not get the revison through the plenary assembly. Peter Germann | Tree | 46 |
| Stephan Raetsch | Re: F2B Model Specifications Status Report | 26.08.2002 - 14:56:15 |
| Dear Peter,
from my point of view we should allow: 1. any control of secondary engine control like throttle, cut-off device etc. if somebody thinks this is an advantage, he should be able to use whatever he likes. I personally don't care whether we talk about height or pitch control. 2. engine start by electric starter should be allowed. No special scoring system depending on the starting method. If someone likes to use an electric motor because it starts more easily than his old wrecked 2-stroke, he should use this personal advantage to get full points. BUT the model has to be landed with the engine NOT RUNNING. To start the landing by leaving the 1.5 m flying height the engine has to be completely been stopped. Stephan | Tree | 47 |
| José Almeida | My opinion about F2B Rules. | 26.08.2002 - 22:44:58 |
| Friends.
Already read with fair attention the opinions transcribed, I agree with some ones and disagree with others. Adapt F2B Control Line Stunt, I think that yes, with open mind as says René Berger, also find that yes, but remember that are speak about Control Line and not R/C. With so much opening that if asks, where is go place F2B? Only if pass to integrate one trio (Old Team, Classic and F2B (or with other name) and one new class with all these innovations may be call OPEN STUNT/ or F2B.! Only there fit and have connection. Think that create now a new class, please no. Al Rabe created to "rabe/rudder" without increase any electrónic command and not desmystificat C/L or F2B. Can have accelerator and flaps with more one line, but not is very convenient for aerobatics. One third line in the middle of two rolled, can bring prejudice instead of benefit. But who will want use,use it ! Paragraph 4. 2. 2-Model Specifications. Am quite in agreement with break e), but in relationship to break f) - secundary control functions, hardly will can be in agreement with shut-down, but only in case of extreme need proven, goes up to feather of annulment of flight. Open the doors to shut-down, will can be the beginning of the F2B finish. On break h,) I ask, why the reasons of exist minimum limit ! I think that not have influence in anything who already existent and why prevent a model flying with lines less than 15 meters! For the engines also only exists maximum limit. Since the model are in observance of all validity FAI rules with the models who flying plus lenght than 15 meters, is in foot of equality. Paragraph 4. 2. 16 – Starting Engines. Not see any reason to prevent someone from start is engine by starter. If exist pilots that start the engine with this method, if is a guarantee for more safety. Why not. Who will want from the traditional method, use it. It's a pleasure for me, start the engines by hand. Who will come to use starter, late may be change his opinion, when observe the inside engine at end of some time. Paragraph 4. 2. 18 – Scoring. About judge scores, I am not in agreement with scores from 0 to 100 points. Many aerobatics pilots maybe already make a interrogation, because how the reason after Judges Calibration Flights, continue to exist big differences of points in same manoeuvre up to 2 points (0 to 10) between Judges in a International Contests. If with scores o from 0 to 10, find these differences, already existing half points, that to turns much large, I presume now, with 100 points, what's going on be. I think that will be very more difficulty and dilatory, for not say impartial, that in so small space of time, between each manoeuvres, if get distinguish who is 100 points do that is between 95 to 75, or even between 75 or 74, not forget that are here only 3 marks for Judge observations in a total of 6. Still exist one more reason, that think be of big importance, that is harmful to all pilots, that is Judge position around the circle. I ask, if Judges know whom is visual angle, face to manoeuvres done to 45º and to 90º? I think that is much impossible Judge place in that if finds, learning if model passed or not to 45 or 90º. Only for pure information, I had a pleasure to calculate more a less, the Judges visual angle in vertical eight. I come to a conclusion, that never will can consider to be one's duty the manoeuvres correctly for each pilot, because the Judges visual angle, change with line lengths and with to distance that are to the center of central circle. Example: for lines with 21 meters length and Judges at 25 meters to the center of the central circle , if the model pass at 45º, the Judges observe the model at 21º and when the model pass at 90º, the Judges observe at 40º. Like in a contest, the Judges are at same distance for all pilots, hardly varies lines length between the models, soon not will can have correct apreciation for each pilot. And face to that situation, will have always privileged in function of less acquaintances pilots but with flights much better. Now, I think the scores from 0 to 100 points only will go still differentiate more these cases, that me desagree against this approach of evaluation. Sorry my English. Best regards José | Tree | 48 |
| Igor Burger | Re: F2B Model Specifications Status Report | 27.08.2002 - 19:19:08 |
| Peter, it is pity to hear there is such resistance against the progress, but I understand it. Anyway I am surprised that such an easy power train like simplest R/C for $100 engine with piece of metal in form of „L“ bellcrank on spring which simply control the power delivery is called „the technology battle" in comparison to hi-tech pipe setup for $500.
But OK, I understand and I am sorry. I want just recall there is a way how to do it by centrifugal controller of fuel pressure like that used on speed models which seems to be legal – and if we will specifically disallow it, we will find it closed inside the metal tanks or explore automatic brake flaps or something similar. I want to say that there is 1000 ways how to do it difficultly so why not to allow its simple way which is known now. I do not want to force somebody somewhere but rules must be consistent and such synthetic specific restriction of throttle regulation together with allowed pipe and fuel pressure specific regulatiuon does not make it consistent and clear. Progress can not be stopped and my approach to this hobby is to look for - and play with - that „hi-tech technology“ but I can do it somewhere out of the official eyes :-( ... myself ... alone. An I will dream somewhere in corner about such master piece of technology and regulation as we saw in Landres – yes I speak about PW B17 which everybody wanted to see and nobody called for penalty against „too clever“ solution of hi – tech fuel delivery controlling and also too many helpers and so. I would rather fly without rules than be limited and not to see pretty and clever solutions. ... I tend to agree (slowly but safely) with voices calling for „open class“, because I feel we are reworking rules without changing them – looks like a lost work. Can somebody think what will cost us to have classic and open class? For example on the same circle at the same time – just two different results? Or isn’t it a solution for two circle scoring problem if flown on two circles? Or shall we „Hi-tech battling guys“ switch to scale circles (where is I hope everything allowed) and fly pattern with those flying pretty scale models? ..... (yes, just kidding) :-) But stop crying and back to the point. We are trying to leave door to higher volumes open, an I afraid that 3.5kg with strong 15ccm R/C engine can turn to large caliber gun bullet if the engine is not tamed enough. So I think that even if we disqualify (unfortunately) direct throttle controlling and any regulators with „fly numbers“ feedback like speed or centrifugal or line tension feedbacks, we should at least allow simple RPM limiters like was used already on old piston steam engines (I hope it will not be considered as a technology battle) and as they are used on all serious regular engines in present time. It is definitely for must on gas turbines and it is already incorporated on almost all spark ignition devices for spark engines. So why not to allow it also on glow engines? To the proposed rule: QUOTE: With piston engines no control of the engine/s in-flight (i.e. between release for take-off and landing) power output, whether direct or via a variable pitch propeller, is permitted. UNQUOTE: My English is limited, but as far as I remember my study on technical university – which can also make another „understanding“ of such words – tells me that „controlling“ of a device is process of giving information to the device to act as wanted from outside. So the <<< no control of the engine>>> means in my eyes that I - as a pilot – cannot give any input to the power train to change the power delivery. There is also „regulating“ which means making that controlling real mostly by measuring of wanted value, comparing with control input and making necessary action (feedback) – throttle in our case. So I would say there is missing word „regulating“, because this is what we speak about that we want disable. So my proposal with allowed rpm limiters for all types of engine is: QUOTE: d) Permitted power source/s shall include any power except rocket motors. Piston engine/s shall be subject to a total swept volume limitation of 15 cc (0.92 cubic in.) Electric power shall be limited to a maximum no-load voltage of 42 volts. <<<<<<< No pilot control or automatic self-regulation of the engine/s in-flight (i.e. between release for take-off and landing) power output, whether direct or via a variable pitch propeller, is permitted. For the purpose of this rule, fuel system, exhaust systems, native engine run controllers, native engine character, power supply voltage stabilizers, RPM limiters and shut-off devices are not considered as being engine power control devices. >>>>> f) Secondary Functions: May include, but are not limited to: engine/s shut-off, landing gear operation, built-in engine starters. Such functions may be controlled by the pilot via wires/cables, or may function completely automatically. The frequency of electromagnetic pulses sent through wires/cables shall not exceed 30 kHz. UNQUOTE: I think this is important point and I think we do not hear enough opinion, so I call all others – write you notes here – even you did it already on different places – there are many of those who did not hear/read it. regards igor | Tree | 49 |
| Peter Germann | Re: F2B Model Specifications Status Report | 28.08.2002 - 08:57:55 |
|
On new "open"class: While certainly an interesting perspective, one must remember that the FAI is rather reluctant when it comes to add new classes to the Sporting Code. The procedure takes many years and I doubt whether it would make sense, after 3 years time used so far, to drop the current project and to start all over. On Igor Burger's version of 4.2.2 .d "Native": I'm not qualified to decide whether this term is correct here and I ask technically educated persons of english mothertongue to please comment. Peter Germann, Forum Co-ordinator | Tree | 50 |
| Tim Gee | Igor's submission. | 28.08.2002 - 10:34:10 |
| Peter.
10 points (or will it be 100?) to Igor for attempting to frame rules in a second language. I really do admire the attempt. I have tried to understand what Igor means by "native engine run controllers" and "native engine character" but it just does not make obvious sense to me. One guess is that he might mean "natural". Even so the meaning is still not clear to me. In general think the best approach is to state a simple rule and then make a list of specific exceptions. eg. If Igor's idea is to allow rev limiters (electronic or otherwise) but not throttle control then I would tend to state just that.(as indeed he has in his submission) Perhaps Igor could say a little more about "native engine run controllers" and "native engine character" so we can assist with the terminology. This of course is only my opinion and perhaps others can see what I can't. Cheers, Tim | Tree | 51 |
| Igor Burger | Re: Igor's submission. | 28.08.2002 - 11:50:36 |
| Guys, sorry for confusion.
1/ Sure I mean “natural” instead of “native” controllers. Sorry for my limited experience in English and for my poor spell checker :-). We are about to allow alternative power trains. Most of them need special controllers necessary for run. For example a turbine needs relatively complex electronic management, powerful DC electric engine needs “soft” electronic switch, AC electric engine needs electronic device for its run, modern piston spark or injection engine needs also dedicated controllers. I hope we do rules for long period of time and nobody can now say what will happen in next years. I do not think it is enough to explicitly allow controller for turbine if almost all others (actually all except the only used now – glow and rarely diesel engine) need it for run. I do not think we should limit some devices just because our limited knowledge in present time. 2/ <<< natural engine character >>> There are engines with specific run character. For example electric synchronous AC engine has typical „constat RPM“ run. It can be considered as illegal because its power is controlled by the natural electronic unit. It looks like Sci-fi but also our present 2 stroke rich adjusted engines do something very simmilar – unloaded switch to 4 cycling. It is a kind of self regulation what could be illegal, because only <<< exhaust >>> and <<< tank >>> regulation is legal. There was already questions if the tuned pipe is legal by present rules as pipe clearly controls the engine run, while the controlling is illegal by old rules. I want just prevent such situation to the future. 3/ RPM limiter Both points 1/ and 2/ are only technical, and I think basically acceptable. RPM limiter is different storry as it is a kind of power delivery controller. I think it should be allowed on all types of engines. Some of them has rpm limiters istalled in control units some of them by <<< natural engine character >>>, some of them needs it for safe run and it is also included in <<< natural controller >>> and the only what I want is to allow it on all others which do not have it yet – it means on glow and diesel 2c and 4c engines and on DC electric engines. Regards igor ??? did I do any other errors ??? :-) | Tree | 52 |
| Tim Gee | Igor's submission | 28.08.2002 - 12:39:47 |
| I think I'm getting the idea, but substituting the word "natural" for the word "native" isn't helping much. It doesn't say enough.
This is a first crude attempt but does it capture your idea Igor? Instead of your words: "native engine run controller, native engine character" Substitute: "those elements of a controller that are integral to the basic functioning of the engine but are not for the purpose of any further throttle control" | Tree | 53 |
| Tim Gee | Re: Igor's submission | 28.08.2002 - 12:50:32 |
| Sorry. I meant to add the word "paramaters" after the word "functioning" so it reads "....basic functioning paramaters..."
This would allow for tuned pipes for example as the pipe limits the rev range (parameters). Cheers, Tim | Tree | 54 |
| Jean Paul Perret | General principals | 28.08.2002 - 13:20:30 |
| I am not a specialist of F2B, I am just an organiser of F2 competition but also I try to teach control line around me.
All your propositions to change F2B are certainly interesting. The rules must be reformed and revived. Just one question: Does somebody think about the impact of these new rules on young people and newcomers? If somebody thought that these rules bring some more for them, please tell us the reasons. JPP | Tree | 55 |
| Igor Burger | Re: Igor's submission | 28.08.2002 - 13:44:50 |
| Tim, I think it is everything out of sense – as also mentioned by JPP. We are trying to find all devices, which we think, could be acceptable by most of flyers. But as I already wrote we are not able do it now, such way does not lead to allowance of alternative engines nor to any progress this way because it limits us to our actual knowledge. I think proper way is to allow everything instead of that one simple thing which is not acceptable by some of us throttle controlling. I would allow all engine controllers but disallow those not wanted: no pilot operable power delivery controllers and no self-regulation on base of in-flight parameters - speed, angular speed, centrifugal force and line tension. Such definition covers all specific properties of all kinds of power trains and speaks clearly what is not wanted. It also covers RPM limiters and shut off – if not, we can specify it explicitly.
igor | Tree | 56 |
| Tim Gee | Re: Igor's submission | 28.08.2002 - 14:59:11 |
| Igor,
I think that clarifies your position quite well. Tim. | Tree | 57 |
| Peter Germann | Re: General principals | 28.08.2002 - 16:13:05 |
| Excellent question, Jean- Paul. After all, the young ones are the those who will, once they start to compete on a higher level, use (and possibly modify...) the currently proposed set of rules for F2B.
What we are trying to do here is the update and revision of a set of rules which was originally created a couple of decades back in time. With progress made meanwhile, the quality of flying has improved and we felt that community should be provided with a finer instrument, suitable to evaluate the quality of flying as it is demonstrated today. Furthermore, with current data processing devices lending themselves to be used in c/l stunt, we see a need to limit the influence of such technologies on F2B. Both, the increase of rule accuracy and the preventing of too sophisticated (expensive...) technology is not a trivial matter and requires a lot of attention and foresight. Therefore, The resulting document may well be complicated and not always straight forward and easy to read. Which is perfectly allright, as long as it is fair and just, even when used to qualify competitions of the highest standard. After all, the rule we are about to revise is not alone used to govern local contests, it defines the World Champion, too. The revision, however, contains NEW elements, being possibly attractive for newcomers: - No obligation to start the motor by hand. - Electric Motors no longer excluded from F2B. It should be noted, too, that none of the suggested rule changes discriminates the currently used fleet of F2B models. Kind regards, Peter Germann | Tree | 58 |
| José Almeida | Comments about discussion | 29.08.2002 - 04:04:20 |
| Friends.
Already have given my some opinions for this discussion, but I would like say Jean-Paul Perret have some reason, but not leave with give a strong support to Peter Germann, because is true has need to evolution, but with right cautions and limit wild influences of some technologies. Must not have open F2B to all technologies, if not, more late, maybe not have 60, 70 or more entries in this class, like in WC or EC, that have been grown in Control Line. Naturally, that it not must be with highly technology and extremely expensive modality , but yes, one modality, that still without big investment and simplicity, to can compete at high level. Will be that for only like C/L Aerobatics, only will have Old Time or Classics options? By who I have see and read, have start begin in true, more followers. I think that enter excessive meticulous details, is to go complicate and that not us go take to any side, in view of that me seems clear and I thing Tim Gee have reason too. «« make a simple rule and then create simply list of specific exceptions»» but I add, without atrocities. Compliments, José | Tree | 60 |
| Jeff Smith | Engine starting/stopping. 100 points. Inverted fli | 01.09.2002 - 02:46:42 |
| F2b is an aerobatic competiton. Engine starting is not an aerobatic manoeuvre. Anyone can hold an electric starter, why not allow anyone to start the engine?
Stopping the engine within seven minutes requires a certain skill but is not an aerobatic manoeuvre. The engine run needs to be controlled for the sake of competition time limits. Why not allow a simple shut off similar to those used for free flight? It has been said elsewhere that using 100 points for scoring only requires the removal of the decimal point. The present system of using half points is too restrictive. Using 100 point will give judges more flexibility. (I judge.) Is there a good reason for limiting the number of models per competitor to two? At the present time there is a minimum of two laps between manoeuvres but no MAXIMUM. Although not very practical, a pilot can do any number of laps (over two) he choses between manoeuvres except for in inverted flight. A pilot has no way of informing the judge(s) that he/she wishes to do more than two laps before the two scored laps. Isnt this a good reason for a rule change to allow a hand signal for inverted flight? Or should the rule be changed so that the two laps are both the MINIMUM and the MAXIMUM between ALL manoeuvres? The horizontal square eight is made up of four squares and should have sixteen (16) corners. The manoeuvre as presently performed has seventeen (17) corners. The manoeuvre starts from the horizontal but ends on the vertical. Shouldnt the rule be changed so the it starts and finishes on the vertical? Then there would be sixteen (16) corners. | Tree | 61 |
| Peter Germann | Topic 1; Model Specification Revised | 03.09.2002 - 18:08:46 |
|
Dear Friends: Follwing the publication of the August 26 version of Model Specs, a number of inputs dealing with the problem of power control have come up. Trying to summarise, l would now like to re-define 4.2.2 as follows: ----------------------- 4.2.2 Model Definition and Specification Powered control line aerobatic model aircraft in which all aerodynamic surfaces, except surfaces and elements used to control the flight path, and except propeller/s, remain fixed during flight (refer to the FAI Sporting Code Section IV, Section 4C Model Aircraft, Part One, General Regulations, paragraph 1.3.2). The following specification limits shall apply: a) Maximum total flying weight (excluding fuel) 3.5 kg (7lbs 11ozs), plus 1% b) Maximum wingspan overall …………….. 2.0 metres (6ft 6ins) c) Maximum length overall …………………. 2.0 metres (6ft 6ins) d) Permitted power source/s shall include any power except rocket motors. Piston engine/s shall be subject to a total swept volume limitation of 15 cc (0.92 cubic in.) Electric power shall be limited to a maximum no-load voltage of 42 volts. Gas turbine engines shall be limited to 3.5 kg (7lbs 11ozs) static thrust. e.) No pilot control of the engine/s in-flight (i.e. between release for take-off and landing) power output, whether direct or via a variable pitch propeller, is permitted. Elements that are integral to the basic functioning parameters of the engine, but are not for the purpose of any further throttle control, are not considered as being engine power control devices. Self regulating power controllers functioning based on flight paramaters such as, for example but not only, model speed, angular speed, centrifugal force or line pull, are not permitted. The use of engine/s shut-off systems, operated by the pilot or functioning automatic is permitted f) Control of the model's flight path shall be performed by manually activated and mechanically linked flight control elements. This function must be controlled by a hand-held control handle manipulated by the pilot located on the ground at the centre of the model's flight circle. No automatic flight path control is allowed. g) Secondary Functions: May include, but are not limited to: engine/s shut-off, landing gear operation, built-in engine starters. Such functions may be controlled by the pilot via wires/cables, or may function completely automatically. The frequency of electromagnetic pulses sent through wires/cables shall not exceed 30 kHz. h) Wireless (electric, optic, or other) remote control of any system in the model, either by the pilot or by others, is not permitted. h) becomes i; No change i) becomes k; No change k) becomes l; No change ---------------------------------------- For the time being, this completes the Forum discussion of Topic 1; Model specifications, paragraph 4.2.2 (Weight, engines, shut-downs, throttles). The above will be incorporated in the current proposal. Next on the list of topics is: 2.) Starting of Motors: paragraph 4.2.16 d (Starting by hand no longer required) Please expect a related introduction later this week. Thank you for your contributions, we are getting forward. Peter Germann, Co-ordinator | Tree | 62 |
| Igor Burger | Re: Topic 1; Model Specification Revised | 04.09.2002 - 17:54:39 |
| A/
Peter, I affarid it IS necessary explicitely state what is allowed and what is not. It looks there is actually compromise about what kind of self regulation is allowed and what not, which can be acceptable by all. So I think it is necessary to delet words: [ such as, for example but not only ] in 4.2.2.e.) We should allow everything like fuel delivery regulation, pipe RPM regulation or clever props or my wanted RPM limiter, but not automatic feedback from in-flight parameters as they are stated now. I think someone can easily protests against pipe or tank position because it is clearly self regulation with RPM feedback (pipe) or nose up position (fuel pressure) – but it is what we want allow. I think the list of disqualified feedbacks is OK – if not we can easily extend it. For example: [ Self regulating power controllers functioning based on flight paramaters model speed, angular speed, centrifugal force, line pull or any combination or derivation, are not permitted. ] B/ [ throttle control ] Is that word combination proper? Is throttle control on electric engines and turbines? Is centrifugal self regulation of fuel pressure like used on speed models disallowed (is it throttle?). Probably is is written OK, but I would anyway rather say: [ power output control ] like used in previous sentence saying: [ No pilot control of . . . power output . . . is permitted. ] C/ I see there is new limitation of gas turbine to 35N. I would like to say it is really strong turbine which can force the model of actually used dimmensions to speed 2.5 s/lap what is 190km/h. Isn‘t it too much? I think that the 10N is OK it can give lap speed 4.5 s/lap what is 105km/h – it is comparable to legal piston or electric engines. But I do not see seriouse problem here as I do not see seriouse way how to use it now. Regards igor BTW the reactive power train is usefull ONLY with well working self regulation or pilot regulation. The well working self regulation of ususal engines also make think much easier (thus cheaper) than difficult to adjust 4-2-4 or pipe regulation. I really do not see reason why not to allow it. The usual 4-2-4 or pipe approche is very well working so I also do not see the reason to affraid of some hi-tech battle ... sorry I just do not understand ... but agree – do not want to open it again ... :-( | Tree | 63 |
| George Mullerleili | 4.2.18 100pt scoring, Kfactors, number of judges | 05.09.2002 - 20:12:19 |
| In rewriting the rules consideration should be given to scientifically improving the scoring.
There is much scientific literature in the field of psychology on how to use people to judge impressions such as the aerobatics pattern. It is a simple matter of statistics that given that we want to measure differences of 20-30 pts between total scores of approx. 3000, and qualified judges(currently 5) can easily vary as much as 2 pts(out of 10) in judging a maneuver. that approximately 40 judges are required. The exact number depends on how variable their scores are(standard deviation) and how precise we want to measure the differences between scores. Since organizers probably can't afford 40+ judges, or even 20 judges per flight, other means are needed. Consideration should be given to changing the pattern so that it makes differences between pilots more apparent(perhaps making the manuevers progressively more difficult). Or perhaps the contestants could be used as judges. Using 40 out of 60 contestants(on a rotating basis)would greatly improve the statistics and accuracy of the scores. While training judges is good, wide experience has shown that the best-trained judges still have such a large variation in scores that large numbers of judges are needed. | Tree | 64 |
| Peter Germann | Re: Topic 1; Model Specification Revised | 06.09.2002 - 14:27:02 |
| Power Control and Continuation
Igor brings up a couple of points being worth considered. However, and order not to slow down the entire project I will now take the subject off the Forum and continue work by discussing Topic 2 "Starting of motors". The related opening statement is to follow later today. I will, however, carry on work on the power control matter on a bilateral level between me and Igor and I invite those interested to join-in to contact me on gandg@spiderweb.ch (Igor, please expect me to write soon) Because neither Igor nor myself are of english mothertongue, qualified language expertise would be welcome in particular. Regards, Peter Germann, Forum Co-ordinator | Tree | 65 |
| Peter Germann | Topic 2; Opening Statement, Starting Motors | 06.09.2002 - 15:44:42 |
| Dear Friends!
This opens the discussion on paragraph 4.2.16 d, suggesting that the starting of motors by hand shall not be required any longer. QUOTE: 4.2.16 Timing of Official Flights and Starting of Motor/s d) The contestant should give a clear hand signal prior to starting his motor/s and shall be awarded 100 bonus points by each judge if he does so and if his model is released to start its ground roll within 1 minute of signalling. No bonus points shall be awarded if the model is released to start its ground roll more than 1 minute after signalling, or if no clear hand signal is given. UNQUOTE This removes the sentence: "The motor must be started by hand" from article 4.2.11 of the 2002 Sporting Code. Reasons are: a.) Safety While it is possibly true that more accidents result from reaching into a spinning prop, this does not mean that injuries caused by flipping the prop by hand must be accepted. The F2B Working Group is responsible to suggest accident preventing measures and consequently recommends the elimination of "hand starting" b.) Increased attractivity for young flyers Besides being dangerous for beginners in particular, starting motors by hand can be difficult and de-motivating for newcomers, too. c.) Efficiency Quick motor start is a need for a fast and smooth flow of contestants through a large competition. The 100 bonus points offered for this is an incentive big enough to ensure that the 1 minure limit will not be exceeded. The discussion on paragraph 4.2.16 d is now open. Peter Germann, F2B Working Group Co-ordinator | Tree | 66 |
| Richard Spurling | Re: Topic 2; Opening Statement, Starting Motors | 06.09.2002 - 16:08:33 |
| I'm just repeating what I said earlier, but am doing so to put it in its right place (sorry for jumping the gun Peter).
Safety. While I love hand starting and think it adds to the sport, I'm afraid I have to concede that we need to allow starters for safety reasons. As Peter points out, youngsters in particular are not comfortable hand starting motors - at what age should I let my sons hand start? Efficiency. I don't quite agree with Peter's reasoning here. If a stunt motor isn't going to start, an electric finger isn't going to speed things up much, not so much it'll start within a minute. I don't know any competitor who is happy to lose starting points. I feel that 100 points is too much - sticking an electric finger on the spinner of a motor doesn't quite equate with a perfectly flown square eight, yet that is what this score does. On the other hand, the score does need to be high enough to make sure a pilot goes for it. I suggest the starting bonus be reduced to 50 points. This is the score (sort of) you'd receive for having a successful shot at any of the other manoeuvres so I feel it is a good compromise. It is giving the start a greater weight than it has held in the past so any change to my figure of 50 should be downwards. Of course, if I win an argument yet to come and we keep K-factors, the score goes back to 10. One thing I'd like to add though. The rules have always stated that the motor must be started by hand. I'd like to see some statement in the rules to the effect that you are no longer required to hand start. I know this statement is unnecessary, but I can imagine people coming back to the sport and not picking up on the change. It might also give us some ammunition for the inevitable court cases where we can point to the rules and say: see, he didn't HAVE to stick his hand in the prop. I really only see this as an interim thing - put it in for five years then lose it unless it is elegantly worded. Cheers Richard who recently bought his first electric starter...for his ten year old son to use. | Tree | 67 |
| Brian Gardner | Re: Topic 2; Opening Statement, Starting Motors | 07.09.2002 - 12:47:48 |
| Although I feel that someone attanding a WC should be capable of starting their model by hand I can see Richard's point on the legal side of things. Also these rules stretch far wider than just WC's.
If we are to allow electric starters 100 points is too high, and I agree with previous posts that perhaps 50 is more appropriate. | Tree | 68 |
| Tim Gee | Starting Motors | 07.09.2002 - 15:18:51 |
| I agree with Richard and Brian. Whether intentionally or not,they have raised the broader principle of awarding different points for manoeuvres of different difficulty. If we reduce the points for starting then we also need to question whether three laps of inverted flight should be awarded the same points as two horizontal square eights and so on. We are not up to the discussion on K factors yet but we need to think about underlying principles even at this early stage. | Tree | 69 |
| Bill Lee | Re: Starting Motors | 07.09.2002 - 15:37:30 |
| Not only does this surface the "different value for different maneuvers" question, it also raises the issue of how a maneuver (starting in this case) should be scored when some non-standard means is employed.
Starting with an electric starter should probably not be scored as highly as starting by hand. (IMHO) Should the landing/flight-within-7-minutes be scored differently when a shut-off is employed? Regards, Bill Lee | Tree | 70 |
| Joan McIntyre | Starting | 08.09.2002 - 06:07:21 |
| Peter,
I agree that it should be specified in the change of rule: ie. (Electric starters MAY be used OR Motors need not be started by hand) to make the change perfectly clear, as Richard suggests. However, once again, I, too, must say that I feel very strongly that we cannot award 100 points for the successful release of the model within the required time, thus equating this with a perfectly executed Square Eight, for example. Before this Rule change procedure was begun, I had never heard concerns expressed about the maximum points of 10 for this procedure. Pilots had never voiced the opinion that it should have been awarded a significantly higher point value. Can we not keep it, then, in line with that way of thinking, and reduce maximum points for this to a MUCH lower score? Joan . | Tree | 71 |
| Richard Spurling | Re: Starting | 08.09.2002 - 07:56:07 |
| Could we have some American input on this please? Your AMA rules award the same max for all manoeuvres. Is starting rewarded with the full 40 points in AMA? How do American's feel about that?
Cheers Richard | Tree | 72 |
| Igor Burger | Re: Topic 2; Opening Statement, Starting Motors | 08.09.2002 - 10:02:26 |
| I did not want to input at this point, because in our eyes, the starting IS the part of the game, but on opposite side I do not see a way to disqualify electric starters.
I think there are following possibilities: 1/ ta allow or to disallow starters at all 2/ to allow only for engines where it is definitely necessary like turbines, or say four cycles where the producer officially recommend starting ONLY by electric starter. 3/ to allow starters at all but with less points for in time start with electric starters and full for hand starting. 4/ to allow starters at all but with shorter time limit ( 40s ? ) for in time start with electric starters and 1 minute for hand starting. 5/ - this looks like a yoke, but worth of think about - to allow starters for juniors, in case of a sort of disability, girls, grandmothers … :-) We vote for number 3/ or 4/ as it looks like a compromise and I think it could be acceptable for all. The question is how many points it is. I think we will open question of 100-point scale and “K” factor, so I recommend solving that problem later. Regards igor | Tree | 73 |
| Bill Lee | Re: Starting | 08.09.2002 - 13:47:47 |
| Please! I am an American, but IN NO WAY DO I SPEAK FOR THE AMERICAN STUNT FLYERS!!!! Opinions expressed here are my own!
I note that there are many Americans registered who are FAR MORE QUALIFIED than I am: come on guys: please speak up! Regards, Bill Lee | Tree | 74 |
| Robby Hunt | Re: Starting | 08.09.2002 - 15:34:20 |
| Hello Mr. Spurling. In the past, AMA rewarded 5 points for starting and takeing off within one minute. Be it for safety reasons or something else, the AMA rules no longer have the starting points. You can take as long as you need to get into the air, but you still have the eight minute max from the time you give the hand signal to start. Hope that helps and I posted correctly. | Tree | 75 |
| George Mullerleili | Re: Topic 2; Opening Statement, Starting Motors | 09.09.2002 - 04:09:14 |
| An experienced flyer can easily start the motor in one flip. An electric starter
cannot possibly improve on this for current two and four cycle motors. A starter is only helpful sometimes when the motor doesn't start promptly by hand flipping. While starting is not an aerobatic maneuver, prompt starting is essential to smooth running of the contest, so the standard maneuver points(100) would be appropriate. Most experienced contestants will get the motor started promptly in any case. | Tree | 76 |
| George Mullerleili | Re: 4.2.2 Model Definition and Specification Parag | 09.09.2002 - 04:25:31 |
| How about:
all aerodynamic controls of the flight path(rudder, elevator, flaps, spoilers, etc) must be driven by a mechanical connection to the flying lines connected to the pilot's control handle. | Tree | 77 |
| Vladimir Zivanovic | Starting "Powerplant ??!!??" - Engine | 11.09.2002 - 18:56:39 |
| I add comment as this is realy not a reply.
A lot have been sain on this, and might be even too much (sorry, but different topics must be equally ballanced). So, the proposition is that Co-ordinator or somebody else compile the suggestions into a most common proposition and send to "voting" to conclude the subject. Or, is it too early for that ? Regards, Vladimir | Tree | 78 |
| Vladimir Zivanovic | General approach to this discussion | 11.09.2002 - 19:06:58 |
| Sorry to enter so late, but was very occupied. D
I will proceed by topics: 1. SOCIAL Apx. a year ago Mr. Pimenoff addressed to the fraternity, asking for F1C engine gear-boxes opinions. He attached an American modeller's letter stating that, if adopting this rule, the number of US contestants will drop to a half (regretfully I lost those data, also Mr. Pimenoff did not further comment received opinions). The point is that, bearing in mind that our (Technical) Sport is also a basis for most of Aeronautical Industry future people (now boys / girls) recruitment, the Sport should be acceptable (at least financially) to many young people. Not to mention, also, that we have to offer to young people an alternative for the street, drugs etc. Any Rule change, leading to higher technology is A MINUS for new modellers recruitment. (My proposition for F1C was: to eliminate highest tech, introduce CIAM APPROVED high series engines, ban buying of completed models etc.) Now, the benefit of "high tech. rules" is only with the small number of those producing high tech. equipment. Also, if we look at the newcommer, we do not have to impose him a barrier of: - Experience of today masters AND - HIGH PRICE OF SOPHISTICATED EQUIPMENT. So, generally, my proposition is to AVOID, WHENEVER POSSIBLE, the high (priced) technology. 2. LEGAL As per rule freeze, the changes can be adopted on 2004 plenary meeting, for the 2005. isn't to early to start discussion now? From the other hand, I do not see any REALY URGENT matter. Electric propulsion would reduce the noise, but who knows how many people will adopt this power. From the other hand, pulso-jets would add a lot! So, we have not to hurry. Other legal aspect: lawyer like (more and more) to say 2 + 6/2 - sq.root(9) + 2 = 4 instead to say: 2 + 2 = 4 !!!! So, every change proposed by MODELLERS should be reviewed by lawyers, AND AGAIN CHECKED BY MODELLERS FOR CLARITY !! Bad example is F2B Rule (and Revision), 4.2.16. - c) (especially). Say it clearly! So far for general, more in topics. regards, V. | Tree | 79 |
| Peter Germann | 4.2.16, Starting. Status Report and revised propos | 12.09.2002 - 11:20:32 |
| Dear Friends!
from inputs received since august 20 I could see this: - The safety aspect of eliminating the obligation to start by hand is accepted. - The legal responsibility of the rule makers was brought up. - The 100 points bonus is considered as being too high. - Variable time limits or bonus models have been suggested (earlier, too) Safety and Legal Responsibility: A clarification clearly indicating that there is no obligation to start by hand is advisable. Bonus: The current 2002 rule assigns a 10 points (k=1) bonus, which is equal to 0.77 % of the max. possible score of 1300 points (per judge, w/o bonus) and the suggested new scoring system (no k-factors) allows a max. possible score of 1500 points (per judge, w/o bonus). Keeping the bonus in relation to the total score, would require a value of 11.54 points. For practical reasons, as well as to keep the bonus as an incentive for efficient proceedings and without penalising too much those who miss the one minute limit, I suggest to use a bonus of 10 points. Variable Time Limits / Bonus: Due to aspects of safety and legal responsbility, I would discourage the setting in force of rules where the use of a starter could be, in whichever form (Time, Bonus), a disadvantage for the competitor. Here is how I suggest to modify 4.2.16 QUOTE: 4.2.16 TIMING OF OFFICIAL FLIGHTS AND STARTING OF MOTOR/S D) THE CONTESTANT SHOULD GIVE A CLEAR HAND SIGNAL PRIOR TO STARTING HIS MOTOR/S AND SHALL BE AWARDED 10 BONUS POINTS BY EACH JUDGE IF HE DOES SO AND IF HIS MODEL IS RELEASED TO START ITS GROUND ROLL WITHIN 1 MINUTE OF SIGNALLING. THE USE OF MOTOR STARTING DEVICES SUCH AS, FOR EXAMPLE, ELECTRIC STARTERS, IS PERMITTED. NO BONUS POINTS SHALL BE AWARDED IF THE MODEL IS RELEASED TO START ITS GROUND ROLL MORE THAN 1 MINUTE AFTER SIGNALLING, OR IF NO CLEAR HAND SIGNAL IS GIVEN. UNQUOTE Please comment until sept. 18 Peter Germann, F2B Working Group Co-ordinator | Tree | 80 |
| Brian Gardner | Re: 4.2.16, Starting. Status Report and revised pr | 12.09.2002 - 13:10:01 |
| I'm comfortable with this. | Tree | 81 |
| Richard Spurling | Re: 4.2.16, Starting. Status Report and revised pr | 12.09.2002 - 14:29:44 |
| How about this for alternative wording:
"The contestant shall give a clear hand signal prior to starting his motor/s and this must be acknowledged by the time keeper. Timing starts with the first attempt to start the motor. Each judge shall award 10 bonus points if the model begins its ground roll within 1 minute. No bonus points shall be given if there is no hand signal given, the contestant starts the motor before the timer acknowledges the signal or if the ground roll begins after 1 minute. Motor starting devices such as electric starters are permitted." I feel this is slightly clearer. Also, I have added something - the requirement for the timekeeper to acknowledge the signal. This tells the competitor that his signal has been seen and it ensures that all (judges, timekeepers and competitor) are ready. Too often I've signalled that I am ready only to find that the judges aren't. I've included the note about starters as a seperate line because this makes it stand out more - in Peter's suggestion, it was lost within the paragraph. I've specified when timing shall commence and seperated it from the hand signal because if there is a delay between the signal and the acknowledgment (which does happen, at local comps especially), the competitor may be disadvantaged. It should be easy enough to tell if when starting attempts begin because the competitor shall either flick the prop, apply an external starter or an on-board starter will make the prop turn. If the timekeeper is too far away to see, well, perhaps he shouldn't be. There are two minor parts of Peter's wording that I've kept but which I'm not completely happy with: bonus points - need these be specified as 'bonus' when they are just a normal part of the scoring? 'Each judge...' - why specify 'each judge' when all judges score all manoeuvres? | Tree | 82 |
| Peter Germann | Re: 4.2.16, Starting. Status Report and revised pr | 12.09.2002 - 17:16:43 |
|
Better, indeed. What still may lead to problems is the definition of timing start. Four-cycle flyers, for example, do flip their props rapidly 10 or 20 times, before actually switching on the glowplug and (trying to...) start the motor. Future electric "drivers" will flip a switch and turbines come to life without a visible sign at all. Therefore, I'd rather say: "Timing starts with the acknowledgment of the time keeper." Yes, "each" is not needed and the 10 points are definitely not a bonus. What about this: 4.2.16 Timing of Official Flights and Starting of Motor/s d) The contestant shall give a clear hand signal prior to starting his motor/s and this must be acknowledged by the time keeper. Timing starts with the acknowledgment of the time keeper. Judges shall award 10 points if the model begins its ground roll within 1 minute. No points shall be given if there is no hand signal given, the contestant starts the motor before the time keeper acknowledges the signal or if the ground roll begins after 1 minute. Motor starting devices such as electric starters are permitted. Peter Germann | Tree | 83 |
| Peter Germann | Vote on topic 2; Starting | 13.09.2002 - 15:38:30 |
|
Following recent Forum discussion, a revised version of 4.2.16 d) is now up for voting on this Forum. To make yourself heard, go to the main page and click Voting. The current result of the vote is displayed in real-time. rgs. Peter Germann Co-ordinator | Tree | 84 |
| Igor Burger | Re: Vote on topic 2; Starting | 13.09.2002 - 15:44:33 |
| You can access voting also by this link:
http://www.rcmodely.sk/Controlline/anketa.php igor | Tree | 85 |
| Dr Laird Jackson | Time of entry to circle, starting, flight | 18.09.2002 - 20:25:18 |
| There is considerable discussion of this item and some seems to be in relation to progression of the contest. One cannot expect the previous competitor to exit the circle instantaneously nor the next competitor to enter instantaneously. So some small allowance for this overlap has to be made. However, with that, the flight time is 7 minutes and it starts with the competitor's hand signal - which in turn must be given no later than 3 minutes after entering the circle - which in turn must be done no later than 2 minutes after being called to enter. The 1 minute for release of model after the hand signal overlaps with the 3 minutes and is only used for awarding the starting points. Therefore, if the competitor uses every second of the allowed time, there are 12 minutes total allowed from the call to the circle to the end of the landing roll. If the call is given by the circle marshall the instant the previous competitor's ship stops rolling, then there are 12 minutes alloted to each competitor's flight. As no one truly waits until the last second to enter or give the hand signal etc, the actual time used should be shorter than the 12 minutes thus allowing a 12 minute schedule for flight spacing. If you want to shorten that time, then you must work with changes to the above specified time allowances. It would seem to me that the focus should be on these specifications rather than fooling with altered point awards for starting the engine. Pilots (I thought) are there to fly primarily - but then what do I know? -- doc | Tree | 86 |
| Peter Germann | Re: Time of entry to circle, starting, flight | 19.09.2002 - 19:20:13 |
| Doc is of course dead right and I would really appreciate to hear ideas and suggestions on how and where to shorten the currently allotted max. time slots. Bear in mind, too, that a good and well proven average to schedule flight orders under FAI is nine minutes per competitor. Provided, of course, that you have a Traffic Controller, or Circle Marshal, functioning as per 4.2.4 c) of the rule proposal. Those of you who had the experience of being pumped through by my good friend Dr. Clemente Cappi from Milano/Italy will know what I am talking about.
Peter Germann | Tree | 87 |
| Peter Germann | Vote on Starting | 19.09.2002 - 19:22:35 |
|
Today's sept. 19 2002 count shows 10 "agree" 0 "disagree" and 36 "no vote". What does ..."no vote" mean? Is is correct to assume that those who do not protest by clicking "disagree" are in favour of the proposed rule? Or is it safe to believe that they against and do not say so? Or does the group of people on the Forum simply not care? Well, while it is undoubtedly true that the voting of a relatively small group, such as the one on this Forum or the one participating in the Sebnitz F2B meeting, does not really represent the opinion of the world's stunt community, it would have been nice to use the voting process as an instrument to sense the general attitude. Unfortunately, with almost no votes coming back, this will not be accurate at all. Come on, friends, put in some more nitro and express yourself! I will leave the issue on for another 14 days or so and I look forward to a more impressive head count then. Peter Germann, Forum Co-Ordinator | Tree | 88 |
| Peter Germann | Pre-announcement of next topic to follow in oct. | 19.09.2002 - 19:27:18 |
|
a.) Next topic to be discussed here is Contest Procedures: Optional 2-circle operation with 4-flights ea. plus 12 pilots/3 flights fly-off. Also: 3 judges in qualification rounds and 5 in fly-off. In fly-off, no high-low dropping anymore. May I suggest that you start by reading paragraphs 4.2.15 e / & 4.2.19 of the proposal? P L E A S E hold your horses and do not respond to the Forum yet, I'd like to conclude Topic 2 (Starting) and perhaps timing, first. b. ) I will not be able to pick-up my e-mail from sept 21 until oct.2nd. Till then, fly (build...) stunt! Peter Germann Co-ordinator | Tree | 89 |
| Stephan Raetsch | Re: Time of entry to circle, starting, flight | 20.09.2002 - 10:50:18 |
| Being responsible at this years World Champs for the time schedule of the F2B competition, I would like to inform you that we scheduled 10 minutes for each flight. Although this might not be the totally correct time related to the rules, this 10 min for each flight worked out to be very realistic. We only had a delay in our sequence
due to reflights or a break caused by the wheather. So 9 minutes will definitely not be practical. Same applies to the 12 minutes, correctly calculated. Maybe we can define the time for each flight taking these 10 minutes as the max. time. Would also help the competitors to remember more easily their 11.30 h starting time, instead of having to remember 11.31 h or 11.26 h. kind regards Stephan | Tree | 91 |
| Bruno van Hoek | Re: Vote on Starting | 20.09.2002 - 23:28:42 |
| 'No vote' maybe means these people haven't made up their minds yet or haven't had the time to respond, as was the case with me.
Of course I am against, for I think an electric starter doesn't improve safety at all. Any good F2B-engine starts within 15 seconds.... by hand. The only exception I would allow is in the case of a disability, but the hows and whens should be worked out in cooperation with experts in this field, which I'm not. Of course the outcome of this vote is not representative for the majority of F2B pilots -I wouldn't worry about that here- but I feel the same about any decision, made at a CIAM-meeting... Reading all proposals so far, I have found only few points that, in my opinion, really would improve F2B-flying as we know it. I simply don't have time to explain in detail all my objections. What -in my view- it boils down to, however, is that matters are changed where I'm happy with the way they were, while on the other side points, that really could benefit from some serious reworking, are left as they were. I realize this sounds pretty negative, but I can't help feeling the way I do...... | Tree | 92 |
| Bruno van Hoek | Re: 4.2.2.h - line length | 20.09.2002 - 23:52:53 |
| I agree with Richard.
The use of donut circles is the main reason for having a lot of dirt or grit on the tarmac/concrete. Therefore we should not allow the use of these very imperfect sites for Championships anymore. Which in itself will lead to the possibility to use any lenght of lines. Apart from the turbulence -also something that should be absent on any serious Championships, now THAT's something I'd like to be taken care of in the rules- the site in Shanghai was like it should be. | Tree | 93 |
| DEMIR Alexandre | Pas de démarreur | 23.09.2002 - 21:58:22 |
| Je ne fais pas encore partie des circularistes qui touchent l'élite de notre sport en championnats du monde , mais voila mon avis sur la question posée :
Si l'on met un démarreur électrique, voilà tout un apprentissage de la vie qui ne se fait plus comme par exemple « pourquoi ça ne marche pas ??? » Car le démarreur électrique va tout régler : quoiqu'il arrive, le moteur va démarrer, sans fatigue, sans compétence , sans danger .et sans avenir ! Car il est bien connu qu'un démarreur électrique réduit considérablement la durée de vie d'un moteur. ;-)) Sérieusement: J'apprends le VCC à des jeunes qui passeront par la compétition. Le démarrage électrique ne fait plus poser les questions simples telles que : « s'il ne démarre pas tout de suite, quel est le truc qui ne va pas ?...etc.. » Et cela est primordial ! En RC le nombre de démarreur a plutôt fabriquer des « incompétents » qui insistent avec ce dernier, sans réellement comprendre pourquoi leur moteur ne démarre pas. Pour la sécurité, il y a des moyens pour ne pas se blesser : un doigtier par exemple. De plus jusque là le vol circulaire ne demande pas un matériel important pour se mettre en piste. Les jeunes que je recrute n'ont pas les moyens de s'acheter un démarreur. En résumé, le progrès de notre règlement, n'est pas forcément un bien. Le vol circulaire reste un sport simple pour tout débutant. C'est bien nous qui devons montrer l'exemple ; le démarreur est une erreur. Il faut expliquer que l'apprentissage du danger réel, c'est aussi une école de vie. Laissons donc le démarreur et occupons nous de transmettre là aussi les vraies valeurs . I am not still a part of circularistes which get(touch) the elite of our sport in world championships, but Voila my opinion on the composed question: if one puts an electric starter, here is a whole learning of the life which is not more made as for example " why that does not walk(work)??? " Because the electric starter is going to settle(adjust) everything: although it(he) arrives, the engine is going to start, without fatigue, without competence, without danger and without future! Because it is well known that an electric starter reduces considerably the life expectancy(cycle) of an engine. I teach the VCC to young people who will pass by the competition. The electric starting up does not make ask any more the simple questions such as: " if it(he) does not start at once, what is the trick(thing) which does not go? Etc. . " And it is original! In RC the number of starter has rather to make "incompetent" which insist with this last one, without understanding(including) really why their engine does not start . For the safety(security), there are means not to injure itself: a fingerstall for example. Furthermore to there the circular flight(theft) does not ask a mattering material to put itself in track. The young people whom I recruit have no means to buy to itself a starter . In summary, the progress of our regulation(payment), is not necessarily the good. The circular flight(theft) remains a simple sport for every beginner. It is us who should show the example; the starter is an error. It is necessary to explain that the learning of the real danger, it is as well a school of life. Thus let us leave the starter and let us occupy we with passing on as well the true values there . | Tree | 98 |
| Peter Germann | Starting of Motors /Timing / Bonus; Status Report | 21.10.2002 - 17:51:22 |
|
Dear friends: The starting issue was put up for discussion on august 20 and over the last 2 months we have since seen 18 written comments / suggestions and we have had a number of Forum inputs to the same topics of starting, bonus and timing coming in before that date. Furthermore, a vote was conducted where from the currently 57 registered Forum participants 17 have chosen to agree to the use of starters and 4 have said no. 36 have not voted. Let me at this point in time clarify that than neither the Forum as a whole, nor the result of votes conducted over the Forum, are in fact representing the world's c/l stunt community. The F2B group considers the Forum as an instrument to estimate, not to "measure", the attitude towards subjects discussed and is fully aware of the fact that such an estimate does not always reflect the opinion of a majority. However, rule making and editing is not a "democratic" numbers game where a majority of 51 % dictates what has to be done, regardless of the minority's concern. It is neither a procedure where experts simply take decisions and print new rules. Instead it is, much like politics, a process where minorities must be fully respected and where continous progress is only made if all parties involved are willing to accept compromises for the sake of the whole. The F2B group and I, we are trying to live up to this goal. In order to carry with our common the project, the time has now come to terminate the discussion of the Starting issue by summarizing the inputs as follows and by suggesting related changes where I think it would be appropriate: Timing Concern has been expressed that, if all time limits suggested are added up, total time required to fly rounds would become too long. This is correct and may actually become a problem. The issue is adressed in 4.2.4 c), where it says that the Circle Marshall shall be "...responsible for the smooth running of the contest..." In order to strengthen this, I now suggest to change the first sentence in 4.2.4. c) to: "...responsible for the smooth and expeditious running of the contest.." As a further measure I suggest to reduce the 3 minutes in paragraph 4.2.16. a) to 2 minutes, with 4.2.16 a) then reading: " From the time of being Officially Called to enter the Flight Circle each contestant shall be allowed 2 minutes to enter; to select and occupy his selected Take-off position; and to position the Judges panel accordingly (refer to 4.2.15, paragraph o). Official Timing of this 2 minutes period shall start from the moment the contestant enters the Flight Circle/passes through the Flight Circle entrance." As a consequence, 4.2.11 a.) i.) needs to modified accordingly: "i) if the contestant does not enter the Flight Circle within 2 minutes of being Officially Called" to fly, or; Starting Inputs received on this issue have dealt with a potential loss of traditions, with the cost of starters and with questionable increase of safety. - Tradition Those against do have a point in as much as starting the motor definitely is part of the game. However, those afraid of newcomers never developping a" feel" for their motors will quickly discover that an electric starter will not do very good to a flooded inverted engine... - Cost of starters The rule does not say that one must use an expensive starter and the flyer flipping the prop as he does today will suffer no pentalty whatsoever. - Safety It is of course true that most accidents happen by reaching into a spinning prop. This cannot eliminate the rulemaker's responsibility to avoid risk where feasable and allowing the use of a starter does unquestionably reduce the overall risk involved. If not sure, just imagine the consequences of a court case where the state attorney reads from the O.S. FS .52 manual where the manufacturer does not recommend attempting to start the motor by flipping the prop... Bonus It was found that the suggested 100 points bonus for engine start is out of proportion. This is, in particular when considering the revised scoring procedures, true. A bonus of 10 points was found to adequate. From the above, I suggest to change 4.2.16 as follows: 4.2.16 Timing of Official Flights and Starting of Motor/s d) The contestant shall give a clear hand signal prior to starting his motor/s and this must be acknowledged by the time keeper. Timing starts with the acknowledgment of the time keeper. Judges shall award 10 points if the model begins its ground roll within 1 minute. No points shall be given if there is no hand signal given, the contestant starts the motor before the time keeper acknowledges the signal or if the ground roll begins after 1 minute. Motor starting devices such as electric starters are permitted. ------- For the time being, this completes the Forum discussion of Topic 2; Starting of Motors: paragraph 4.2.16 d. The above chnages will be incorporated in the current proposal. Next on the list of topics is: 3.) Contest Procedures: - Optional 2-circle operation with 4-flights ea. plus 12 pilots/3 flights fly-off. - 3 judges in qualification rounds and 5 in fly-off. - In fly-off, no high-low dropping anymore. May I suggest that you start on this by carefully reading paragraphs 4.2.15 e / & 4.2.19 of the proposal? Please expect a related introduction, and kindly hold comments, until later this week. Peter Germann, Co-ordinator | Tree | 99 |
| Peter Germann | New Topics for Discussion | 23.10.2002 - 12:02:22 |
| Date: 23.10.02
Subject: 3rd. topics for discussion, Title: 2-circles / 12 fly-off / 3 & 5 judges / high-low dropping From: Peter Germann Introduction: In order to structure the discussion, I suggest to deal first (3. a) with the 2-circle procedure (4.2.15 e) & f), and the selection of fly-off candidates (4.2.19 d) e) & f). 2nd issue (3. b) to be looked at shall then be the number of judges, combined with a discussing of the advantages and possible problems of using the high / low dropping method. Topic 3 a The use of 2 circles The large number of F2B competitors at World Championships, as well as the need to keep the overall duration of a w/c within approx. one week, has led to a situation where daily flying hours tend to exceed the capacity of judges and where judges fatigue may become a factor influencing the outcome. The proposal therefore limits the daily duty time of judges to 10 hrs., or 50 flights, and defines appropriate breaks, too (4.1.15 d). While this definitely contributes to fair proceedings by reducing judges fatigue, it extends the total contest duration considerably. To increase the number of flyers, without extending the total contest duration, the use of multiple circles seems to be a natural choice. Care must be taken, however, to make sure that participants stand a fair chance to qualify when flying in front of different judges and on different circles. The authors of the proposal believe that this can be achieved by granting each flyer two flights on each circle, by dropping the lower score per circle and by adding the better score per circle to get the contestant's total score. While the suggested (OPTIONAL, take note!) 2-circle procedure does not dramatically shorten the total contest duration, it is supposed to improve the quality of competition by: - reducing judges fatigue. - allowing each competitor four flights to qualify for the fly-off (three, in case of single circle operations) The 12 pilots fly-off will be flown on one circle, in three rounds. 12 was chosen because this comfortably allows the proceeding in one day, with appropriate breaks for both pilots and judges, and without interfering with Teamrace and/or Combat finals typically flown the same day before the same crowd. This now opens the discussion on topics 3 a.: 2-circle operation, scoring and fly-off. Thank you for contributing. Kind regards, Peter Germann | Tree | 100 |
| Peter Germann | Voting & Data Base | 23.10.2002 - 14:20:37 |
|
Dear Forum contributors, dear guest: With the discussion dealing with the "starting" issue now being closed, the related voting feature on the Forum was removed. A new vote tool will be installed when required. The current rule proposal, as published on August 16 2002, was updated and will be replaced by a october 23 2002 version. To get copy, please click: "The latest revision of the rule text" on the opening page. Kind regards, Peter Germann, Co-ordinator | Tree | 101 |
| Igor Burger | Re: Forum technical notes | 23.10.2002 - 17:08:50 |
| Modified text is already available (link is on main page).
igor | Tree | 102 |
| Fabio Bertozzi | Discussion status | 04.11.2002 - 16:28:59 |
| Has the discussion of the F2B rule finished?. Is this the one to be applied next year in Argentina WC03?. | Tree | 103 |
| Peter Germann | Re: Discussion status | 04.11.2002 - 17:12:02 |
|
No, the dicussion is not finisihed. it will continue until the Forum Co-ordinators declare it as being terminated. The project on this Forum deals with a DRAFT version for a revised F2B rule only. No element of the contents discussed and / or published on this Forum is a valid rule. Once the discussion will be completed, an updated version of the draft will be published. Following this, the earliest date to be set in force will be january 1st 2005. The 2003 Worldcup Contest in Argentina will be flown according the current 2002 Sporting Code rules. Peter Germann, Forum Co-ordinator | Tree | 104 |
| Peter Germann | Report on 2-circle operations, scoring and 12 pilots fly-off | 05.11.2002 - 16:36:36 |
|
Dear friends: The 3 a issues have been put up for discussion on october 23 and over the last 10 days no Forum input directly related to the subjects has been made. I cannot qualify this outcome but I believe it is safe to assume that the topics are not highly controversial. I therefore now suggest to leave, at least for the time for the time being, paragraphs 4.2.15 d, e, f and 4.2.19 d unchanged and to carry on with: 3. b ) Contest Procedures: - 3 judges in qualification rounds and 5 judges in fly-off. - In fly-off, no high-low dropping anymore. To familiarize with the sibjects in question, please read paragraphs 4.2.15 g and 4.2.19 e of the current proposal. You can get a copy by clicking on "The latest revision of the rule text" on the Forum's 1st page. Please expect a formal introduction later this week and kindly hold comments until then. As always, thank you for contributing and please tell a friend to do so, too! Peter Germann, Forum Co-ordinator | Tree | 106 |
| Peter Germann | 2nd part of 3rd. topics for discussion, | 06.11.2002 - 14:56:40 |
|
Date: 6.11.02 Subject: 2nd part of 3rd. topics for discussion, Title: 3 & 5 judges / high-low dropping From: Peter Germann Introduction Topic 3 b: The number of judges and the use of the high / low dropping method Paragraphs: 4.2.15 g and 4.2.19 e Three Judges: With the publishing of the F2B Judges Guide, annexed to the Sporting Code, a first attempt to establish standardised judging criteria was made. As a result we see a higher degree of awareness, among both judges and flyers, regarding specific elements of the rule, such as, for example, manoeuvre size. Today, several years later, we (the F2B Group) now suggest to go one major step further by incorporating the exact manoeuvre descriptions found in the Judges Guide into the actual F2B rule and by replacing the current 3-dimensional manoeuvre drawings by much more accurate 2-dimensional diagrams illustrating each manoeuvre as it is seen by the pilot.. ------ To get a copy of the revised diagrams go to: www.fai.org./aeromodelling/meetings/ "Annex 11 to the agenda (Volume F2 - Class F2B - Reorganised rules and diagrams for class F2B)" ------ Both, accurate descriptions and clear diagrams are vital key elements of the revised rule, considerably reducing personal rule interpretation of both flyers and judges alike. It should be noted here that, what is sometimes labelled intentional biasing, typically is the result of personal rule interpretation and has nothing to do with unfair judging. The revised rule is sufficiently clear to prevent this, to a large extent, in future. It is safe to assume, too, that the ongoing major improvement of the rule, in particular when being combined with judging quality control methods currently in use and with judges selection criteria to be established by both CIAM and NAC's, will help to maintain the high quality level of today's F2B judging. The revised rule now provides dedicated judges with a set of "tools" matching their commitment and their will to differentiate. From the above, we feel that it should no longer be required to oblige both organisers and flyers to bear the considerable expenses of five judges and we therefore suggest to limit the number of judges to three, with the possible exception of fly-off's at contests where qualification rounds are flown on two circles. In this particular case, because six judges will be on-site anyway, we suggest to use five judges for the fly-off's. High-low dropping: I assume that the reason for the currently used dropping of both highest and lowest scores is to keep intentional biasing from influencing the final result. While this may in fact work, it has a very unwanted side-effect possibly changing the outcome of contests more than suspected biasing: Not wishing to be dropped, judges tend to avoid extremes. By doing so the panel of judges greatly reduces its ability to DIFFERENTIATE and generates an unwanted compression of the range of marks used to define the best. This is exactly the opposite of what we are trying to do here, even more so since it is common, although possibly wrong, practice to consider judges scoring neatly within a close range of their colleagues, as being "good". The revised rule offers a wider range of qualifications to be awarded by each individual judge and thus contributes significantly to the judges panel ability to differentiate between pilots. By dropping, in a panel of five, the work of two qualified individuals is not only a waste of talent (and money), it also seriously compromises the value of a whole range of measures now being taken to increase the quality of the tools now being provided for fair judging. Finally, it is probably safe to state that "mathematical processing " of marks awarded by well trained and proficient judges bears in it the risk of unwanted side effects and should be avoided generally. Based on the above, the F2B Work Group suggests to use three judges in all contests and to use five judges in the fly-off at contests where qualifying rounds are flown on two circles simultaneously. When five judges are used, all five scores shall be added to define the result per flight. --------------- This now opens the discussion of topic 3 b: The number of judges and the use of the high / low dropping method. Thank you for joining the discussion, I look forward to read your comments on this Forum. Peter Germann, Co-ordinator | Tree | 107 |
| Andy Sweetland | General (cont) | 06.11.2002 - 20:43:34 |
| .... it is clear that he can manage perfectly well without me!!). Anyway, part of my recuperation means no sitting for longer than about 30 mins (that includes sitting in front of a PC keyboard), so the length of my inputs are going to be seriously restricted (be thankful for small mercies)!
Best wishes to all, and thanks for all the inputs to date - apart from any other considerations, it's clear that at least Peter G (and I, in the past) have not been wasting our time with the F2B Working Group. | Tree | 108 |
| Andy Sweetland | General (cont) | 06.11.2002 - 20:43:41 |
| .... it is clear that he can manage perfectly well without me!!). Anyway, part of my recuperation means no sitting for longer than about 30 mins (that includes sitting in front of a PC keyboard), so the length of my inputs are going to be seriously restricted (be thankful for small mercies)!
Best wishes to all, and thanks for all the inputs to date - apart from any other considerations, it's clear that at least Peter G (and I, in the past) have not been wasting our time with the F2B Working Group. | Tree | 109 |
| José Almeida | | 06.11.2002 - 22:09:57 |
| Dear Friends.
On the topics in discussion, I am entirely in agreement that 2 circles with 3 juries exist each, carrying through 2 flights in each one, selecting at least, the 2 better the 4 flights of and not it better of each circle. I find that it is just that a competitor has the possibility to carry through 2 flights more than, when the majority if it dislocates from very far, expending considerable additions in money in a Continental or World-wide competition. Desirable not to forget that, if they exist National Federactions that pays its representation entirely, the great majority of the competing ones go for its proper ways, what it still more becomes difficult and discourage its participation. It is mine in case that, that much even so and in the majority of the times is part of national team, the Federaction does not defray our participation, then with at least $1500/€1500, (750 each flight !!!! Very expensive) I prefer with this value of a WorldChamps EuropeanChamps, to make 3 or 4 competitions of the World Cup. Or either, instead of 2 official flights start to make at least 12. We are not professionals, but only big lovers of this hobby. About to the withdrawal of the High-Low dropping in fly-offs, also I am in agreement. The necessity exists to give chance to the quality and not to the personal name. Who participates in the Europeans and WorldChamps they know very well to whom I mention myself. I think that removing this method, the juries will have to have much more well-taken care of when scoring, giving much more confidence to the competitor and in turn, dynamic greater and capacity proper they. Best regards José Almeida | Tree | 110 |
| Peter Germann | 4.2.19 d: ranking in case of 2-circle operations | 07.11.2002 - 11:23:39 |
| Date: 7.11.02
Title: Compensation of circles inequality From: Peter Germann Flying on two circles inevitably means flying in front of two judging panels scoring unequal, i.e. higher or lower. It also means that flying may be influenced by further, unequal factors, such as, for example, flights on one of the circles being flown over grass. The revised rule attempts to neutralise the inequality of circles by suggesting to add the scores of the better flight per circle only. | Tree | 111 |
| Andy Sweetland | Re: General (cont) | 07.11.2002 - 13:27:28 |
| Gents,
For some reason, my original post went wrong yesterday - the missing 1st part simply explained my absence from the F2C WG since May due to a bad back and subsequent operation. I'm now back home and starting what I hope is the final part of my recuperation, and am now able to re-join Peter Germann in supplying our thinking thinking behind all the proposed new F2B rules. Krgds Andy Sweetland | Tree | 113 |
| Andy Sweetland | Re: Jose Almeida | 07.11.2002 - 13:37:35 |
| Jose raises a very important point, namely that F2B is unlike every other F2 contest class, because in major contests such as World and Continental Champs, today only the top 15 competitors gets more than 2 official
flights. Just as Jose says, that means that someone coming from a long distance away from the contest site (usually) ends up paying a lot of his own money for just 2 flights (Jose's figure of USD 750 per flight is by no means unusal for a competitor travelling from "the other side of the world", and based on all the info we have received, just as Jose says, even when a nation does have its own NAC, finances today are such that the vast majority of competitors receive, at best, only a contribution towards their costs, NOT the full amount). This was one of the main reasons behind Peter and my idea in the proposed new rules that each competitor should have at least 3 official flights - but when the number of people entering a contests requires it (100+ entrants?) then purely because the contest duration is restricted to about 1 week, this means flying on 2 circles. As Peter Germann has already pointed out, no matter what we do there is almost certain to be some differences between those 2 circles - the judging, the physical characteristics such as surface, the wind conditions - to name but 3 possibilites. So therefore, to be fair to every competitor we need to make sure that each competitor makes an equal number of official flights on both the "good" and the "bad" circles. Regarding adding the scores from all 4 flights (not just 2) to calculate results, we simply felt that using all 4 scores reduces the chance of a competitor's particularly "lucky" (or "unlucky") flight score/s unduly affecting the overall competition result. Krgds Andy Sweetland | Tree | 114 |
| Brian Gardner | number of flights/circles and judges. | 12.11.2002 - 02:14:54 |
| I fully support the suggested changes.
2 circles, 4 qualifying flights, 3 judges, keep all judges scores, use the 5 judges for the finals. | Tree | 115 |
| Keith Renecle | Re: number of flights/circles and judges. | 12.11.2002 - 05:30:19 |
| I also agree with Brian on this point. One of the biggest problems that I have heared about over the last few years, is that it costs plenty of money to get to the world champs. At the same time, the preparation of building models, and practising, is plenty of work. You then arrive at the world champs, fly two rounds, and that is it. I sincerely believe that flying on two circles, with two sets of three judges, is a much better deal for all contestants. The top 12 then go to the final, using 5 judges.
Stunt competitions can never be 100% fair, due to weather, judges concentration and fatigue, and many other factors. Having four rounds for each pilot, will certainly be a big step towards giving everyone a fair chance. Three judges per circle, with no scores dropped will be fine. The only question to sort out, will be to decide on how many scores will be used. Maybe the highest single score from each circle? What do you think? | Tree | 116 |
| Jean Paul Perret | | 14.11.2002 - 18:18:49 |
| As organizer I agree this set of propositions:
2 circles, 4 qualifying flights, 3 judges, keep all judges scores, use the 5 judges for the finals. JP Perret | Tree | 117 |
| Joan McIntyre | Re: 2nd part of 3rd. topics for discussion, | 14.11.2002 - 23:46:44 |
| Thank you for your assistance, Igor.
Peter. I have no difficulty with the proposal to use three judges per circle, with no subsequent dropping of high / low scores and the use of five judges for the fly off. | Tree | 118 |
| Peter Germann | New vote windows opened | 05.12.2002 - 13:59:40 |
|
The vote on subjects like flying on two circles, number of judges and the use of the high / low dropping method is now open. To express your opinion, go to the main page and click Voting. The current result of the vote is displayed in real-time. The vote closes on january 31st 2003 rgs. Peter Germann Co-ordinator | Tree | 119 |
| Warren Tiahrt | number of judges,flights,dropping high and low | 06.12.2002 - 02:27:09 |
| I would like to see a total of ten judges available. This would allow the use of 5 judges on two circles for qualifications. The finals would then use at least five (maybe 6, or even seven)to determine the those who get to stand on the podium. I realize that this increases the cost of the event, but Helicopter used 5 judges on each flight line (two flight lines). R/C Pattern used 24 judges. I feel that the better flight on each circle be totalled to determine the finalists. This should reduce any adverse affect caused by the inevitable variable flying conditions. I feel the high and low scores would be discarded which should reduce any bias influence, real or imagined. | Tree | 120 |
| Dave Gardner | Number of judges, flights, dropping high and low | 06.12.2002 - 05:08:13 |
| Although Warren's comments about 10 judges carries a lot of fair logic to the process, the reality is that getting 6 qualified judges, even with two (possible) from the organizer, can be difficult.
With 3 judges on each circle, and no flights dropped, the individual round scores would be the average of the 3 judges for each flight. The qualification scores can be either the sum of all 4 flights, or (for more realistic scores), the average of the 4 flights. The alternate, as some have mentioned, is the sum of the best flights from each circle, to allow for 'off flights' and any real or perceived bias. The finals would then use five judges to determine the those who get to stand on the podium. The same scoring methodology can be used here as well, with the average of the 5 judges for each flight score, (no scores dropped) then use the sum of the best two of the three flights. The issue of dropping high and low scores resulting in 'middle ground' scores was very obvious in the last two WC I observed. The individual manuever scores were bracketed in a very small range, when the variation in flights would have indicated a greater spread than those recorded. This seemed the result of the judges 'playing it safe' with their scoring. It's a separate issue yet to be discussed, but the proposed scoring range of 0-100 points might open up that bracketing and show the actual differentiation of flight patterns. A point in case was in Sebnitz, where the Junior category had 1st and 2nd separated by 3 points out of over 6000!...not that it's improbable, but the rare occasion where an AMA contest has individual flight scores separated by one point would equate to approximately 22 points in the FAI scoring. ((6000 / 550 x 2) x 1 point = 21.8 ) | Tree | 121 |
| Dave Gardner | Scoring Comparison - Bad Math! | 06.12.2002 - 05:13:31 |
| The comparison of AMA to FAI scores was done too late in the evening!
The actual comparison of 1 point / flight in AMA competition would convert to approximately 6 points in FAI. The comparison of the sum of 2 flight scores is: (6000 / 550 x 2) x 1 point is 5.5 points in FAI. | Tree | 122 |
| Shareen Fancher | Number of judges, flights, dropping high and low | 06.12.2002 - 06:19:17 |
| I started to vote on this issue and as I read the proposed revisions decided I need to interject some of my thoughts.
I tend to agree with Warren, especially with the dropping of high and low scores if there are more than four judges. We have used this method for years at both our NATS and at our FAI Team Trials and have found it to work quite well. Although some of our NATS scores on final's days are very close I do not believe they are that way because judges are afraid that they may be thrown out of the scoring. The training they receive is not geared with "being tossed out" in the instructions. Either way a "not so good judge" could use the system to try and manipulate his biases. I also believe very strongly that to give a competitor every opportunity to do his best he deserves, in a two circle format, to have the highest scoring flights from each circle added together and then be ranked accordingly. I am also a firm believer in more judges. AS Warren stated, 10 would be a good number for a two circle competition. | Tree | 123 |
| Keith Trostle | World Championship Qualification Format | 07.12.2002 - 04:32:59 |
| Peter,
I know these comments should have been sent earlier. Basically, I am in support of the 2 circle qualification format, 3 judges per circle for the qualification flights, use all judges' scores to detemine average flight score for each flight, each pilot flies 2 flights in front of both sets of judges, (4 flights), qualification score based on the best flight from each set of judges (2 flight total, discarding the poorest flights score from each set of judges). More comments below. You have seen my comments before regarding the qualification process to use for the WCs. I do not want to elaborate again about the advantages of prescribing a three or four-circle format during the qualification process at the World Championships (WCs). Here in the US, we have become accustomed to use as many as four circles for qualifying flights at our Nationals. I also understand that the F2B rules proposal that you are formulating using two circles for qualifications is in recognition of the normally limited space and facilities at most venues where a WC competition would be held. We have also become accustomed to using as many as five judges for each qualifying circle and seven or more during the finals of our Nationals as well as at our F2B Team Trials. I know that Warren Tiahrt and Shareen Fancher have submitted their recommendations to you regarding the number of judges for the qualification rounds and for the finals. (As you probably already know, Warren has been the Event Director at our Nationals and our Team Trials for close to the last ten years. Shareen has been in charge of tabulation at every one of our Nationals and Team Trials since 1975, as well as being the PAMPA Secretary for probably the last 10 years or so. She has a very good understanding of and insight into the workings and formats used at a major stunt competition.) I also recommend the use of at least 10 judges, 5 judges on each of the two qualification circles. I would think the host nation could work out the entry fee to pay for the number of judges to do the job properly. As Warren mentioned, I will also reference the last WCs for RC Pattern where 25 judges were listed in the reports of that competition. If the RC WCs can accommodate 25 judges, it seems we could provide transportation for 6 or 8 guest judges. (This assumes that the host country provides a judge for each of the two circles.) I can appreciate, however, that the financing of the RC championships is probably considerably different than how a host country must budget for and pay for a Control Line World Championship. There is a ?practical? approach to the number of judges, which is the 3 judges for each of the two qualification circles, allowing the host country to provide one judge for each of the two circles. Then, for the finals, there will be 5 judges, each from a separate country, including one from the host country. Therefore, no more judges would need to be ?imported? from other countries than the current system. If it would be possible, instead of specifying a set number (5) of judges for the finals, I suggest that the rules allow for a minimum of 5 judges, as is the current practice, but allow more up to a maximum of 5 per circle during qualification rounds and up to 7 for the finals at the discretion of the host country. (It is difficult and awkward to have more than 7 judges on a circle because only a few can ever be in the more optimum position to view the pattern being flown.) This would allow 4 judges on each qualification circle, where the host country provides a judge for each circle. Then for the finals, each of the 7 judges used would be from separate countries where 6 would be from other than the host country. If 8 judges are ?imported? so that there could be 5 judges for each qualifying circle, there will be several judges (3) that will not be used during the finals rounds. This will allow the Event director to select the more competent judges for the finals based on assessments of the scores that can be done before the final rounds start. If the CIAM requires the use of specific number of judges rather than allowing some flexibility of only specifying a minimum number for the WCs, then it appears that the number of 5 remains the most practicable. Whatever the number of judges used for qualifications and the finals, I do not think the high and low scores should be eliminated. I understand that analysis of the scores from the previous several WCs has shown that little or no difference would have been made in the outcome had all the judges? scores been used in the tabulation. I do not have any statistics to back up my thoughts here, but I am certain that some judges (not all) will deliberately narrow their range of scoring near a moderate score to avoid their scores being discarded for being either too high or too low. This happens even though judges are instructed to use the range of scores available to them and not to be concerned if their scores are being discarded as high or low. (Actually, in an ideal world, one individual judge should always have his score discarded for always being high, and another judge should also have his score always discarded for always being low. But then those individual judges begin to think their time is being wasted, when indeed they are doing their jog and they are doing it right.) I also believe that one judge can skew (deliberately or by poor judgment) the resulting score of a flight regardless if the high and low scores are discarded or not when as few as 5 or 7 judges are used. For these reasons, I recommend keeping all of the judges? scores in the tabulation of the average score of each flight and regardless of the number of judges being used. For the following, I am assuming that there will be a two-circle qualification format. I am also assuming that each flyer will be given the opportunity to fly two flights on each of the two circles. Or, in other words, each flyer will fly two flights in front of two sets of judges for a total of four flights. This will allow each contestant to demonstrate his ability in front of different sets of judges, more flights to do so, and reduce the affect of weather or other unplanned experiences that would otherwise impact a fair opportunity to qualify for the finals. Given the above, the placing/qualification score should be based on the sum of the single best flight from each set of judges. This means the qualification score is based on two flights and that the poorest flight from each set of the judges is discarded and not used. Within this format, discarding the poorest scores from each set of judges minimizes as much as possible the variables of weather from one round to another and any inconsistencies that might occur in any individual judge?s scoring. (This is an unfortunate reality given the judges are working out there for 3 to 4 days, each being 8 to 10 hours long.) Now, we get to a subject that might need to be in the rules at least in some form of an outline. Given the fact that we will probably only be using two circles and that each pilot will be able to have four official flights, we have not reduced the load on the individual judges. We have twice the number of circles, but also have twice the number of flights. So each judge will still see the same number of flights during the qualification rounds as before. Given the number of entries at recent WCs and what can be expected in the future, there needs to be some outline as to the number of days allowed for the qualification rounds. If the entry level is around 60, the qualification rounds can be easily accommodated in three days. If the entry level is 90 or more, four days will be required for the qualification rounds. There is a number somewhere between 60 and 80 entrants where a transition must occur to dictate when three or four days should be scheduled for the qualification rounds. Examples with 2 circles being used and each pilot gets 2 flights on each circle (4 flights): 1. 60 entries, 3 days: 240 flights total, 120 flights on each circle, 40 flights per day per judge. This is a reasonable and comfortable workload on the judges. 2. 90 entries, 3 days: 360 flights total. 180 flights on each circle, 60 flights per day per judge. This is an unreasonable workload on the judges. 3. 90 entries, 4 days: 360 flights total. 180 flights on each circle, 45 flights per day. This is a reasonable workload on the judges. Even with 100 entries, there would be 50 flights per day per judge. This is about the limit to ask of the judges, particularly for 4 straight days with the finals yet to come as well as probably having a Junior category finals. If 50 flights are assumed to be the maximum that we should expect judges to score any day, then somewhere around 75 or slightly less is the maximum number of entries that should be scheduled for only a 3-day qualification period. Now, for the number of finalists. I am assuming the finals will still consist of each pilot flying three flights, and the final placings determined by the best two of those three flights. The current rule generates 15 finalists. This makes a long day for all concerned, including a total of 45 flights for the judges. Spectator interest is minimal at best. It will make little or no difference in the ranking of the top 8 or 10 finalists if 12 finalists are chosen instead of 15. With a fewer number of finalists, the probability is increased that each round will be completed in more similar weather conditions, thereby making the selection of the top places more fair. The judges will only have to score 36 flights which represents a relatively light workday for the judges, particularly after they have had 3 or 4 days of long and hard qualification rounds. I know that we are taking ?bragging rights? away from 3 individuals who would otherwise qualify for the finals rounds. But their relative place compared to the top flyers after the final tabulation will not differ much. I think it is more important to use a format that more accurately places the 12 finalists than to give 3 more flyers the privilege of ?making the finals?. After all, only 3 teams get to the finals in Team Race and only 3 flyers get to the finals in Combat. Given these arguments, one could build a case to take only 10 flyers into the finals. (There were U.S. Nationals in the 60?s and early 70?s where there were only 10 finalists from 50 or 60 entries.) For the time being, I strongly endorse having no more than 12 finalists in the finals. Hope this makes sense. Keith | Tree | 124 |
| Claus Maikis | F2B rules | 08.12.2002 - 21:24:13 |
| This is the second attempt, and I hope that program will finally do what it should do.
I’m pleased to see that the level of discussion has finally risen, and that there are some competent people somewhere in the world who have a clear mind and are able to offer reasonable ideas. What I’ve seen before didn’t exactly motivate me to participate here. To say first things first: I have absolutely no objections to the suggestions given for the topics contest format/ judging system. Actually I don’t care much about rules as long as they are not very silly ( and I feel our rules are quite decent ). I’m a sportsman, and as such I have to accept rules. If I don’t like them, I’d better drop out. It’s my impression that too many people want the rules just the way they can get benefit out of them. Beeing one of those “national representatives” in the F2B working group I got more than enough insight into some people’s opinions and reasoning. With the present rules I can live quite well, and as I’ve said I fully agree with the proposed new versions. For me they are fine, and they will not make any difference for my flying. I cannot give any revolutionary new or different viewpoints. However those rules will have a definite influence on the organization of future WCs ( and other big International contests as well ). That’s what we always should bear in mind and handle very carefully. The problem about the number of judges is not new and has been questioned for a long time. Some flyers have always cried thoughtlessly for as many judges as possible. But times have changed. Today it ‘s not a small problem to find enough qualified (!) judges - and to pay them !! That’s the other side of the coin, and I know quite well ( not only from recent experience at our German WC ) about the problems a WC organizer can run into very easily. While for me it doesn’t matter wether I’m judged by 3 or 5 or 17 judges - but for the organizer it does !! And I’m not sure if a raised entry fee could make up for the expected additional costs. How much? Should only the F2B competitors pay for the expenses? It might become costly. ( A side note: I’ve just heard that after the 2002 WC the organizer was left with a dept of a frightening high amount of money. I don’t want to and I cannot say more about this at the moment. PLEASE - think about that!) My basic thought is: we shouldn’t care so much about what flyers want, but instead what organizers can do and afford. It’s them who let us fly and enjoy our sport. If they cannot fulfil our pretentious wishes, some fine day we’ll have no more contests. The “number of judges” theme leads right to the BIAS topic. I think this is no big problem any more. It has been with some of the Eastern Block countries, but these times are over. Especially since we have computers and Bruno Delor’s excellent “comparison program”. With this Bruno can easily extract individual judges’ scores and find out “who”. For those not so familiar with FAI matters please note that, in the near past, we’ve actually “banned” two judges for two years from our circles. So if there would be a judge who might be tempted to modify the truth he would be well advised to be VERY carefully. But, as I said, I don’t see a problem here. Which at the same time answers the question of dropping high and low scores. Let’s keep them. Dave Gardner noted “…the individual manoeuvre scores were bracketed in a very small range”. I’ve heard this remark very often and for many years, Dave. I think this is not a problem. Remember, this is the WC, with the best pilots of the world competing. Except for a few outstanding sportsmen the majority of the bunch are really very good flyers. You can easily see this when one of them happens to make a big mistake - he’ll quickly lose several places. Their final scores HAVE to be very close together. That’s logical. I agree with Shareen: it’s not the fault of the judges. And it’s not the fault of the scoring system. One point difference out of 100 possible points is the same as 10 points out of 1000. Only the number looks bigger, the percentage ( of difference ) is the same. But that leads to another topic which will probably be discussed later. The format of the final has been a topic lately. So far the only suggestions made were to reduce the number of finalists to 12, that would save a little time. Forgive me if I have a different opinion about what a final is. For me it’s the top, the crown, the culmination of a contest where only the very best have another chance to influence the outcome. Also it should be held in a time range that spectators should be able to watch the whole affair. Only this way a true comparison can be made. And for the participants weather and other conditions were much more similar. For me a final with 45 flights, lasting a whole day, is not a final. My first thought was to have just 3 - or better yet 5 flyers ( so number 4 and 5 may have another chance for a medal). But that would contradict our aim to have more flights for the pilots. The next solution is a semi final. The team race guys always had one, and I think they like it. The semi would have 12 or 15 flyers and 3 flights, with the 3 best going to the final with 2 or 3 flights for each of them. In the worst ( sorry!) case we would have a maximum of 39 flights then, which is even less than what we have now. And we’d have a true final. Am I completely off ? By the way - such a system looks pretty similar to the American top 20 / top 5 procedure ( which I favour ). Uncle Sam might like my idea. As I said: I don’t care much about the format - I’ll never make the final, anyway. But I was asked for my opinion, and this is my answer. ( I have still more ideas. But I’ll save these for next time ) claus | Tree | 126 |
| Peter Germann | Comment on Input received from Keith Trostle | 09.12.2002 - 11:35:27 |
| Dear Keith,
Thank your for your careful analysis and the detailed comment published on the Forum. You have addressed your input to me and I would like, on behalf of the F2B Working Group, to answer as follows: Number of judges: The reason why the F2B Working Group suggests three and five judges is a cost consideraration only, bearing in mind that currently CIAM capped registration fees are a.) regarded as being too high (by competitors) and b.) not sufficient to cover the cost of a World- or Continental Championship (Calculated by organisers). In case of a Fly-Off following a (optional) two circle qualification procedure what could be done, without added cost, would be the use of all six judges present for the Fly-Off. Judges Fatigue: Paragraph 4.2.14 d) of the suggested rule limits the daily duty time by saying: QUOTE: At all contests every registered contestant shall be entitled to a minimum of 3 Official Flights but no judge shall judge more than 50 flights or perform a total of 10 hours of judging duty (whichever is the longer) within any single day of the contest. All Official Flights, Attempts, and Re-flights within each Round shall be scheduled on the basis that each contestant will require an average time of 10 minutes to complete an Official Flight (including Flight Circle entry and exit time), thus providing a judges' break of approximately 20 minutes per 2 hours during each Round. In addition, contest organisers shall also arrange at least 1 meal break per contest day for all judges. UNQUOTE Number Fly-Off Participants: We agree that 12 is a suitable number, in particular when one takes into account the possibility of having three juniors doing their own Fly-Off. The F2B Working Group has therefore done paragraph 4.2.19 e) accordingly: QUOTE At World and Continental Championships and other limited international contests, organisers shall arrange a Fly Off amongst the 12 contestants holding the best scores ("placings") at the end of the 3rd (or 4th) Round. The Fly-Off shall consist of 3 separate Rounds flown on the same Flight Circle with a minimum of 15 minutes and a maximum of 45 minutes break between each Round. The flying order for each Fly-Off Round shall be established by random draw conducted by the contest organiser. At contests with 1 Flight Circle in operation each Fly-Off Official Flight shall be judged and scored by all 3 judges. At contests using 2 Flight Circles all Fly-Off Official Flights shall be flown on only 1 of the 2 available Flight Circles. In this case the Head Judge and Deputy Head Judge shall confer to select 5 judges from the 6 available. The same 5 selected judges shall judge and score all 36 Fly-Off Official Flights. The score for each contestant in each Fly-off Round shall be calculated by adding all the points for each manoeuvre awarded by each of the 5 judges into a single total number of points. UNQUTE Fly-Off Qualification: The F2B Working Group suggests to proceeed as described in 4.2.19 d): QUOTE As soon as practicable after completion of the final (3rd or 4th) Round of the contest, organisers shall calculate the positions in the contest reached by all registered contestants up to that point in the contest (“placings”). When flown in 3 Rounds on 1 Flight Circle, the procedure shall consist of deleting the lowest score awarded to each contestant in a single Round and then adding his remaining 2 scores to produce the contestant's Final Result and/or Fly Off qualification (refer paragraphs e) and f) below). When flown in 4 Rounds on 2 Flight Circles, the procedure shall consist of deleting the lowest score awarded to each contestant in each Flight Circle and then adding his remaining 2 scores to produce the contestant’s Final Result and/or Fly Off qualification. UNQUOTE Peter Germann Co-Ordinator | Tree | 127 |
| Igor Burger | Re: Comment on Input received from Keith Trostle | 09.12.2002 - 12:48:43 |
| Hello Peter,
I would like to comment your answer: >>> The reason why the F2B Working Group suggests three and five judges is a cost consideraration only, bearing in mind that currently CIAM capped registration fees are a.) regarded as being too high (by competitors) and b.) not sufficient to cover the cost of a World- or Continental Championship (Calculated by organisers). In case of a Fly-Off following a (optional) two circle qualification procedure what could be done, without added cost, would be the use of all six judges present for the Fly-Off. <<< We must consider also fact, that WC and EC are events flown by those rather „competitive“ flyers, who invest whole year to prepare themself. It costs lot of time and money. If those 4 extra judges mean more accurate or fair judgement, then why to save money on this place. If we pay lot of money just for hotels, food, traveling – everything for flyer AND the same for supporters? I think it is worth to speak about it. Especially in conjuction with fact, that placing on 50th place is based on 3 judges while placement on 10th place is based on 5 judges – I do not know how to explain it to „average world constant“ coming from 10 000km distance. I am not advocating pro or against, because it is hard to decide myself and I think it will need more time, so I recommend to close those 3 actual voting questions ast they are now (with 3 judges) and later on – we can open the question of 5 judges in fly-off later for separate debate. – or we can add question nr.4 to voting meaning 3 or 5 judges for fly-off right now. igor | Tree | 128 |
| Peter Germann | Number of Judges | 09.12.2002 - 18:04:44 |
| My personal opinion is that in c/l stunt several judges are used because the complexity of manoeuvres and the multitude of aspects to pay attention to in a very short time may occasionally exceed the capacity of a single observer. So, if we use more than one observer chances are that the system detects more errors (Provided we are not throwing overboard part of what we get by using the high / low dropping method). However, since the accuracy of judging does not grow proportional to the number of judges, I believe that using three judges is a reasonable and cost efficient way, being equally well acceptable by both contestants and organisers. (This is probably a good time to announce that work on judges qualification and judging quality control is in process at this point in time. The F2 subcommitee is aware of the need to act and will come up with related suggestion within foreseeable time)
From what I have seen so far, the typical rankings among contestants of "known" level of flying do not seem to depend from the number of judges and I believe that many flyers will agree on this. What really is important is the quality, not the quantity, of judging power out there! Because three qualified judges can do the job properly, the suggested rule revision proposes that, in a single circle contest, the Fly-Off is judged by the same same three judges having judged the qualification rounds. It is only in the case of the OPTIONAL two circle contest where the revised rule suggests to use five judges for the Fly-Off and this is because they are on-site anyway and NOT because five (or 6) generate a "better" result than three. (If this would be the case, how could we suggest to use three judges for qualification rounds then?) Finally, without wanting to leave the impression that this is a financial matter only, please consider this: Because organisers will probably opt to use the 2-circle procedure when they face a large number of competitors only, and the other way around when not too many register, the suggested revision allows the organiser to keep the cost of judges in relation with the income generated by registration fees. We have had Eurochamps where a rather modest number of F2B flyers have been present and where such a possibility would have been very welcome, indeed. And we may, hopefully, have future Continental Championships in other than european regions where the cost for judges will be of great importance and should be kept in line with presumed initially low number of contestants. Peter Germann | Tree | 129 |
| Dr Laird Jackson | | 10.12.2002 - 01:19:40 |
| It has been interesting to see some of the more recent comments now that the number of circles and judges and flights is really getting attention. Although the CIAM has limits on costs of entry, these can be changed. It may need disconnecting F2 from other single event championships in order to do so but we need to think of what might be made to work. Costs also enter into the site - not many places will be able to support even two circles and having extra practice sites becomes even more difficult. Maybe this means that we need to think of ways to make the event more appealing to a public viewer so that sponsors might be attracted to help with costs. Maybe a few purpose built sites could be developed if sponsorship and public attendance were a reality. Some thinking outside the box may be required.
As to the number of judges - I am not so impressed with the amount of observation a single judge has to make in any single flight as I am with other considerations. Watching a long day's worth of flights is surely an important consideration - especially if the competent fliers are spaced willy nilly so that the judge cannot really directly compare or "rank" them. In any competition the judge's job is to create a true ranking of the competitors from best to worst. This is hard to do in isolated bits over long days. The other consideration is not so much deliberate bias - which I think has been at least minimized - as unintentional bias. Surely we all have preferences for style and see the same maneuver somewhat differently. More judges would tend to even out these unintentional biases on behalf of the competitor. Some recent comments have noted the closeness of scores - in reference to the juniors in one example. This is where I think the K-factors unintentionally allow error to occur. A slight judgement one way or another when wavering over the difference in awarding a 7 or a 7.5 for example, seems somewhat minor at the time, but the judge is not calculating the K-factor at the time of awarding the mark and may be responsible for almost a 10 point swing - or twice that if two competitors receive opposite movement in their marks based on the mood or impression of the judge at the moment. There goes the placing. Allowance of smaller movement by the judge would mitigate the magnitude of that swing. And for the plea to have more flying time because it cost a lot to get there and the poor guy has practiced all season. What about the Olympic sprinter? Poor sod has worked all the way through school, took a night job so he could be with the coach all day, hocks his girl friends jewelrly to buy the latest light weight Nikes, makes the team by the skin of his teeth, then blows his first start due to anxiety and, knowing that one more will knock him out, gets too cautious and is left just a little dead footed in the blocks and is nosed at the tape for a qualifying spot. Ran pretty well but 10.35 seconds is his entire glorious appearance at this once in 4 years event and he has no chance of gutting through another 4 years of agony to make another try. Are the World Champs a fun fly to see old friends and hang out - or a format to pick the best flier on the circle on finals day. Hooray for Claus for making a point. Don't mind me - I just line up the subcommittee to try to get done what you want done. cheers - doc | Tree | 130 |
| Dr Laird Jackson | circles, judges and all that | 10.12.2002 - 01:20:00 |
| It has been interesting to see some of the more recent comments now that the number of circles and judges and flights is really getting attention. Although the CIAM has limits on costs of entry, these can be changed. It may need disconnecting F2 from other single event championships in order to do so but we need to think of what might be made to work. Costs also enter into the site - not many places will be able to support even two circles and having extra practice sites becomes even more difficult. Maybe this means that we need to think of ways to make the event more appealing to a public viewer so that sponsors might be attracted to help with costs. Maybe a few purpose built sites could be developed if sponsorship and public attendance were a reality. Some thinking outside the box may be required.
As to the number of judges - I am not so impressed with the amount of observation a single judge has to make in any single flight as I am with other considerations. Watching a long day's worth of flights is surely an important consideration - especially if the competent fliers are spaced willy nilly so that the judge cannot really directly compare or "rank" them. In any competition the judge's job is to create a true ranking of the competitors from best to worst. This is hard to do in isolated bits over long days. The other consideration is not so much deliberate bias - which I think has been at least minimized - as unintentional bias. Surely we all have preferences for style and see the same maneuver somewhat differently. More judges would tend to even out these unintentional biases on behalf of the competitor. Some recent comments have noted the closeness of scores - in reference to the juniors in one example. This is where I think the K-factors unintentionally allow error to occur. A slight judgement one way or another when wavering over the difference in awarding a 7 or a 7.5 for example, seems somewhat minor at the time, but the judge is not calculating the K-factor at the time of awarding the mark and may be responsible for almost a 10 point swing - or twice that if two competitors receive opposite movement in their marks based on the mood or impression of the judge at the moment. There goes the placing. Allowance of smaller movement by the judge would mitigate the magnitude of that swing. And for the plea to have more flying time because it cost a lot to get there and the poor guy has practiced all season. What about the Olympic sprinter? Poor sod has worked all the way through school, took a night job so he could be with the coach all day, hocks his girl friends jewelrly to buy the latest light weight Nikes, makes the team by the skin of his teeth, then blows his first start due to anxiety and, knowing that one more will knock him out, gets too cautious and is left just a little dead footed in the blocks and is nosed at the tape for a qualifying spot. Ran pretty well but 10.35 seconds is his entire glorious appearance at this once in 4 years event and he has no chance of gutting through another 4 years of agony to make another try. Are the World Champs a fun fly to see old friends and hang out - or a format to pick the best flier on the circle on finals day. Hooray for Claus for making a point. Don't mind me - I just line up the subcommittee to try to get done what you want done. cheers - doc | Tree | 131 |
| Andy Sweetland | Re: circles, judges and all that | 16.12.2002 - 12:18:51 |
| I'd like to give some purely personal responses to recent postings by Shareen, Igor, Warren, Doc J, Claus, etc - basically on the subject of the number of judges at major contests.
There seem to be 2 points that we should all consider very carefully - 1st, does a "large number" of judges automatically give us what we want ("better quality" results)? It seems to me (below) that the answer to that is "not necessarily" - 2nd, IN PRACTICE, how are we going to pay for a "large number" of judges? Below you'll see my reasons why I believe that unless we, the F2B community, is prepared to fund the cost ourselves, then we are pretty unlikely to find enough money elsewhere (at least not within a reasonable timescale). "Quality: Taking the 1st first, several people have mentioned the 20 or so judges used by RC disciplines such as aerobatics and helicopters. I am by no means knowledgeable on RC contests, but certainly from reading the reports of recent major events (World and Euro Champs) in these disciplines, it does seem that at least in some cases, having "a regiment" of judges certainly did NOT automatically guarantee that contestants (and organisers) were satisfied with the resulting scores - in fact in recent magazine reports of some contests I have read of people stating that a large number of judges is not only very expensive but is also a positive disadvantage! So perhaps the RC disciplines is not the way for us to go from the purely qualitative viewpoint (we'll think about finance in a moment)? No, looking at the "quality of the results", I really do not feel that "quality" in F2B lies necessarily in simply having more judges. Instead, I feel that the real answer lies in having well trained and experienced judges, and although I have not experienced it myself, from reading various reports in "Stunt News" etc, and as already posted by Shareen and Warren, it seems that on this side of the pond we could certainly learn a thing or two from the Americans about the training and preparing of judges suitable for duty at major contests such as World or Continental Champs. In fact, for F2B, if we can find some way of doing it (both from the practical and financial viewpoints), personally I would far rather see 3 (or 5, or any other number we can get) of expert qualified judges judging at World and Euro Champs, but with those experts being "shadowed" by a similar number of "under training" judges. There’s a related point. Claus said it well, and also Dave Cook said it very clearly in a piece in "Stunt News" a while back - contestants really should understand - and ACCEPT - that once they arrive at the site to make their Official Flights, it is (in Dave's words) "an already done deal". In other words, if he/she wants to perform at his/her best, it is the duty of the contestant to know the rules (as Claus says, whatever they may be), and then to go out to fly accordingly, accepting that the contest organiser has the duty to arrange a number (it doesn't really matter how many) of SUITABLY QUALIFIED judges to produce a set of results for that contest. A little more acceptance of those facts, rather than the "I wuz robbed" mentality (in my experience, most often heard from fliers who really do NOT know the rules properly) would certainly go a good way towards improving the "quality" of our event. Finally on the "quality" aspect, please remember what Peter Germann also wrote recently - in most sites in the world it is difficult to get 1 good circle for contest flights, plus 1 for practice (often only "nearby" is the best that can be done for that). Simply because of the numbers of contestants versus judges fatigue/the overall duration of the contest, your F2B Working Group decided that the proposed new F2B rules should contain procedures for POSSIBLY running a contest on more than one circle (today's present rules have no provision for this). Contrary to what a number of the recent postings seem to be assuming, this does NOT automatically mean that in future all major F2B events will be run on 2 circles. Will some people (especially those in the US, with rather greater C/L numbers and resources to work with than is common in Europe and elsewhere), please remember that today there are very few sites available with enough space for 2 decent contest circles - and realistically, in most countries there is little likelihood of such sites becoming available within the near future. Finance: Which leads me neatly into my 2nd point, finance. Doc Jackson says that the CIAM procedure allows for us to get the present rules about the entry fee limit changed, and of course he's quite correct. BUT, as Doc also knows well, we have a (now VERY strictly applied!) ruling which only allows us to make such rule changes within the 4 year rule change cycle. And even if we (the F2B community) were to offer such a rule change proposal to CIAM, that would have to be voted on and agreed by all delegates. Regarding voting, lets forget the other (FF & RC) disciplines for a moment (I'll come back to RC), and concentrate on F2. I'll assume (just for the moment) that the financing of a large number of judges (20 and more have been mentioned in some recent postings) would come only out of increased contest entry fees. How would this work for C/L (F2)? Would the Speed, Team Race, and Combat people (who seem to manage quite well today with “only” something like up to 5 - paid - judges each) be willing to pay an increased entry fee, "only" to finance 20 or so judges demanded by "just" the F2B event? I don't think so! So would we in future have a (MUCH) higher entry fee for F2B contestants and a lower entry fee for the F2A, F2C, and F2D contestants? And what about F2F entry fees (provisional beginners Team Race class)? Again ladies and gentlemen, sorry, but I just don't think this is very practical – there are plenty in F2B who feel that today they are already paying too much! When talking about entry fees, it seems to me we sometimes forget that the major differences when comparing RC with C/L are that they (RC generally) have more contestants to spread their costs over, and without any snide remarks intended, it does also seem that in general, RC contestants are a little more willing to dig deep(er) into their pockets than are many C/L'ers. So Doc goes on to tell us to think sponsorship and to "think outside the box". Good, let's do just that. To me that last phrase means (trying to) look at our sport with the eyes of the "outsider". So what do we see?. First of all we must accept that today most outsiders have never even seen or heard of C/L, and unless and until we get back to the times when C/L was flown in every school yard and every empty factory car park (and when every town had a model shop full of C/L goods), that fact is only going to change VERY slowly (and then only if ALL C/L'ers do a lot more than - generally speaking - we all do today to make our presence felt and understood/accepted by "the general public"). Think about that seriously for a minute please - I sincerely believe that this really is a true statement. What else does the outsider see when looking at C/L? Well again being totally "outside the box" for a moment, all "we" (even aeromodellers experienced in other disciplines) see is people going round and round in dizzy aimless circles flying models that don't even look like "real aeroplanes". Think about that too for a moment, and ask yourself, honestly, just as one example, how many spectators (apart from other contestants and their friends & family) do we see around the circle - even at the FINAL of a WORLD Champs event (be it Stunt, Team Race, or Combat - Speed doesn't really have a final)? Ladies and gentlemen, the reality is that even within the ranks of aeromodellers, C/L is in general today more tolerated than it is appreciated and accepted, and certainly for the non-aeromodelling "general public", the above "real pictures" really do apply. We all know that C/L is not really like I described above, but to think (realistically) outside the box we MUST learn to look at ourselves dispassionately, with those outsiders' eyes. Why must we look at ourselves in this (very unkind) way? Simply because Doc J talks about sponsorship, so lets look at that too (again in a dispassionate, totally objective way). First, even when times are economically good (and they certainly are NOT good right now), no company is going to give real in-depth sponsorship to C/L as it stands today - they really aren't. Why not? Simply because sponsorship is (for those companies that do it at all) simply a means of getting their name/logo/product/service known amongst the widest possible number of potential purchasers at the lowest possible cost per head. For the reasons above, C/L does NOT offer that to any company, be it an aeromodelling company or any business outside the sport. Where does (the majority) of aeromodelling sponsorship come from today? From INSIDE the sport, and NOT from "general" companies and organisations. And bearing in mind the picture of C/L that I've painted above, it is hardly surprising that the vast majority of the (relatively small compared to other sports) amount of sponsorship money/goods which is available to aeromodelling today comes from those firms who sell the products that we all see in every ad and every shop - i.e. RC gear, and NOT C/L. And where does that money go when it reaches aeromodelling? The vast majority goes to the (top level) contestants who do use the (RC) control gear, the (RC) engines, the (RC) kits and ARTF models, etc, etc, that we do see in every ad and in every model shop. In reality, and with very few honourable exceptions (and with all due respect, only with very small amounts in real terms), the little sponsorship which does come to aeromodelling at the international level comes from the suppliers of RC aeromodelling goods and services, NOT to C/L. So what about sponsorship from companies and organisations not directly connected to aeromodelling? Well, having been personally deeply involved in the organisation of several major contests, including a World Champs, I believe my own experience will be much the same as everyone else's. It goes like this - the contest organising committee realise that they need more money, so (usually far too late!), they use their LOCAL contacts to get to LOCAL businesses such as hotels, restaurants, electrical contractors, PC suppliers, banks, plumbers, et al, to stump up some goods or services "because we're holding an international contest nearby this Summer, and lots of foreigners will come and that will all be good for the local community". Further, when you look into such sponsorship deeply, my own experience (and that of many others I've spoken to) is that the sponsorship that does come from outside aeromodelling comes only because someone on that contest organising committee had some close employment/political/personal links with the sponsoring businesses concerned. Thus you could easily argue that such “outside” sponsorship is not really coming from outside aeromodelling at all. That is my picture of the true state of aeromodelling sponsorship today, and again without any disrespect to those companies that do sponsor C/L, it is one thing to ask these companies to give us some free kits or motors as prizes (or even to get them to organise a contest for us), but with the status of C/L in general as it is today, it is a completely different kettle of fish for us in the F2B community to ask companies of any stripe to fund the amount required to fly (say) 18 judges across the world, put them into a hotel for a week, then fly them back home again! Such cost is almost certainly outside the level that any C/L companies can afford – for the above reasons RC companies won’t be interested – and as above, C/L simply does not bring a big enough audience to attract true “outside aeromodelling” sponsorship. And sorry Doc, this has been discussed on many occasions in the past (and of course should be again), but in my view no amount of “fiddling” with the present F2 classes in an effort to make them more attractive to the spectators and more “televisable” for the networks will do anything at all for C/L – UNLESS that is we are all prepared to accept C/L class/es which look COMPLETELY different to anything we have today. (And what would THAT do to today’s level of C/L participation?). So ladies and gentlemen, I really do not want to be a prophet of doom and gloom (I love C/L and am as committed to it as anyone else), but for all the reasons laid out above, I really do think that for us to have (say 20) judges at an international F2B contest is not only NOT necessarily the answer to whatever "quality" problems we may have today, but also, given the "economic status" of C/L as it really is today (and as it is most likely to remain for the foreseeable future), I really do believe that if we do decide to finance a large number of judges at F2B contests then we, the F2B community, are going to have to pay those (considerable) extra costs ourselves. Which brings me to Igor's post. Of course he's quite right, and not only does the typical F2B contestant spend a huge amount of time on (usually) building models (and even if buying models, anyway a lot of time on practising), but he/she also already spends a considerable sum on travel, hotels, etc, etc, throughout the year. So in effect, Igor asks "why not spend a bit more to pay for more judges?" My short answer to this is that I really don't know what the overall reaction would be. But what I do definitely know is that there have already been some complaints at CIAM level about the “excessive” entry fees at some World and Euro Champs; and as a specific example, at this year's World Scale Champs in Canada there were at least some complaints (including in the model press) from the RC people about the funding of the judges etc necessary to even bother to include C/L Scale within that contest at all. Perhaps as organiser of this forum may want to set up a suitable voting questionnaire? If so I suggest it be along along the lines of: "How many F2B contestants would be prepared to pay (AT LEAST) triple the present F2B entry fees for a World or Euro Champs?". And with that, another question too: "How many judges would be prepared to judge at a World or Euro Champs if they had to pay all/the majority of their own expenses out of their own pockets?" I think the answers may be interesting! In the meantime your F2B Working Group has to continue work on a practical basis, and from all the above it seems to me VERY unlikely that we are going to be able to fund a large number of judges without digging much deeper into our own pockets. So how about this for an idea? Until we have a definite answer to the above “are we prepared to fund it ourselves?” question, how about we modify the present text in the proposed new F2B rules so that it reads something like QUOTE: …. a minimum of 3 judges …. UNQUOTE: (etc, etc, as required in all the appropriate places)? That way, contest organisers who do feel that I'm wrong and that more judges could be funded (either externally or through the pockets of the participants) would already have the rules framework in place to cater for that. And in cases where the funds aren't available, contest organisers could still work within the existing economic restraints by using the stated minimum number of judges as the total number/s of judges to be actually used. Thanks for bothering to make your voices heard in all the recent posts. With all due respect, and with the Compliments of the Season, to everyone. Andy Sweetland | Tree | 132 |
| Roger Ladds | 2 Circle and Number of Judges. | 22.01.2003 - 13:19:49 |
| I am in agreement with the proposals but for one small point, the use of 5 Judges for the flyoff when using the 2 circle arrangement, why not use all the 6 judges that are available!
I do have a comment however regarding the judges themselves :- reading the comments by others I see the use of the words 'competent', 'quality', 'suitably qualified', to describe the actions of the judges,in the context they were used that is fine but it does beg the question of the level of training of the judges we have listed by the FAI. To explain, we have for the year 2003, 68 judges on the FAI list, as such an organiser has to accept the integrity of the NAC proposing these names as to the level they are trained (as no FAI guide lines exist at the moment), so how does the organiser choose the judges they require for their contest, I suspect the choice is based on the cost of a judge attending the contest and the organisers own knowlege of the judges abilities. As there are no guidelines offered by the FAI with regard to the listed judges competences the organiser has to form their own opinion as to who to ask to sit on the F2B judges panel for that contest. My reason for expanding this subject is 3 fold, 1st - the comments about the number of judges are all reasonable but to increase the number invited relies on the all 68 available judges being to the same standard. 2nd - the cost of the judges attending the contest wether this is 5 or 20 has to reflect in some way the ability of those judges to execute their duties in a competent manner. 3rd - having gone to the expense of inviting these people to sit on the F2B judging panel why even consider 'dropping' scores or 'dropping' judges, it is possible to use all of these people. Now I realise the organiser has no control of the above issues other than what is already written in the current edition of the Rules and to discuss changing the rules to reflect the above is beyond the scope of this discussion point but there is one improvement that can be be implemented at NO COST. In my limited experience (it is hear that I bow to my peers)I have listened to comments by competitors, team managers, team coaches, read reports and seen for myself in many ways that judges are not perfect! but how can we expect them to be? the organisation throws together 5 or more people from different cultures and backgrounds and expects them to perform their duties all to the same standard with 2 or 3 'training' flights only, it will never and does not happen!. My reason for discussing this is to suggest that a period of 'Judges Training'be provided at the contest during the first few days when the F2B judges are normally stood down and have the time. This period can be used to 'bond' the judges into a competent panel and attempt to level the cultural differences, this can be undertaken by the Chief Judge who shall be the most experienced of the group with an input from the FAI jury. This can be achieved at NO COST and would go a long way to improving the standards so often commented on, organisers whoever they are need to be seen to provide the best possible conditions for the competitors to 'ply their trade'. | Tree | 133 |
| Joan McIntyre | no. of circles and judges | 23.01.2003 - 10:25:58 |
| I am in total agreement with Roger regarding the additional improvement he suggested, which could be put into effect at no additional cost to organisers. In fact, this particular format is already in place in the USA....the Judging Forum or intensive training sessions, which take place before the US Nationals. These are invaluable sessions, which only benefit both judges and competitors, and would seem to me to be almost a prerequisite at such a meet as a World or Continental Championship. It would certainly demonstrate most effectively our determination to
raise the levels of proficiency and professionalism among the judging ranks, and would, I am sure,be recognised as a step in the right direction by the fliers themselves. | Tree | 134 |
| Peter Germann | Judges Quality Control | 23.01.2003 - 12:22:56 |
| In his contribution from January 22, Roger Ladds brings up the topic of Judges Qualification and on-site pre Championship judges training.
Qualification of judges listed by the FAI is of course of vital importance and we ( the F2B Working Group and the F2 Subcommitee) are committed to develop the tools required to make sure that the qualification of judges defining winners somehow matches the efforts provided by the competitors. In order to properly inform the community about pending matters I would like publish here the draft of a proposal having been prepared, on request of the F2 S/C Chairman Dr. Laird Jackson, by the F2B Working Group in February 2002: ----- QUOTE ------- DRAFT: PROPOSED PROCEDURE FOR QUALIFYING F2B JUDGES The purpose of this procedure is to ensure that all judges included on the FAI list of F2B judges are of a high enough standard to judge FAI-sanctioned F2B contests. The procedure is based on paragraph 4B.2 of the "Annex 4B Judges Guide" section of the current FAI Sporting Code. Please refer to complete wording therein. Those recommendations shall apply to all NAC's who wish to have their judge/s placed on the FAI list of F2B judges. NAC's should ensure that all F2B judges it lists possess a defined standard of training, expertise, and proficiency. This should be done by: Providing judges with translations of current F2B rules and Judges Guide (to be available from the F2 Subcommittee and eventually also from the CIAM F2 web site, including some supporting documents in a variety of languages); Arranging regular judges training and re-training; Providing records of training attended and number of contests judged, both of these in a form suitable for inclusion within the list of NAC-approved judges; No later than by 15th November of each World Championship year, NAC's shall submit a list of F2B judges to the CIAM Bureau. Such list should include name and contact details for each judge, plus details as per item c) above. The Bureau shall forward the complete F2B judges lists received from every NAC (complete with all details received) to the F2 Subcommittee (or it's appointee/s): The F2 Subcommittee/appointee/s shall: Check the judges listed by each NAC based on the records provided by the NAC, deleting every name for which nil or insufficient details of previous training and experience are listed (as per item c) above); Check the resulting edited list with the "Numerical Judging Analyses" (NJA) already performed by the Subcommittee (where applicable), and remove unacceptable names as indicated by the NJA. The F2 Subcommittee/appointee/s shall then submit the resulting edited list to the F2 Subcommittee Technical Meeting held prior to the CIAM Plenary Meeting for final vetting. The Plenary Meeting shall then accept/reject the resulting list of names for inclusion under Category F2B within the new "Nominations Of FAI International Judges For Aeromodelling For XXXX" (year). ----- UNQUOTE -------- The F2 Subcommitee is at work and will carry forward this project. Once the current rule revision will be on its way to the NAC's and the Plenary Meeting, the above matter will become a high priority item. Kind regards, Peter Germann, Co-ordinator | Tree | 135 |
| Keith Renecle | Number of judges for final | 31.01.2003 - 06:05:28 |
| I agree with all the comments about judges training and qualification, but using more than five judges spread out around the perimeter of the circle only causes more problems. The angle that each judge actually sees the manoeuvre gets more difficult.
The high/low dropping of the scores, I believe does keep some control of extreme scoring, so until some better averaging system is developed, we should stick to it. This needs some more input from everyone. The proposed rule says that the head and deputy head judges would confer and select 5 out of the 6 judges. How would they actually do this? If this is to be done by a good mathematical system, then maybe this could be used to select the three most consistent judges from each round, and then their scores can be added together. I remember seeing a similar system from Hans Visser in a report by Henk de Jong. Maybe we should have another look at this? | Tree | 136 |
| Shareen Fancher | Re: Number of judges for final | 01.02.2003 - 06:27:43 |
| I agree wholeheartedly with Keith. The number of judges should stay at five and throw out high and low. In the USA we have used as many as seven judges and I feel that with that many whoever stands on the sides of the group gets a slanted vision of the maneuvers.
As far as selecting the five it can easily be done by watching the scores. There might be a mathematical equation to do the selection but before that is found or established watching the scores coming in can give you a lot of clues. I am also a strong proponent of dropping high and low scores. I have been tabulating the USA NATS for over 25 years and the US Team Trials for three years and I can site actual times when not throwing out high and low have caused ties or scores that shouldn't have happened---one judge pulling up the average by coming 100 points above the rest of the judges. Believe me, even with five judges one judge can raise a score a significant amount if he comes in way high or way low on an individual score. | Tree | 137 |
| Shareen Fancher | Re: Number of judges for final | 01.02.2003 - 06:27:55 |
| I agree wholeheartedly with Keith. The number of judges should stay at five and throw out high and low. In the USA we have used as many as seven judges and I feel that with that many whoever stands on the sides of the group gets a slanted vision of the maneuvers.
As far as selecting the five it can easily be done by watching the scores. There might be a mathematical equation to do the selection but before that is found or established watching the scores coming in can give you a lot of clues. I am also a strong proponent of dropping high and low scores. I have been tabulating the USA NATS for over 25 years and the US Team Trials for three years and I can site actual times when not throwing out high and low have caused ties or scores that shouldn't have happened---one judge pulling up the average by coming 100 points above the rest of the judges. Believe me, even with five judges one judge can raise a score a significant amount if he comes in way high or way low on an individual score. | Tree | 138 |
| Roger Ladds | Judges Training | 06.02.2003 - 10:59:59 |
| Thanks for your comments Peter.
We in the U.K. have been running a 'judges training' programe for the last three years, as our team selection takes place over a number of events (six for 2003) we have found it more beneficial to use dedicated training events. Each judge has been issued with a 'Record Card' to log his training and competitions attended as a judge, this enables us to track the individual judges commitment. We have noticed a distinct improvement in the judges performance overall and this does give us the oportunity to address any one off problems very quickly on a personal basis. These training sessions are run on a discussion basis rather than a 'you will' teach basis, we find the response is much better. Peters reply answered the Judges Training question but so far no comments about 'on site pre - championship judges training' I think this has equal value to regular training as our American colleagues can testify, moreso where we have judges of different nationalities involved - comments please!!!! I agree with Shareen and Keith with regard to the use of 5 judges, my comments were more to highlight the financial aspect that we need to make sure we are getting the best from the personel we have on site. | Tree | 139 |
| Peter Germann | 3 & 5 judges / high-low dropping; Closing Message | 12.02.2003 - 17:50:27 |
|
Ladies & Gentlemen, Thanks for all your inputs on the subjects which were opened up for your consideration on 5th December 2002. Before moving on to the next group of discussion subjects, Andy and I thought it appropriate to give you all a round up of all the posts you made regarding those 5th December subjects, (and not the least, we want to thank all of you for taking the trouble to input your ideas and suggestions; also to encourage you to keep on posting; and, if it's not already too late, to wish you all a Happy New Year and all the best for the forthcoming contest season - in the N. Hemisphere anyway!). Just to refresh everyone's memory, the 3 subjects opened up on 5th December were: 1) Subject: First was the matter of overall contest duration versus large number of contestants (100+?) versus length of judges working day (i.e. use of 2 circles for Official Flights, WHEN the site permits and/or WHEN the number of contestants so requires). Summary of posts/our responses: That's a long way of saying that we proposed the use of either 1 or 2 circles (at major contests), and judging by all your reactions, the idea seems to be OK with everyone, so no more comments here, and no changes to the Draft F2B Rules that you can down load from the Forum either (i.e. no changes on this subject). 2) Subject: Second, and of course very much linked into a) above, was the number of judges to be used, especially when a contest is going to be flown on 2 circles. Summary of posts/our responses: Initially there were quite a few inputs saying, more or less "the more (judges) the merrier" (please excuse us for apparent flippancy here, we are definitely NOT trying to denigrate the opinions posted by anyone, but simply trying to précis all the inputs into a short commentary). However, after Andy marked his return from hospital to the PC keyboard by waxing loud and long on the Forum about the practicalities of paying for "a large number" of judges, the lack of strong reaction against his suggestion that we make some wording changes to the Draft Rules by allowing for "a minimum of 3 ... " (in the case of contests using 1 circle), and "a minimum of 5 ..... " (to cover contest using 2 circles) seemed to indicate this idea would be OK with everyone. We have therefore changed the Draft Rules accordingly. (Incidentally, it was also suggested that for 2 circle contests, instead of using just 5 from the 6 judges that would be available on site, as we originally proposed, why not use all 6? To us this seemed a good idea - and again, nobody reacted strongly against that suggestion - so the above changes to the latest Draft F2B Rules are deliberately worded so that using this idea would indeed be possible). To summarise, it seems that at least in some countries who may be running major F2B contests in future, there is a strong feeling that it would indeed be possible to use more than the 3 or 5 judges that we originally proposed (as Peter has already pointed out, that 3 or 5 number was purely for practical and financial reasons, and already represents nearly a 20% increase on today's judge numbers and costs). But anyway, if you now down load the above latest revision to the Draft F2B Rules (now dated 28th January 2003) you will (hopefully!) see that the revised wording does now give enough flexibility to any contest organiser who wants to go any/all of the above route/s. 3) Subject: Thirdly, we discussed the possible method/s of scoring when using the above "minimum of" 3 or 5 judges (i.e. dropping high/low scores). Summary of posts/our responses: Here we have rather more to say, not only because there were quite a few posts on this subject, but also because there were a number of VERY well-respected and experienced people inputting, AND also because opinion seems pretty evenly divided. Again we intend absolutely no flippancy and certainly no disrespect to anyone when we say that the idea of dropping highs/lows seems to polarise the Stunt community into 2, roughly equally sized, opposing camps. And again, absolutely no disrespect is intended when we say that not only are the opinions on this point pretty strongly held, but also, the arguments for and against seem to be very much repeats of what we already saw when we first went to the Stunt community (via the National Reps) with the Draft F2B Rules back in 2000/2001. Our own view is that the case for continuing to drop highs/lows has still not been proven - PROVIDED that the people judging the contest are properly trained, well experienced, and correctly motivated. It is our clear intention that with the adoption of the new F2B Rules the FAI/CIAM/contest organisers will be doing more in the area of appointing "proper" judges, and so here is our summary of the reasons why we have stuck to the idea of NOT dropping highs/lows: It is invidious and may seem unfair to quote from only one post (and we hope that Shareen Fancher will not take offence - she clearly has the track record and experience to be able to hold a very valid opinion which we should all listen to). But we've picked Sharon's post simply because in one area particularly she has very clearly encapsulated the main "fears" that the dropping highs/lows proponents seem to mention every time. On 6th December Shareen wrote: " .......... Either way a not so good judge could use the system to try to manipulate his biases.". Firstly, although all posts on Forums ("Forii"?!) such as ours understandably tend to produce wording and phraseology which is much closer to face-to-face speech than "writing old fashioned letters and articles", (and we DO make allowances for that fact), we really must take issue with 3 words/phrases in the above verbatim quote: a) Firstly " ... not so good judges .... ". We believe that at least at major F2B contests, there should not be any "not so good judges" in future, and as already mentioned above, (and see also our further comments in point 5 below), we aim to do something (more) to improve today's situation. b) Secondly, the use of the word "manipulate" seems to us to suggest a possible "malice aforethought" on the part of at least some judges. Our view on this is that there have, up to now, been VERY few instances in which judges at major F2B contests have been PROVEN to be deliberately manipulating scores (despite the oft-heard remarks from some contestants and TM's to the contrary!). Certainly in recent years, the few PROVEN cases that have been detected by CIAM and have been officially and properly dealt with. This situation appears to us to have been further improved by the use of Bruno Delor's "Statistical Analysis of Judges Scores" procedure which, whilst we are certainly not competent to comment on its technical accuracy, does in practice seem to have, for quite some time now, been giving all post-Championships contest reviews a very good insight into what the judges were doing - certainly the results of those analyses have apparently been quite acceptable to CIAM and the F2 Sub Committee up to now. c) Thirdly, the use of the word "biases" also seems wrong to us (and again, please, we are NOT trying to nit-pick or to be at all disrespectful here). But to us the word "bias/es" also suggests a degree of "deliberate manipulation" which is not present in F2B reality. Naturally, all human beings have "preferences", ("I prefer broccoli to cabbage") and that, quite rightly, includes (even) F2B judges! But as above, PROVIDED we use properly trained, qualified, selected, and motivated judges, we think it is quite all right for judges to have preferences (but NOT biases). And we think that this is especially important because in future we are all going to be working WITHIN THE (MUCH TIGHTER) LIMITS OF THE NEW MANOEUVRE DESCRIPTIONS (see Draft F2B Rules); and WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE SCORING PROCEDURES (see current FAI Annex number F4B, "F2B Judging Guide" - and you can thank the FAI for that F4B/F2B numbering confusion, not us!). In short, we believe that ALL scores from ALL judges should be used at ALL contests for the following reasons: a) Surely everyone would agree that for a judge to have "his/her own" scores dropped COULD, at the very least, act as a personal de-motivator. We want to stop that (potential) disadvantage; b) We cannot prove it of course (but neither can the highs/lows proponents dis-prove it!), but we do strongly believe that there is at least a very strong likelihood that dropping highs/lows can put at least some pressure on at least some judges to "conform to the 6.5 to 8 point norm" - especially when judges know that at F2B Championship contests, there will be an after analysis of the scores awarded to all contestants by all judges; c) And to repeat, ASSUMING USE OF "PROPER" JUDGES, we do actually want to ENCOURAGE one judge to score a particular manoeuvre as, say, a 3 (if that's what he/she says he/she has really seen), whilst another judge may have seen the same manoeuvre by the same contestant as, say, a 6. (Just to add here, we certainly do accept that at least towards the top of the entry list there may well be only a small number of points differentiating contestants of very similar capabilities; but we also believe that as you go further down the entry list we should be seeing a greater differentiation between contestants than we sometimes see today) And anyway, we certainly do NOT want to in any way "artificially limit" any judges' scope to differentiate; d) Even the strongest proponents of dropping highs/lows must surely agree that having x judges on site and then throwing the results of x minus 1 or 2 judges overboard is, at the very least, a waste of some time/resources/money; e) Surely everyone would agree that for a contest organiser to simply add up all the scores from x judges is a lot easier/quicker/less prone to error than having to add up the scores of x judges, then take away the highest and lowest (or even take away 1 of those 2); f) The proponents of dropping highs/lows have never responded to our (2000/2001) query about "if we're really serious about dropping highs/lows, then why don't we do it like they do in F4B C/L Scale?" (In F4B, organisers have to drop the highest and lowest individual judge's scores for EACH MANOEUVRE flown by each contestant); g) The proponents of dropping highs/lows really do seem to us to be relying very much on "that's the way we've always done it" reasoning, and in their arguments they tend to point to various (some?) contests in the past where individual contestants have "only" been separated from a drawn points situation because of highs/lows dropping. Without intending any sarcasm at all, those arguments cannot (logically) then go on to suggest that if we don't drop highs/lows in future then we'll end up with more drawn contestants (if for no other reason, simply because we have not tried operating without dropping highs/lows before). And anyway, is there something wrong with an (occasional) drawn score? Anyway, for all the reasons above, we have not made any changes to the 28th January 2003 version of the Draft F2B Rules that you'll find on our Forum, but we do genuinely hope the above summary will show that we have once more "listened" respectfully to all the inputs on this. Other Matters (Arising) 1) Latest (28th January 2003 edition) of Draft F2B Rules: As already mentioned above, the latest version is available on the Forum now. It contains all the changes mentioned above, plus some further English language clean ups that Andy found necessary after he came back to the original document from a 6 months lay off (if any of you find anything that they feel could be better worded, do please contact us via the Forum whether it's "on subject" or not - Andy is convinced that it's only by a constant process of re-iteration that will we end up with a clear, unambiguous, and comprehensive document). As Andy is now back and has access to Adobe Acrobat Distiller, we have also taken the opportunity to present the 28th January 2003 edition in that format (i.e. a .pdf file). It has the advantage of reducing the file size compared to MS Word, and also regardless (OK, almost regardless!) of whatever PC, Mac, and/or software you may have, when you read the new document (on screen/on line, or by down loading and screen viewing and/or printing), what you will get will be what exactly Andy has produced, right down to marking the changes in red/bold, etc. For anyone that may (still) not be familiar with .pdf files (it's also what FAI uses for all Sporting Code docs), to read such files you need a special reader called Acrobat Reader. But this is a completely free program and in case you don't already have it loaded on your PC/Mac, we see that Igor has added a link on the Forum so that you can down load Acrobat Reader (thanks, Igor, very thoughtful). 2) "Training/Qualifying" F2B Judges: In the second part of his post dated 22nd January, after discussing the number of judges to be used for a Fly-off, Roger Ladds (UK) went on to suggest a NO COST procedure whereby during the "not busy" days at a Championship, the judges all get together to "bond" into the group who will be (collectively) judging the forthcoming event. Joan McIntyre answered next day saying she also thinks this is a good idea and added that this is what already happens at the US Nationals (AMA Rules). Roger then followed that up with further comments on 6th February detailing the procedures used in UK (which we were already aware of, and which we know are similar to those used in some other countries, including Switzerland; but which we believe may not be used in many other countries, and which a number of people using this Forum may not be aware of). Unfortunately, nobody else responded to those inputs, and whilst Andy and I certainly do not think these are bad ideas (on the contrary), we are a little puzzled about how to go forward in this area, and on how you want to put these ideas into actual (written) practice. So as a follow up to the above posts, could we please ask Joan and Roger (and of course anyone else with ideas in this area) to give us some inputs on exactly what it is you want to see (and perhaps even more critical from our view point, where you want to see it). When answering, could everyone please bear in mind the following points: a) As already noted by Peter (his post dated 23rd January 2003), we have already prepared a Proposal re Qualifying F2B Judges to be considered by CIAM, presumably at the next Plenary meeting (March 2003). Peter quoted that Proposal in it's entirety. Assuming that this Proposal (or something like it) is accepted by CIAM, do we still need to add anything else? b) In the existing Annex F4B ("F2B Judging Guide") we already have "strong recommendations" covering very similar (but perhaps not so detailed) procedures for training and qualifying F2B judges. Is this (together with acceptance of the above Proposal) now enough to achieve what you want? c) Assuming your answers to the above are (respectively) "Yes" and "No", please give us a draft written outline (ALL varieties of English accepted!) of what more should be added. d) Should your ("new/revised") procedure be a RULE or a RECOMMENDATION? e) Where should it be added - i.e. within the new F2B Rules themselves (and don't forget please, we are already criticised in some quarters for being too long/too detailed in the new F2B Rules)? Within the current Annex F4B? Within the Sporting Code General Section, Organisers Guide? f) And please make sure that the actual procedure/s is covered - i. e. when exactly does this "judges bonding" take place (during, say, a World Champs of about 1 week duration)? Where does it take place? Are the judges "just privately observing"? Are they observing official or unofficial practice flights? On site or off site? What "facilities" (space, time, schedule, other - non-contestant - fliers, etc, etc) would the contest organiser need to provide? To repeat our opening comments, please don't take the above list as us being negative. We aren't - in fact, we think that something along the lines of this suggestion could (further) "tighten up" the procedures for getting "proper" judges. All the above list is doing is asking for your help on fixing the exact details of how this should be done - it may even be that this is something that should be done by new individual/s who would work separately to (but in parallel) to the present F2B Working Group (Peter Germann and Andy Sweetland). Over to you Ladies and Gents, and do keep the posts coming please (we have a new group of subjects on the way very soon!). February 12 2003 Peter Germann F2B Working Group and Forum Co-ordinator Andy Sweetland F2 Expert Writer | Tree | 140 |
| Joan McIntyre | Draft proposal dated January 28th,2003. | 13.02.2003 - 03:35:11 |
| Tree | 141 | |
| Joan McIntyre | Draft proposal dayed Jan 28th,2003 | 13.02.2003 - 04:03:54 |
| Peter,
Have printed out and briefly perused the updated document. There are a couple of issues I raised with you regarding the actual wording of the section on definitions, which I am sure you will put on the agenda down the track. My main issue is, at this point in time, a change to the manoeuvre description of the Four Leaf Clover. When the rewrite of the documents was first discussed, and subsequently put to the national reps forming the Working Party, at no time was there any indication that any change would be made to the actual manoeuvre descriptions,or to change the prescribed sizes of said manoeuvres. Even when moves were suggested to change the Take Off and Landing procedures, no mention was made of any other manoeuvre being affected. The Four Leaf Clover has always begun at 38 degrees. A change here was never discussed , and yet it now appears in the draft proposal.(as 42degrees) I would really like to know the thoughts of others on this matter and the rationale behind the PROPOSED change. As you suggest, I will put my thoughts to paper on the issue of judging training. Kind regards, Joan McIntyre | Tree | 142 |
| Andy Sweetland | Four Leaf C lover Definition | 13.02.2003 - 13:20:58 |
| Dear Joan,
Thanks for your input re the Four Leaf Clover Definition. We'd like to make the following points: a) You are quite right, apart from the proposed changes to the Take-off and Landing manoeuvres (subsequently dropped after the Nat Reps inputs in 2000/2001) there have NEVER been any changes to ANY manoeuvres in the draft New F2B Rules. And as of today, there still are NONE - NO CHANGES to the way ALL manoeuvres should be flown. b) What happened was that after starting this Forum, the "software host" Igor Burger plus Keith Trostle (we seem to remember) pointed out that in fact the 38 degrees specified in the Four Leaf Clover description is wrong when using spherical geometry correctly. As you imply, quite correctly, this 38 degrees "dimension" has always been used in all versions of the F2B rules since the year dot (and incidentally, we think within the AMA Rules too), but nevertheless, mathematically, 38 degrees is "the wrong number". c) It was therefore suggested (and discussed on this Forum last year) that simply to be mathematically correct, the DESCRIPITION of the the Four Leaf Clover manoeuvre should be changed from the (mathematically incorrect) 38 degrees to the (mathematically correct) 42 degrees. d) So all we have done is to change the old number 38 to read 42 throughout the Four Leaf Clover manoeuvre description, and incidentally, that change is shown not only in the current (January 2003) New F2B Rules revision, but was also included within the previous (November 2002) version too. e) Please note that in our view this does NOT change anything at all as far as the way pilots should fly the Four Leaf Clover, nor in the way judges should score it - to repeat, we have simply changed an incorrect number to a correct number, and NOT IN ANY WAY affected the manoeuvre itself. And YES Joan, you are quite right with your (implied) use of caps in the last sentence - the WHOLE of the New F2B Rules doc is still a DRAFT (i.e. proposed) document. Thanks for your comment, we hope the above is clear and look forward to your draft on judges' training/bonding. Krgds Peter & Andy | Tree | 143 |
| Andy Sweetland | The current (Jan 28th 2003) edition of the draft New F2B Rules | 13.02.2003 - 13:50:19 |
| Ladies and Gents,
Peter has just pointed out to me that now we have Acrobat Distiller available to us again, it would not be a huge problem to put all the diagrams back into the doc. All we have to do is make a few (small) changes to the original Nov 2001 diagrams (that Peter's work, not mine - I'm a words, not a pictures man), insert them into the original Word file, and then convert the resulting file to .pdf. Not a huge job, and reasonably quick too (and anyway it will have to be done sooner or later, when we're ready to present the "final draft" to CIAM). This would give you all the benefit of having a complete doc to refer to (including all the diagrams with their page breaks, etc), and with Acrobat the file size would still not be too big to handle either. Against that, those who have already down loaded and printed out the current (without diagrams) 28th January 2003 version would have to do it all again. So over to you - we can do this within the next couple of weeks or so. Shall we? | Tree | 144 |
| Peter Germann | 4th group topics for discussion, NOW OPEN | 14.02.2003 - 17:13:48 |
| Dear friends, this opens the discussion on the two following suggestions:
1. ) Points Range, article 4.2.18 a: In order to provide judges with the wider range of points required to distiguish between flyers of very similiar level, the F2B Working Group suggests to define a range of 1-100 points with a smallest increment of 1 point. 2. ) K-Factors, articles 4.2.19 b and e: With the wider points range definitely allowing improved qualification and considering the fact that all competitors are obliged to fly the same manoeuvres in the same sequence, the F2B Working Group does no longer see a need to continue the use of K-factors. For details, please check articles in the last version (JANUARY 28 2003, to be downloaded from this forum) of the draft rule revison. A related voting window will be placed on this Forum in near future, it will remain open until march 31 2003. Thank you for contributing and please tell your fellow flyers and judges to register and to express their opinion! Peter Germann, Forum Co-ordinator. | Tree | 145 |
| Igor Burger | Re: 4th group topics for discussion, NOW OPEN | 17.02.2003 - 13:11:12 |
|
Here are my thoughts based on communication with our Slovak flyers. >>>1. ) Points Range, article 4.2.18 a: In order to provide judges with the wider range of points required to distiguish between flyers of very similiar level, the F2B Working Group suggests to define a range of 1-100 points with a smallest increment of 1 point. <<< 100-point scale can really give better chance to make fine judgment. I do not think the increment of 1 is necessary because I do not think a judge can recognize mistakes in 1% precision, but it is practical and we will vote for. Especially if judge can choose old “half point” scale of 20 possible values by choosing 5 points increment. The only question is how to be sure that a judge judging in 1% precision can secure consistency of judging over several days of WC or EC. So to convert it to technical language – do not judge have more than 1% drift over long periode judgment? We know that judge needs a warm up to get at least somehow consistency. I think the only way is serious training, but training needs feedback, feedback need judgment and I cannot imagine how to judge judges on training :-). >>>2. ) K-Factors, articles 4.2.19 b and e: With the wider points range definitely allowing improved qualification and considering the fact that all competitors are obliged to fly the same manoeuvres in the same sequence, the F2B Working Group does no longer see a need to continue the use of K-factors.<<< This fired up lot of speaking. We have two points of view: A/ Subjective: The judge must consider complexity (I do not speak about difficulty – it is problem of flyer, not the judge). It is so because single divergence in simple level flight must cost flyer different number (more) of points that the same divergence in straight segment of square eight. Just because eight is more complex. We mean that such simple error in two different figures should cost same amount of points. Why to pardon a wave in square eight if we do not pardon it in level flight. I think all figures shall to be flown with the same care. OR by other word, if I work more, I should get more, if I miss something, I must pay same (does not matter where). Another point of view to the same effect is, that if two flyers fly EXACTLY same pattern, except of two figures – level and square eight – one fly better level – the second eight, than we mean that the pilot able to make better that more complex eight should be scored better. Just because F2B is about stunt, not about level flying. I think we should push pilots to concentrate also to more complex figures, where they do more mistakes and not to say – „this is too complex, I will do error anyway, so forget it“. B/ Objective. We are calling for expanding of scores, because results are very close. 10-point scale or 100-point scale or whatever scale does not solve it, because it comes from ability (precision) of judges. They just need tool to expand it. I asked several times for a points given on some world championship, unfortunately all my call was ignored. I do not know if results are something secret – I think it should be accessible. However with help of Stephan Raetsch I got at least some extraction from Sebnitz. I used also many other results done on my software, so I was able to do following research. I compared results with and without K factor. The result is clearly to see. K factor EXPANDS percentual differences between pilots on top. I do not mean proportional enlarging of differences together with maximal possible amount for whole pattern. I mean that those differences are higher than proportional. It is probably because experienced pilots fly all figures with similar care, and K factor converts pattern like containing more figures – and if we count every mistake almost same way (point A) than the difference is more visible. The same goes on with equivalent scores – K factor converts it to rarity. It means that quitting with K factor will do similar thing, as less figures in pattern would be. The only argument pro can be fact that 2 circles qualification will allow more flights and thus make same effect like K factor, but we have also local 1 circle contests with 40 and more flyers and that can be a problem. So to collect it – we are against eliminating K factor. igor | Tree | 146 |
| Keith Trostle | Re: Draft proposal dayed Jan 28th,2003 | 19.02.2003 - 08:57:25 |
| Peter,
I tried sending this earlier and just learned that it did not go through. Hopefully, this one gets through. This is in response to the comments from Joan McIntyre regarding the proposed change to the four leaf clover. I believe the proposed change to the FAI four leaf clover description is based on a change proposal to our AMA pattern description. I submitted the change proposal to our AMA pattern four leaf clover description based on calculations that essentially proved that the four leaf clover cannot be flown as described in the rule book with the horizontal intersection at the "approximately 38-degree" elevation. I wrote an article in the PAMPA newsletter (Stunt News) that explained the background for this proposed change. I know that many enthusiasts have not had the opportunity to read that article. I am repeating it here so that others might read the rational that supports the proposed rule change. This is the article as it appeared in the Nov/Dec 2002 issue of Stunt News. I apologize for not converting some of the units to metric, but I hope the meaning comes through. A PERSPECTIVE ON THE FOUR LEAF CLOVER or The Four Leave Clover 38 Degree Elevation Angle is Wrong or The Four Leaf Clover Cannot be Flown as Described by the Rule Book or The Four Leaf Clover Has Been Wrong for Forty Years INTRODUCTION: The AMA rule book requires the four loops of the four leaf clover to be approximately 38 degrees in diameter. It is geometrically impossible to form a four leaf clover as described by the rule book. If the four leaf clover is to be flown with four equal diameter loops, where each loop is tangent to two others, the bottom two loops are tangent to the normal flight altitude (3.9 to 5.9 feet) and the top two loops are tangent with the vertical plane through the circle center, the entry elevation and the elevation of the horizontal intersections must be "approximately 42 degrees" , not the "approximately 38 degrees" now specified in the rule book. A rules change proposal has been submitted to the Control Line Aerobatic Contest Board in the current cycle to change the AMA rulebook to correct the current 38 degree parameter to 42 degrees. DISCUSSION: The AMA rulebook for Precision Aerobatics provides the following maneuver description of the Four Leaf Cover: "The maneuver is entered from level flight at approximately 38 degrees elevation, and consist of one (1) full inside loop, level flight, three-fourths (3/4) of an outside loop, vertical climb, three-fourths (3/4) of an outside loop, level inverted flight, three-fourths (3/4) of an outside loop, and a vertical climb. The right loops are tangent to the left loops along a vertical plane of symmetry through the center of the clover leaf, and the bottom loops are tangent to the top loops. The loops are of equal size and they are connected by horizontal and vertical flight paths. The bottom points of the maneuver shall be at 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) height, and the top shall be tangent to the vertical plane through the circle center. When the last loop is performed, the maneuver is made complete by a vertical climb through the center of the four leaf clover." Over the years, there have been some refinements on how the maneuver description has been written. One element that has remained unchanged in the four leaf maneuver description for at least the past 20 years is the "approximately 38 degrees elevation" for the entry and horizontal intersections. It appears that when this 38 degree elevation angle was generated, it was realized that the horizontal intersection would be less than the 45 degrees parameter that define the elevation angles for most of the other maneuvers in the pattern. It further appears that it was assumed that this elevation angle at the center of the four leaf clover would be slightly less than 40-degrees and an "estimate" of 38-degrees was generated. There is no known calculation to show how the 38 degree elevation angle was derived. For the past many years, this 38 degree elevation has essentially been inviolate in how the pattern is to be flown. It is apparent that this 38 degree parameter has never been challenged or any calculation made to determine if it is accurate. When the FAI rules adopted the AMA pattern in the 1960's, the FAI used different wording for the maneuver descriptions, but the 38 degree elevation angle of the four leaf entry was used. Subsequent to the FAI adopting the AMA pattern, the AMA rules incorporated the FAI maneuver descriptions sometime before 1980 and in so doing, adopted the same 38 degree elevation angle. Another element of the four leaf clover that has not changed over the years is that the two upper loops are to be tangent to the vertical plane through the circle center. These terms have been in the FAI rules since before 1980 which is about the time the AMA rules adopted the FAI maneuver description. I recently asked Pete Soule to examine the four-leaf clover and actually calculate what the horizontal elevation angle should be. Pete is a retired space satellite engineer (as in related to a rocket scientist), is now a consultant to the aerospace industry, a highly respected model enthusiast, author of several technical papers leading to broader understanding of the aerodynamics of control line model airplanes, and a mathematician adept in spherical geometry. (Pete wrote the Round-and-Round column for several years in Model Airplane News and was a member several times of the U.S. FAI F2C team.) Pete understands that the rulebook specifies that the four loops of the four leaf clover are to be the same size, that any one loop must be tangent to two others, that the two bottom loops are tangent to the bottom (equator) of the circle and the top two loops are tangent to the vertical plane through the circle center. Based on this rule book definition, Pete calculated that the elevation angle for the entry and the size of the four loops of equal diameter that defines the four leaf clover is 41.88 degrees. Pete's 41.88 degree calculation has been verified by two entirely independent and credible sources. Pete also describes that portion of the hemisphere that the four leaf clover is flown in as a "quadrisphere". This is an appropriate term in the fact that the four leaf clover is completely bounded by exactly one-half of the hemisphere we fly in. For those who wish to check, Pete has a paper with his calculations on his web site at http://members.cox.net/vcb13/. (A word of caution: You will need to be well versed in vector analysis and spherical geometry to understand his methodology.) So, what does this mean? It means that the loops of the four-leaf clover should be almost 42-degrees, not the "approximately 38 degrees" specified in the rulebook. It means that the 38 degree elevation angle has forced the entry to be less than 45 degrees by an exaggerated amount and causes distortion in how the four-leaf clover is presented in front of the judges. If the bottom loops are within the 38 degree elevation, the top loops must be much larger than 38-degrees if they are to be tangent with that vertical plane through the circle center. Or conversely, if the loops are all to be 38 degrees in diameter, the top two loops will not reach and cannot possibly be tangent to the vertical plane through the circle center. Over the years, the accepted way to fly and judge the four-leaf clover at our Nationals and FAI Team trials is that the loops all must be significantly smaller than all of the other round loops in the pattern and the top of the four leaf clover is essentially flown (albeit wrong to do so) in front of the pilot rather than above the pilot's shoulders at those tangent points to the vertical plane through the circle center. The point here is that the horizontal intersection and the diameter of the loops of the four leaf clover are to be just less than 42 degrees, not "approximately 38 degrees". A 42 degree loop is not much smaller than the rest of the 45 degree loops in the pattern and will be noticeably larger than the small loops which are often times flown by the top flyers in the U.S. as the accepted standard now for the four leaf clover. The rulebook needs to be changed since a dimensionally correct four leaf clover cannot be flown as it is defined in the rulebook. In correspondence with the CL Aerobatics Contest Board, several rule book change alternatives were considered to correct this dichotomy. 1.. If it is accepted that the four leaf clover was to be flown with the top loops tangent to the vertical plane through the circle center and that the four loops are to be the same size, the "approximately 38 degrees" term should be changed to either "approximately 42 degrees" or "just less than 42 degrees" or "41.88 degrees". 2.. a. Another approach would be to maintain the "approximately 38 degrees" specification for the entry which in turn is the altitude for the intersections and the parameter that defines the size of the four loops in the maneuver. This would require a new definition for what the altitude (or elevation) should be for the top two loops. This could be calculated, but would be something just less than but would be very close to a 76 degree elevation which would place the tops of these two loops well in front of the pilot, not above his shoulders where the rule book now positions the tops of those two loops. The consensus of the Contest Board is that this is not the intent of what the four leaf clover was meant to be. Otherwise, the words about the tangency of the top loops to the vertical plane through the circle center would not be in the rule. b. A variation of this would be to again maintain the "approximately 38 degrees" specification for the bottom loops and the horizontal intersection elevation, but require the upper two loops to be large enough to become tangent to the vertical plane through the center circle. These upper loops would be in excess of 45 degrees in diameter. The Contest Board neither considers this to be the manner the four leaf clover should be flown. Rules change proposals for the current 2005 rules change cycle had to be submitted to the AMA by October 1. 2002. With concurrence of the CL Aerobatics Contest Board, I submitted a rules change proposal by the October 1 deadline. The proposal is to simply change "approximately 38 degrees" term to "approximately 42 degrees" and to change accordingly the 38 degree terms in the drawing of the maneuver, in the errors section of the maneuver description (paragraph 13.14) and in the judges guide, (paragraph 15.3.14). This is only a change proposal at this time. As such, it can be adopted, modified, or rejected by the Contest Board. Cross proposals can be made at some subsequent time. Comments any AMA member might have regarding this proposal should be forwarded to their District representative on the CL Aerobatics Contest Board. Keith Trostle | Tree | 147 |
| Keith Trostle | Re: 2 Circle and Number of Judges. | 19.02.2003 - 09:08:39 |
| Subject: FAI F2B World Championships Qualification Format
Peter, I know these comments are a little late. I thought these comments had been posted, but I have since learned that a number items that I thought I had posted did not actually get sent. It is a problme of me not knowing how to operate in the system. My apologies. I know these comments are late, but I still wanted to get my ideas forwarded. You have seen my comments before regarding the qualification process to use for the WCs. I do not want to elaborate again about the advantages of prescribing a three or four-circle format during the qualification process at the World Championships (WCs). Here in the US, we have become accustomed to use as many as four circles for qualifying flights at our Nationals. I also understand that the F2B rules proposal that you are formulating using two circles for qualifications is in recognition of the normally limited space and facilities at most venues where a WC competition would be held. We have also become accustomed to using as many as five judges for each qualifying circle and seven or more during the finals of our Nationals as well as at our F2B Team Trials. I know that Warren Tiahrt and Shareen Fancher have submitted their recommendations to you regarding the number of judges for the qualification rounds and for the finals. (As you probably already know, Warren has been the Event Director at our Nationals and our Team Trials for close to the last ten years. Shareen has been in charge of tabulation at every one of our Nationals and Team Trials since 1975, as well as being the PAMPA Secretary for probably the last 10 years or so. She has a very good understanding of and insight into the workings and formats used at a major stunt competition.) I also recommend the use of at least 10 judges, 5 judges on each of the two qualification circles. I would think the host nations could work out the entry fee to pay for the number of judges to do the job properly. As Warren mentioned, I will also reference the last WCs for RC Pattern where 25 judges were listed in the reports of that competition. If the RC WCs can accommodate 25 judges, it seems we could provide transportation for 6 or 8 guest judges. (This assumes that the host country provides a judge for each of the two circles.) I can appreciate, however, that the financing of the RC championships is probably considerably different than how a host country must budget for and pay for a Control Line World Championship. There is a "practical" approach to the number of judges, which is the 3 judges for each of the two qualification circles, allowing the host country to provide one judge for each of the two circles. Then, for the finals, there will be 5 judges, each from a separate country, including one from the host country. Therefore, no more judges would need to be "imported" from other countries than the current system. If it would be possible, instead of specifying a set number (5) of judges for the finals, I suggest that the rules allow for a minimum of 5 judges, as is the current practice, but allow more up to a maximum of 5 per circle during qualification rounds and up to 7 for the finals at the discretion of the host country. (It is difficult and awkward to have more than 7 judges on a circle because only a few can ever be in the more optimum position to view the pattern being flown.) This would allow 4 judges on each qualification circle, where the host country provides a judge for each circle. Then for the finals, each of the 7 judges used would be from separate countries where 6 would be from other than the host country. If 8 judges are "imported" so that there could be 5 judges for each qualifying circle, there will be several judges (3) that will not be used during the finals rounds. This will allow the Event director to select the more competent judges for the finals based on assessments of the scores that can be done before the final rounds start. If the CIAM requires the use of specific number of judges rather than allowing some flexibility of only specifying a minimum number for the WCs, then it appears that the number of 5 remains the most practicable. Whatever the number of judges used for qualifications and the finals, I do not think the high and low scores should be eliminated. I understand that analysis of the scores from the previous several WCs has shown that little or no difference would have been made in the outcome had all the judges' scores been used in the tabulation. I do not have any statistics to back up my thoughts here, but I am certain that some judges (not all) will deliberately narrow their range of scoring near a moderate score to avoid their scores being discarded for being either too high or too low. This happens even though judges are instructed to use the range of scores available to them and not to be concerned if their scores are being discarded as high or low. (Actually, in an ideal world, one individual judge should always have his score discarded for always being high, and another judge should also have his score always discarded for always being low. But then those individual judges begin to think their time is being wasted, when indeed they are doing their jog and they are doing it right.) I also believe that one judge can skew (deliberately or by poor judgment) the resulting score of a flight regardless if the high and low scores are discarded or not when as few as 5 or 7 judges are used. For these reasons, I recommend keeping all of the judges' scores in the tabulation of the average score of each flight and regardless of the number of judges being used. For the following, I am assuming that there will be a two-circle qualification format. I am also assuming that each flyer will be given the opportunity to fly two flights on each of the two circles. Or, in other words, each flyer will fly two flights in front of two sets of judges for a total of four flights. This will allow each contestant to demonstrate his ability in front of different sets of judges, more flights to do so, and reduce the affect of weather or other unplanned experiences that would otherwise impact a fair opportunity to qualify for the finals. Given the above, the placing/qualification score should be based on the sum of the single best flight from each set of judges. This means the qualification score is based on two flights and that the poorest flight from each set of the judges is discarded and not used. Within this format, discarding the poorest scores from each set of judges minimizes as much as possible the variables of weather from one round to another and any inconsistencies that might occur in any individual judge's scoring. (This is an unfortunate reality given the judges are working out there for 3 to 4 days, each being 8 to 10 hours long.) Now, we get to a subject that might need to be in the rules at least in some form of an outline. Given the fact that we will probably only be using two circles and that each pilot will be able to have four official flights, we have not reduced the load on the individual judges. We have twice the number of circles, but also have twice the number of flights. So each judge will still see the same number of flights during the qualification rounds as before. Given the number of entries at recent WCs and what can be expected in the future, there needs to be some outline as to the number of days allowed for the qualification rounds. If the entry level is around 60, the qualification rounds can be easily accommodated in three days. If the entry level is 90 or more, four days will be required for the qualification rounds. There is a number somewhere between 60 and 80 entrants where a transition must occur to dictate when three or four days should be scheduled for the qualification rounds. Examples with 2 circles being used and each pilot gets 2 flights on each circle (4 flights): 1.. 60 entries, 3 days: 240 flights total, 120 flights on each circle, 40 flights per day per judge. This is a reasonable and comfortable workload on the judges. 2.. 90 entries, 3 days: 360 flights total. 180 flights on each circle, 60 flights per day per judge. This is an unreasonable workload on the judges. 3.. 90 entries, 4 days: 360 flights total. 180 flights on each circle, 45 flights per day. This is a reasonable workload on the judges. Even with 100 entries, there would be 50 flights per day per judge. This is about the limit to ask of the judges, particularly for 4 straight days with the finals yet to come as well as probably having a Junior category finals. If 50 flights are assumed to be the maximum that we should expect judges to score any day, then somewhere around 75 or slightly less is the maximum number of entries that should be scheduled for only a 3-day qualification period. Now, for the number of finalists. I am assuming the finals will still consist of each pilot flying three flights, and the final placings determined by the best two of those three flights. The current rule generates 15 finalists. This makes a long day for all concerned, including a total of 45 flights for the judges. Spectator interest is minimal at best. It will make little or no difference in the ranking of the top 8 or 10 finalists if 12 finalists are chosen instead of 15. With a fewer number of finalists, the probability is increased that each round will be completed in more similar weather conditions, thereby making the selection of the top places more fair. The judges will only have to score 36 flights which represents a relatively light workday for the judges, particularly after they have had 3 or 4 days of long and hard qualification rounds. I know that we are taking "bragging rights" away from 3 individuals who would otherwise qualify for the finals rounds. But their relative place compared to the top flyers after the final tabulation will not differ much. I think it is more important to use a format that more accurately places the 12 finalists than to give 3 more flyers the privilege of "making the finals" . After all, only 3 teams get to the finals in Team Race and only 3 flyers get to the finals in Combat. Given these arguments, one could build a case to take only 10 flyers into the finals. (There were U.S. Nationals in the 60's and early 70's where there were only 10 finalists from 50 or 60 entries.) For the time being, I strongly endorse having no more than 12 finalists in the finals. Hope this makes sense. Keith Trostle | Tree | 148 |
| Igor Burger | Voting | 19.02.2003 - 10:32:39 |
| New voting is already on.
igor | Tree | 149 |
| Claus Maikis | Re: 4th group topics for discussion, NOW OPEN | 24.02.2003 - 14:57:30 |
| Comment
These topics have been hotly discussed since many years, and I expect many computers ( and brains !) running red hot again. Points range: in the past I have judged several times myself. I don’t have much experience, so I don’t consider myself a good judge. However I know it’s a very difficult job. So my comments are based on this viewpoint. I do not especially favour the 100 points range, but I do not oppose either. I’m afraid that a less experienced judge might not choose to downgrade a manoeuvre by 5 points ( when it deserved a 0,5 downgrade by present rule ), but instead by only 1 or 2 points - because he “feels” a 5 point downgrade too high a penalty. So the judgement will not be exact, and this judge will use even less of the whole points range as he does now. I agree with Igor : I doubt that a judge can see a 1 point difference out of 100 points ( out of 10 points it’s a different thing!). However maybe it’s just a matter of getting used to a new system. Recently there was a hot discussion in the Stuka Stunt Forum about the circle markers, with highly sophisticated, precisely calculated, scientifically based arguments. The discussion was on a similar high level as we have here. However I’ve missed one important point: I’ve missed the comments from judges! After all this rule change will affect judges first hand! It’s these people who should be asked first, and who should stand up and vote. May I suggest that all fliers who know a judge ask him about his opinion, and make his opinion known; better yet cause him contribute to this forum. We pilots should modestly stand back and not make so much noise about what we think is best, and what we wish or demand. Apart from one exception, so far I haven’t seen input from judges. By the way: rules are not made for world or continental championships only. They are also made for national and local contests. Rules should be formulated so that organizers and judges at this level should be able to work by these rules, too. If the 100 points system will be accepted, maybe we can have a note in the judges guide to allow ( encourage?) judges to use 5 point increments only, if they feel more comfortable with this. K-factors : I don’t know who invented the K-factors. Probably they have been installed because they are used in other sports where “manoeuvres” of different difficulty levels are performed and judged subjectively ( means: without exact measurements). This is all right as long as manoeuvres can be chosen! However we have no choice: we all fly the same manoeuvres in the same sequence. So there’s no need for difficulty factors. Now I can already hear a loud cry around the world: “… but those manoeuvres HAVE different difficulty , and this should be awarded accordingly”. Actually this is already done! Let’s see. Suppose we have two pilots, one beginner and one expert. Both fly the Inverted laps. This is an easy manoeuvre. Both of them fly with the same precision, so both of them offer the same performance. So both of them get the same score, say 9. Now we come to the Square Eight. The expert in good shape may actually fly nearly perfect and earn a 9. The beginner will never raise to that level and make a lot of errors. If the judge really works as he’s supposed to do, he should give ( say ) a 3 or 4 or 5 or whatever. So the difficulty of the manoeuvre is actually considered already! Adding K-factors will just artificially expand the sum of the score ( of a whole flight). They only seem (!) to provide a better ( finer ) differentiation; a differentiation that has already been done. Multiplications afterwards will only increase the visible number of the final score. The percentage difference will stay the same. I’m aware that very often such ( very low ) scores are not given by the judges ( because - as stated above - they “feel” this too bad a penalty ). However this is a problem with the judges, and NOT a problem with the judging system! Also, the problem of a factor is the size of it. How will anybody decide the comparative size of a factor? How much more difficult is a Square Eight compared to a loop or to Inverted? I think it’s impossible to come to a decision. Whatever decision is made it’s not correct. And so the scores will be wrong. Of course the final outcome ( the classification when compared to results of the past ) will be different. Analysis of past world championship results - when calculated by different systems - have always shown differing numbers. However that doesn’t prove that the current system is right. The Americans have always used a system without K-factors, and they are quite happy with it. Rightly so! ( no, I don’t ALWAYS agree with what Americans do ). Additionally, the deletion of K-factors will reduce the workload of contest organizers and remove a source for many mistakes. While this may not be a prime consideration in rule making, it’s nevertheless a step in the right direction. Imagine - a better system with less effort. What better can we do. Take it easy. claus | Tree | 151 |
| Joan McIntyre | Points range / k factors | 25.02.2003 - 07:08:19 |
| During the initial worldwide exploration into opinion on K factors,all participating countries were given the opportunity to have input on this rather contentious subject. Members of the Working Party canvassed the opinions of fliers and judges in their respective countries and put forward those opinions to the committee.
Could not, perhaps, these original results of this poll be considered as the collective opinion of the Stunt community? Just a thought. As a judge, the use or not of the k factor does not come into the mark we award. We simply assess how close to rule book perfection each manoeuvre is, and mark each manoeuvre accordingly. So my comments are not aimed at the retention or otherwise of the K factor. I will leave that to others. However, the points range is another matter. Under the present system,(FAI) we are given a 10 point range, using half point increments to differentiate variances . As I stated a couple of years ago, I would not be averse to the introduction of quarter points, translated into a mark out of forty, (an easier transition than trying to use quarter points out of ten),which would give judges a more user friendly marking system.(and allow for a finer differentiation between manoeuvres performed ...) As was pointed out,by Igor and Claus, difficulties may arise with the introduction of the 100 point range.Claus raised a very valid point in regards to the ability or otherwise of judges to accurately and consistently assess a 1 point difference out of 100 points.We are not simply talking about something which applies to World championships and continental Championships here. Once put into place, this ruling will affect all meets, large and small.So the system we use has to be workable,and user friendly. Will be interested to hear the thoughts of others on this point. | Tree | 152 |
| Peter Germann | 1-100 Points Range; Comment | 25.02.2003 - 16:15:42 |
| The 1-100 points range is a tool to improve differentiation by providing the judges with a fine toothed instrument allowing to distinguish between the "good " and the " almost as good " And to do so on the flying field, rather than by letting k-factors doing number tricks to what the judge has put down on the score sheet.
Concern has been expressed whether a judge could see a 1 point difference. Possibly not. So what? Does this mean we must not allow such as small increment? After all, the coarser the scale gets, the weaker the differentiation power of the judging system becomes. Why not, at least during the phase-over time, instructing judges to carry on doing what the are used to: assigning marks between 0 -10, in 0.5 increments. And to tell them to put down, for example, 65, instead of 6.5. (Do not write the decimal point, that's all). Judges wishing to go one step further, such as those who have been and still are suggesting 0.25 point increments, will quickly start making use of the new " " high precision tool" by putting down finer graded values. Which is then exactly what we are looking for: " Let the judges, and NOT tabulation arithmetics, define the winner" | Tree | 153 |
| Igor Burger | Re: 4th group topics for discussion, NOW OPEN | 25.02.2003 - 17:34:45 |
| I can only agree with almost all what Claus, Peter and Joan wrote about 100-point scale. It is definitely true that no one can keep 1% consistency and especially on large event. But we do a change, so question is different – is actual 5% scale system better? Or – is quantification to 2% or 5% or even 10% better and more fair regarding subjective judge ability? The point is, that judge can better decide in 10 point scale, but he has do to very difficult decision if he see that the figure was „somewhere between“. So I think – if the judge HAS a drift, or simple imprecision, its value will be visible and present in both – actual 5% scale and also new 100 point 1% scale. I think it should really be a decision of one single judge where he feels comfortable and what quantification suits his preferences. 100 point scale allows it.
There was also question how to proof ability to keep consistency. I think it should be responsibility of judge. I can imagine making some tolls for judges – it is related to all promises that judges shall get better training. I think it is not so difficult to take some contest to camcorder and let judges to do the job TWICE on SAME tape. It is easy to analyze what drift or what precision was in judgment by comparing to previouse mark, because it allows judging in exactly equivalent conditions and the same maneuver. However it is not way like to learn judging – real conditions are different, but it will be enough to test repeatability. ======================================================================== Regarding that terrible K-factor. I do not want argue against Claus, because his arguments are proper (may be except one – I will open it later). Anyway, I thin we have arguments „pro“, arguments „against“ and arguments „k is irrelevant“. I think all his arguments falls to the third category. He well collected all of them, which I heard, so I will go point by point: >>> K-factors : I don’t know who invented the K-factors.<<< I also do not know, but I remember how, and it was pretty logical. I remember when we had all single figures judged separately – start and level was simple and they both got number k=1 – this is together k=2; loops was more complex, they gives more ways how to decline from rules, they got k=1 for first as the first is similar to level, the second got k=2 as it is the same as the first, but must be also on same place and of same size – so it is more complex, while the third got k=3 as it is has even more ways how not to fulfill rules – so now 3 loops are of k=6 ... and so on. I am not advocating the values of K-factor are „proper“, but they are definitely fair – they are same for all flyers - and this is important. >>> However we have no choice: we all fly the same maneuvers in the same sequence. So there’s no need for difficulty factors.<<< Claus, you are right. We not need k-factor for difficulty. I pointed this thought already. You are right it is very difficult to measure „difficulty“ (if not impossible) – just because it is very subjective. It can be very difficult to fly level flight with model designed to fly corners very well and sharp, while it can be very difficult to fly corners with nose heavy model designed to fly level flight. This is really out of sense. The k-factor should reflect COMPLEXITY of maneuver – exactly as it does now. The reason is in my previous message – I think EVERY move of handle – or converted to rules – every regulation of rules asking to do or not to do something with model should be judged SAME WAY – I do not see reason why corner of square eight should be judged different way than corner of triangle, just because triangles have less corners. I do not think that some maneuvers should be preferred, just because we fly two laps between them. And this is in my eyes the point. The K-factor is tool for judges to prevent them of writing too much numbers for every separate figure. It just concentrates longer or shorter part of flight to one number, nothing else. >>> should be awarded accordingly”. Actually this is already done! Let’s see. Suppose we have two pilots, one beginner and one expert. Both fly the Inverted laps. This is an easy maneuver. Both of them fly with the same precision, so both of them offer the same performance. So both of them get the same score, say 9. Now we come to the Square Eight. The expert in good shape may actually fly nearly perfect and earn a 9. The beginner will never raise to that level and make a lot of errors. If the judge really works as he’s supposed to do, he should give ( say ) a 3 or 4 or 5 or whatever. So the difficulty of the manoeuvre is actually considered already!<<< You are right also here. Your example clearly shows the k-factor does not help, but also does not hurt anything. Anyway, here is different point of view: my example of two flyers getting opposite marks for simple and complex maneuver. My question – should they get the same score? Isn’t it stunt event? Isn’t it true that the flyer making complex figure instead of simpler figure better should get better score? I am asking because my example is VERY COMMON. I got lot of score sheets on contests. I believe you also :-). If I remember something from them, it is fact, that all points for separate figures are very close each other. Does not matter if the figure had k=18 or k=2. The number of points shows how OFTEN I do mistakes – or how much of my figure was OK and what part was wrong. It is because judge must take care to complexity of figure and so small wave in level flight costs more than same small wave in fly off from the corner of square eight. Judge does not count errors piece by piece; he compares what he see and weight OVERALL declination from the perfect rulebook shape. And this is why I say that same mistake in two different figures are paid by judge with different weight. I can imagine „robotized -objective“ system of judging based on counting of mistakes, but it is not compatible with rulebook we actually have. >>> Also, the problem of a factor is the size of it. How will anybody decide the comparative size of a factor?<<< I agree again, but k=1 for all is wrong the same way :-) Hmm.. and yes we definitely have computers, one multiplication does not play role. If I see any problems of result calculation than it is problem of interpretation of rules (like mixing juniors and seniors), and unfortunately it is becoming very often in passed years. >>> The Americans have always used a system without K-factors, and they are quite happy with it. Rightly so! ( no, I don’t ALWAYS agree with what Americans do ).<<< Now I do not exactly understand the point. If you mean that „no K“ is good because it is as AMA has, you touched objective reason (one of few relevantly against). But my question is if it brings something really positive. Is there any reason to have EQUIVALENT rules? In this case we can just take the same text – why we do new text telling the same? If you mean (and I think so) that AMA does not use k-factor and it is OK for them, I say – not YET? :-) ... no ... just kidding, I thing we try to compare incomparable. They (Americans) really do not use k-factor and they are happy, but they had to solve exactly same problem, as we are trying tosolve also, just by different way. They have ranking, they have qualification. Our European flying sites do not allow more than one circle, but we have lot of participants. We must do it on one place in one flight. We, as well as they, have beginners and we have also lot of experienced flyers. We fly together on one single circle and in one sigle contest. We have different situation than they have. If you have ranking, if you have qualification, it gives better chance to be more or less critical to similar level of contestants. This is tool which expands differences between them similarly as k-factor does if they fly together (described below). >>> However I’ve missed one important point: I’ve missed the comments from judges! <<< I also. But very few I heard – especially on meeting in Sebnitz, was telling this most important input: Flyers ability on top is very close each to others. This is reason why we call for better differing. I do not think there is a way to improve precision of judging. Also 100-point scale will not improve it without unfair side effects. I many times heard „judging is difficult“ – yes it is but it is not the case. Real problem is, that judging is on mental limit of human mind. I can easily recognize mistakes or quality of skating – also on top places – may not exactly and I can not order them properly, but I SEE. I wonder if any skating fun will register any difference between flyers in final of WC event. So if we need something we need fair toll to EXPAND differences between flyers. ======================================================================== Claus is also right in point we not need expand absolute differences. We need higher proportional differences – and this is place where k-factor helps. While 100-point scale gives expansion in absolute numbers, the relative remains the same. But K-factor works different way. Differing means selecting those better from those worse. So the worse pilot (I do not say beginner – I do not want somehow separate beginners) highly probably earns points on simple figures, while that better one earns them on complex figures. It matches opinion od Claus. It means that those more complex figures tells more – just because we fly more – it is like to fly more figures. K-factor helps them separate and also allows someone intermediate fall between them. The same score from one judge is however not any exception. I compared my score sheets to flyers placed close to me; I got very often the same sum of point without k-factor on sheets from one judge – for example both got all 7,5 but one 8 and one 7 – just on different figures. Does anyone remember team results from first Valladolid EC? Do you remember two TEAMS!!! with same result on third place? Of score numbers of ~15000? (I note it was based on sum of points, not on placement of members) It is not only my feeling. I did lot of analyses of past contest result I have. I have also analyzed final flights from last WC in Sebnits – it was done with help of Stephan Raetch – if someone wants it, and Stephan will agree I can send that xls by mail. (BTW can someone tell me why we keep results secret?) So the result vas following: The disproportion between the best and the worst result is only some 5%!!! It means that the difference between single places is approximately 5/15=0,333%. It is known fact and we have to do something ... 5 judges instead of middle 3 judges makes absolute difference higher, but less than relative. It means the best and worst score does not lead out of score. The middle point between them is close to those other three. So I think the „no discarding“ rule or 5 judges is correct. BUT – it does not tell that sometimes, somebody ... or better said, Shareen can be right in some cases, it just tells that „not to discard“ better express the score in GLOBAL view. 5 judges push disproportion to 4,8%, but the absolute value is still enough. K-factor expands this relative disproportion to 5,7% No k-factor with 5 judges push it down to only 4,7% That one % difference can look too small to bother with, but in reality it makes 20% more differences between pilots, and this is important value, especially if that single artificial tool is 100% fair. So as I see it, we must answer following question to be sure if we want k-factor or not: 1/ Is there any REAL reason not use k-factor? I mean something what really HURTS quality or fair of the stunt event? – I do not see any – help me. 2/ Is there a good and fair reason to have k-factor? – I stated few of them – namely expanding of score (objective); better placing of those „aerobatic“ oriented contestants (subjective, but to the spirit of the stunt). 3/ There are some irrelevant or subjective thought against and pro but I do not think it can be reason to change it. And also good thoughts, but telling only „not necessary“ – this is also not reason not to have it if there is serious reason to have it. ... huh ... somehow long ... sorry ... igor ... going for new keyboard ... :-) | Tree | 154 |
| Keith Trostle | 100 Point Scoring Increment | 26.02.2003 - 07:16:33 |
| Regarding the proposed 100 point range per maneuver:
I have commented on this during the initial discussions to initiate changes to the FAI rules. I do not know if I am saying anything new that has not already been discussed then as well as now. However, I would like to comment here. These comments are based on my experience as a judge at three World Championships as well as being a judge at four of our Team Trials and the Event Director responsible for training our judges at five other of our Team Trials. I also have some experience at judging our AMA contests from the local level to our Nationals, including being the ED at two of our Nationals and being involved with training of judges at a number of these Nationals. I can remember judging FAI events during the time when the scoring range was 0 to 10 using full point increments. I think there eventually was a general consensus that there was not enough granularity allowed in that scoring system to differentiate between two flyers flying close to the same quality maneuver, when one maneuver would be slightly better but did not deserve a full point benefit in the score. The 0.5-point increment later allowed in the FAI scoring system was a definite step in the right direction of being able to more accurately score and differentiate one maneuver from another. With the experience I have had even with the 0.5 point increment, I often feel that a finer point range is still needed. For example, I see a maneuver that deserves at least an 8, but compared to what I might have given another flyer for a slightly better maneuver, an 8.5 is too much. An 8.2 or an 8.3 would be a more appropriate score in that situation because an 8.5 is just too much, but the maneuver definitely deserves better than an 8.0. I will agree that a judge cannot precisely differentiate and consistently score one maneuver that might deserve 91 points and in another flight, that maneuver performed almost the same but might deserve 92 points. (However, I use an error counting method where these kinds of scores could result.) I know I am talking in decimals here, but that is in essence what the 100 point spread gives to us. I think it will be very easy for judges to transition to the 100 point spread using decimals in their mind until they begin to translate/process an assessed number in their mind as an 87 rather than an 8.7. At the end of a contest, it is possible that the difference in the total scores for each of two pilots to be no more than two or three points out of more than a thousand. This happens now and will continue to happen in the future. Is it possible to go to a judge at that contest and have that judge explain where he saw the one flight was precisely two points better than the other flight? This does not happen and it cannot happen. That is the nature of this subjectively measured event. I do not doubt that the 100-point increment scoring system will change this very much. But I definitely feel that the 100-point increments will allow the judge to be more accurate in assessing each maneuver of the pattern. I have made some interesting observations regarding how judges perceive one flight to another. This is based on my own personal experience as a judge as well as talking to judges after a contest is over. At some contests, it is obvious who flew the best pattern and there is a definite order to how the other pilots placed. At other contests, particularly when the skills of several pilots are relatively comparable, some judges will be surprised that their scores actually reflected a different placement than how they observed or was impressed by each overall flight. This goes to the matter that there sometimes is a significant difference in results when a judge scores each individual maneuver compared to the overall impression of how the entire flight was flown. I do not know if this really helps support the argument for using a 100-point increment. I would expect there to be an overall feeling on the part of judges that using 100-point increments would be better than the current 20-point increment system which in itself was a vast improvement over the earlier 10-point increment scoring. Will these 100-point increments help an inexperienced judge do a better job? Probably not. But as a conscientious judge gains more experience, the 100-point increment has to be an improvement over the current system. Keith | Tree | 155 |
| Keith Trostle | K-Factors | 26.02.2003 - 07:26:26 |
| K Factors
This is another topic I have commented on during the initial discussions to initiate changes to the FAI rules. I am probably not adding anything new as I am in complete agreement with Peter on his explanations for eliminating the K-Factor scoring system. However, as I mentioned in the item on the 100-point increment scoring, I would like to comment here. These comments are based on my experience as a judge at three World Championships as well as being a judge at four of our Team Trials and the Event Director responsible for training our judges at five other of our Team Trials. I also have some experience at judging our AMA contests from the local level to our Nationals, including being the ED at two of our Nationals and being involved with training of judges at a number of these Nationals. I believe this gives me some perspective on the relative merits of the K-Factor scoring system used in FAI competition as compared to our AMA scoring which does not use K-Factors. I do not think that there is any argument that some maneuvers in the pattern are more difficult to fly than others. Though there could be arguments about the exact K-Factor rating of each maneuver relative to the other maneuvers, the current K-Factors assigned are at least somewhat representative of the relative difficulty of each maneuver. I do not think these points are at issue here. I believe what is the issue with K-Factors is that they overemphasize an error in one maneuver compared to the same exact error that might be made in another maneuver. Let’s take, for example, the Square Horizontal Eights with an 18 K-Factor and the Inside Square Loops with a 12 K-Factor. Let’s assume a pilot “bobbles” the first bottom corner of his first Square Loop and a judge assesses a 1-point reduction to the score for that one error. Now, let’s assume that same pilot makes the exact same “bobble” the first bottom of his first inside square loop of his first Horizontal Square Eight. That judge, like most judges, will likely assess the same 1-point reduction for that error. In the Square Loops, the error cost the pilot 12 points, but in the other case that exact same error cost the pilot 18 points. The same error should not result in a differential reduction of points just because the same errors were made in different maneuvers. The only way that the errors could be compared equitably with the current use of FAI K-Factors is that the judge must “adjust his scale” on points being assessed for errors depending on which maneuver is being flown. I do not think judges are trained to do this. I do not think that even the most capable and experienced judge can do this in any consistent manner. Their job is difficult enough to score any number of flights during the day using a 10.0 (or perhaps a 100) point scoring system for each maneuver. In fact, it has been my experience that judges have been instructed to disregard the fact that K-Factors are being applied in the tabulation of scores and strictly consider how well the maneuver was flown on the 0 to 10 point scale. It is for these reasons that I think the K-Factors as used in the FAI pattern are really backwards to what I think the intent was for weighting the difficulty of the various maneuvers. There is no argument that there are significantly more errors that can be made in the Square Horizontal Eights than in the Square Inside Loops. For the K-Factor to really work to represent the relative difficulty of each these maneuvers, the errors should be compared to the available score for each maneuver or as in my example, there would be 180 points available to start the Square Eights and 120 points to start the Inside Square Loops. Then, similar errors would be equally reflected in the score for each of the maneuvers and the possibility of more errors being made in the eights is still recognized. As it is now, both maneuvers start with 10.0 points. With only a small number of errors for each, even though both were flown fairly well, the pilot looses an inordinate number of points in the eights compared to the loops. Now if the pilot makes a lot more errors in the eights, then he looses even more points, but the resulting penalty differential is NOT really an accurate reflection of how well the pattern was flown. I am not suggesting that we should revise the scoring system that would require the judge to remember what the potential score is for each maneuver where each maneuver would have a different potential score. What I am suggesting is that elimination of the K-Factors will introduce parity in the penalties for similar errors and/or different errors that carry the same penalties/loss of points from the judge’s perspective. Furthermore, what I am suggesting is that retaining the K-Factors continues to exacerbate the inequities of a faulty K-Factor scoring system. (If we ever get to computerized, automatic video scoring of flights during a contest, there could be a good argument to have different total scores for each maneuver. Then, the computer program could measure deviations from the maneuver standard and assess point reductions according to the number of errors and the degree of each error. We are not there yet.) Keith | Tree | 156 |
| Igor Burger | Re: K-Factors | 26.02.2003 - 13:58:44 |
| Keith,
Yes this is objective “against” reason. But let me tell you I see it different. The rulebook says: 4.2.5 Judges’ Duties: b) Each judge shall award points for each maneuver flown, the points awarded to be based solely upon the observation of each individual judge and his own opinion of the extent by which each flown manoeuvre has deviated from the respective manoeuvre description (refer also to 4.2.11; 4.2.12; and 4.2.13). I note the text: >>> of the extent by which each flown manoeuvre has deviated from the respective manoeuvre description <<< It means if you compare square loops and square eights (which is 2x more), the same error of the same size MUST cost twice more in square loops – just because larger figure with the same error as was done in small figure deviates less. Once again, rules do not ask for “counting of errors” it asks for compurgation of overall deviation. You did an example: >>> Let’s take, for example, the Square Horizontal Eights with an 18 K-Factor and the Inside Square Loops with a 12 K-Factor. Let’s assume a pilot “bobbles” the first bottom corner of his first Square Loop and a judge assesses a 1-point reduction to the score for that one error. Now, let’s assume that same pilot makes the exact same “bobble” the first bottom of his first inside square loop of his first Horizontal Square Eight. That judge, like most judges, will likely assess the same 1-point reduction for that error. In the Square Loops, the error cost the pilot 12 points, but in the other case that exact same error cost the pilot 18 points. The same error should not result in a differential reduction of points just because the same errors were made in different maneuvers.<<< I think if judge do the same 1 point reduction in both maneuvers, he do not do his job correctly regarding 4.2.5.b. Or does it mean that if I do the “bobble” in every straight segment in both maneuvers than I get 92 for square loops and 84 for square eight? Why? I am „bobbling“ so I thing I should get equal marks for both maneuvers. Am I missing something? Once again: my experience is, that score sheets of better than beginner pilots shows minimal differences between „high k“ maneuvers and „low-k“ maneuvers. It tells me that judges „weight“ explored errors regarding complexity of figure. Or do we do so much mistakes in such simple figure as level flight is? I think the „counting“ of errors is different system of judging. I can easy imagine it – just we can count number of possible errors for every figure. Than we can ask judge to count errors he see. Later we can process those number and convert it to score. But this is DIFFERENT approach to judging. I think this will be really more fair as it is more automated. At least the judge can clearly say WHY the marked as he marked, while now it is more „artifical impression“. But I do not think it is easy, and question if it do not bring more troubles than positive things. igor | Tree | 157 |
| Keith Trostle | Reply to Igor Burger on K-Factors | 27.02.2003 - 07:00:22 |
| Reference Igor Burger’s comments 26 Feb regarding my K-Factor item.
I think Igor understood part of what I was trying to say. Unfortunately, I do not think I was very clear on certain points. One item I want to comment on is not really relevant to this discussion on K-Factors, but I think some clarification is needed. There is no question on what the Judge’s duties are according to the rules. How any judge determines in "his own opinion of the extent by which each flown manoeuvre has deviated from the respective manoeuvre description…" is not specified in the rulebook. Some judges look at a specific maneuver and then assess a score on the overall impression on how that total maneuver was flow. Other judges can and do utilize one of several error counting systems in terms of number of errors and the degree of the errors as the maneuver is flown to quantify in their mind how well that maneuver was performed. There is nothing in the rulebook that prevents or prohibits a judge to use such a system. Now, I would like to more clearly explain the example that you discussed. I had written: >"I believe what is the issue with K-Factors is that they overemphasize an error in one maneuver compared to the same exact error that might be made in another maneuver. Let’s take, for example, the Square Horizontal Eights with an 18 K-Factor and the Inside Square Loops with a 12 K-Factor. Let’s assume a pilot "bobbles" the first bottom corner of his first Square Loop and a judge assesses a 1-point reduction to the score for that one error. Now, let’s assume that same pilot makes the exact same "bobble" the first bottom of his first inside square loop of his first Horizontal Square Eight. That judge, like most judges, will likely assess the same 1-point reduction for that error. In the Square Loops, the error cost the pilot 12 points, but in the other case that exact same error cost the pilot 18 points. The same error should not result in a differential reduction of points just because the same errors were made in different maneuvers." (end of quote) Igor responded, in part: >"I think if judge do the same 1 point reduction in both maneuvers, he do not do his job correctly regarding 4.2.5.b. Or does it mean that if I do the "bobble" in every straight segment in both maneuvers than I get 92 for square loops and 84 for square eight? Why? I am "bobbling" so I thing I should get equal marks for both maneuvers. Am I missing something? "Once again: my experience is, that score sheets of better than beginner pilots shows minimal differences between "high k" maneuvers and "low-k" maneuvers. It tells me that judges "weight" explored errors regarding complexity of figure. Or do we do so much mistakes in such simple figure as level flight is?" (end of quote) I used two figures in my example, the Square Inside Loops and the Square Horizontal Eights. My scenario needs more definition. Let’s assume that the Loops, in general, were flown fairly well and that there were no really serious errors, these Square Loops would deserve an 8.5 from the judge. Similarly, let’s assume that the Eights, in general, were also flown fairly well, that if there were no really serious errors, these Square Eights would deserve an 8.5 from the judge. (Admittedly, the eights are much more difficult to score at this level because there are more than twice the number of corners, intersections must be maintained while size and shape is more difficult to present. But in this example, we are assuming that both maneuvers could have earned the same 8.5 score from the judge.) Now, as described in this example before, let’s assume that the pilot made a really serious "bobble" on the bottom of one of the inside turns in each of these two maneuvers (the Square Loops and the Square Eights). Let’s also assume that the "bobble" was precisely the same in each maneuver. And let’s assume that the "bobble" would result in the judge downgrading the 8.5 that the Inside Square Loops would have otherwise received to a 7.5. I think most judges would also translate that same "bobble" in the Square Eights as a downgrade from what would have been an 8.5 to a 7.5. This is what I meant when an error in the Inside Square Loops would result in a 12 point reduction in the total score and the same error in the Square Eights would result in an 18 point reduction due to what I think is a major inequity in the K-Factor system of the FAI rules. I might be misunderstanding the point Igor made about "the same error of the same size MUST cost twice more in square loops – just because larger figure with the same error as was done in small figure deviates less." Is this suggesting that a judge must adjust his scoring for deviations to the written standard for each maneuver because each maneuver has a different K-Factor? I think I discussed this in my article that judges should not be expected to adjust the scores they assess because of the different K-Factors for the various maneuvers. I do not think that judges could consistently do this over the course of a contest. (Furthermore, some judges would not be capable to do so, even with good training and considerable experience.) Igor suggested that the judge was not "correctly" doing his job if he gave the same one point reduction in both maneuvers as described above. I maintain that the judge is doing his job correctly. What scale does a judge have in the five seconds or so to determine how to otherwise measure/assess/assign a score for each respective maneuver that happens to have a similar error? He cannot be thinking that because the two maneuvers have a different K-Factor, he must somehow allow different standards for the same error. He does not have time nor does he have any standard to do so. In his example, Igor asks if a pilot "bobbles" every straight segment in both maneuvers, would there be a 92 for square loops and an 84 for square eights? Igor stated that if the pilot is "bobbling" the pilot should get equal marks for both maneuvers. I completely disagree, and I think any experienced judge would disagree. Let’s examine this in the same terms of my example above. Let’s say that the pilot "bobbles" every corner throughout both of these maneuvers, the Square Inside Loops and the Square Horizontal Eights. Let’s also assume that both of these maneuvers are otherwise flown in a similar manner/quality regarding specified sizes and overall shapes. Also, let’s assume that the intersections of the eights were "consistent with the quality of the rest of the maneuver" such that the intersections would not be cause for a reduced score. In the case of the Inside Square Loops, there are 8 corners that were "bobbled". If I were to judge the Inside Square Loops flown this way, I would probably give a score of no more than 5 even assuming reasonable size, altitudes and shapes (except for the "bobbles") were presented. In the Horizontal Square Eights, there are 18 corners that were "bobbled". I would definitely score this much less than the Square Loops with the same "bobbles" simply because there were more than twice the number of "bobbles". Otherwise, how should that same Square Eight be scored compared to the Square Loops if only 8 of the 18 corners were "bobbled"? The pilot still made 8 "bobbles" but at least avoided making "bobbles" on the other 10 cornerswhich would have otherwise resulted in the still lower score. Igor had observed, and I think his observations are correct, that judges do not record much difference between "high K-Factor maneuvers" and "low K-Factor maneuvers". Igor then draws the conclusion that judges do "weigh" errors depending on the complexity of the maneuver. I think a more accurate explanation is that many judges, even experienced judges, do not use the range of scores available to assess the various maneuvers as they are being flown. This is, in part, due to what has become the "expected norm" for judge performance and also due to lack of training and/or lack of any dialog (other than what is in the judge’s guide) to appropriately use the range of points available to more correctly assess and score each maneuver. (I believe there are other factors that cause judges to use a too narrow range of scores while they are judging, even when watching closely matced pilots, but this is beyond the scope of this K-Factor discussion. I would like to think that more emphasis on the FAI judges guide would represent a significant step in correcting this matter. It is for this same reason that judges have become so accustomed to see overly large patterns, that no reduction in scores are made for flying too large while some patterns are penalized for appearing too small even though they are being flown more to the sizes specified in the rule book. I apologize that this is a topic that is not within the scope of this discussion. I brought it up to explain that there are trends in the judging community that are not necessarily in keeping with the rulebook.) I want to make some closing comments on error counting that Igor mentioned in his submission. First, as I mentioned above, there is nothing in the rulebook that would prevent a judge from using some form of error counting to quantify the score recorded for a maneuver. Though it takes some practice, I am a proponent for such a system. I count errors and the degree of errors as each maneuver is flown. I feel that such an approach removes some of the subjectivity from the judging function. I am able to quantify in my mind why I record the score I give. The system works regardless of the point spread (the 0 to 10 points for FAI and the 10 to 40 points for the AMA), it just takes a different conversion to arrive at the appropriate number to record at the end of each maneuver. This also results in the possibility of using a much broader range of scores available for each maneuver. I am positive that the 100-point spread being proposed for each of the FAI maneuvers will make it even easier to employ such an error counting system and to more appropriately use the range of scores to properly mark a maneuver. (I have taken some grief with this system because my scores do not often fit in the “normal range” most flyers and meet officials have become accustomed to see.) This was entirely too long, but I still hope it make sense. Thanks for reading this far. Keith | Tree | 160 |
| Igor Burger | Re: Reply to Igor Burger on K-Factors | 27.02.2003 - 13:25:25 |
| Keith,
Now I see where we differ. You wrote you did not understood well what I wrote so I will better formulate what I mean. I did not write that judge should weight explored errors to k-factor. I wrote that judge should weigh explored errors to explored well flown parts. Your example is about equivalent number of errors in two different figures. You say the same amount of errors = the same number of minus points. I say that the pilot did twice more proper corners in eight than in loop. It means he missed 1/8 from loop, while 1/16 from eight. This “theoretical” model of judging comes from speaking to some (unfortunately few) judges. The answer I got to the question how they do it was different than you wrote. I think this can pretty well answer why we (pilots) must sometimes change flying to better match what judges want to see. They told me that they try to match the rulebook look of maneuver with really flown maneuver. An this approach contain hidden “weighting” of what part of maneuver is OK and what part is wrong. They do not “count” how many times I "bobbled" they „measure“ how MUCH I "bobbled". And this also means that the same little error in eight will cost half of the same error of the loop, and this is why I mean the k-factor should push it back by higher multiplication for eight. Now I see that there are different approaches, so it is really question for judges. It will be really nice to hear from them. However I would personally welcome “counting” system. It gives advantage for contestants. They can easier know why they got (or did not get) so many points. The new 100-point system will allow it also in very complex figures like the eight is. It will lead to high number at single figures and low numbers in complex figures. Beginner will probably get high number for level just because there is not chance to do so much errors, while also good pilot will get low number for complex eight, because there is no chance to do all good. The complexity difference IS PRESENT in such system – even without k-factor – this is exactly what Claus wrote. What I say is, that present judging as I see it on contests does not work this way. Or do we all really do so many errors in level flight as we do in eight? Because now, we really get almost same number for level and eight and we have no significant difference between loop and eight. It shows a kind of weighting. So as I wrote I welcome counting system, but I see two problems: it should be clearly stated in rules, and judges must be comfortable with counting. Than we really not need k-factor. igor | Tree | 161 |
| Andy Sweetland | Re: Reply to Igor Burger on K-Factors | 02.03.2003 - 17:58:39 |
| Ladies and Gentlemen,
Peter and I have been watching the Forum discussions between Igor Burger and Keith Trostle on the subjects of K factors and Judges' scoring methods with great interest. As Claus Maikis mentioned in a related post, it really is nice to see some people with Judging experience giving us the benefit of their knowledge and we hope to see more Judges playing an active part in these discussions soon. With regard to one point that both Igor and Keith have made in their posts, Peter and I would like to clarify what appears to be a small misunderstanding on the part of both Igor and Keith, and this concerns the use of the "deduction method" of scoring. Both have said, more or less, "if the rules allow you to use it", and/or, "there's nothing in the rules to prevent it", so perhaps the following quote from the CURRENT Annex 4B - "Class F2B Judges' Guide" will help clarify the use of the deduction scoring method (i.e. where the Judge starts off watching every manoeuvre with the expectation that it is going to be perfect (!) and then proceeds to deduct points for every error he/she sees). This is direct from paragraph 4B.10, sub para b): QUOTE: Principles of marking: Judges should only score (mark) manoeuvres between the points "Start judging at: ... " and "Stop judging at: ... ", as set out in each of the manoeuvre descriptions in this document. When the model reaches the "Start judging at … " point for each manoeuvre, each judge should assume that the manoeuvre will be flown within all the “dimensions” and other requirements defined in the relevant manoeuvre Rule. (This would of course mean that the judge should award the full available maximum of 10 points if he/she has seen no errors by the time the manoeuvre is completed). But as the model proceeds through the manoeuvre, each judge will (usually) observe some deviations from the manoeuvre Rule requirements, so he/she should then mentally deduct point/s (or half point/s) from the potential maximum of 10 points whenever a deviation is seen. The number of points or half points to be deducted for each error by each judge will of course depend on his/her judgement as to whether each of those deviations is a "minor" error, a "medium" error, or a "major" error, as described in 4B.7 above. So after the model has reached the "Stop judging at … " point for each manoeuvre, the judges’ task is then to total all the points and half points which have been mentally deducted during the manoeuvre, and the final mark to be entered into the score sheet is simply the maximum available 10 points, minus the total of all the points mentally deducted by the judge while the manoeuvre was being flown. This deduction method, while not easy to learn, and while requiring a considerable amount of instruction and practice, does offer the advantage of coming very close to producing repeatable results when using a consistent marking bandwidth for weighting each error seen. UNQUOTE: Could we also point out that as per paragraph 4B.1 of this same document, this Judges' Guide does form an integral part of the F2B Rules. Thus, as per the word should in lines 4 and 9 of the above quote, rather than not preventing it, the Judges Guide actually strongly encourages Judges to use the deduction method of scoring (but please note, they are NOT forced to use it, otherwise the above should would read shall or perhaps will instead of should). In other words, other method/s could be used. So a question for all the Judges out there - do you use deduction, or something else (and if something else, what)? We hope this point helps both Igor and Keith in their on-line discussions and we also strongly encourage others with judging experience to join in. Thanks to everyone involved for their continuing time and effort. Krgds Peter Germann & Andy Sweetland | Tree | 162 |
| Keith Trostle | More on K-Factors | 04.03.2003 - 08:11:08 |
| Reference Igor Burger’ discussion comment, 27 Feb on judging.
Igor, I think there are a number of areas where we agree. Different judges use different techniques to arrive at a score for a maneuver they observe. Upon reading the various inputs that have been made in this cycle of discussion as well as the input during the initial input to Peter and Andy when these various proposals were first being drafted, it is clear that there are a lot of strong feelings regarding the K-Factors in the FAI scoring system as well as how many increments could or should be allowed in the point spread. I think that most individuals who have studied this event as well as have some experience in judging or administering contests or flying in competition or some combination of all of these should be able to conclude that regardless of the scoring system being used, regardless of how many increments are allowed in the point spread of that scoring system, and regardless if K-Factors are being used or not, with competent and experienced judges, the better flights will still be scored higher than the flights that are not flown as well. (Now that is a really brilliant statement!) I think what we are looking for is a way to consistently score each maneuver with what it deserves. I think that a number of the proposals being crafted here are attempts to give the judges better tools to assess the various portions of the pattern. I think the 100-point spread (or 0.1 point increments on a 10 point scale) will be a positive step forward to let judges be able to differentiate the small differences between equally competent pilots. I think the judges guide, the refinement of the maneuver descriptions, and the use of circle markers will offer great improvements for judges to better understand the pattern and to perhaps use a more appropriate range of the points available. I still have a problem with the notion of retaining K-Factors of any kind in the FAI scoring. My reasoning has been outlined in the previous comments I have submitted here and is based on the fact that the K-Factors still overemphasize errors in the high K-Factor maneuvers, given that the judges start with a constant point range for each maneuver (0 to 10, or in the case of the new proposal, this may be 0 to 100, which is no different than 1 to 10 if 0.1 increments can be used). I understand your comments about what you have learned in talking to different judges on how they score. You have found that some judges essentially base their score for an individual maneuver on how well that overall maneuver conformed to the rulebook. I understand that many judges do score that way. However, I think that most judges use some variation to that procedure. (I did not intend for my discussion on error counting to confuse this matter. I mentioned the error counting as one means to add some objectivity to the judging function.) I do not think that all or even most judges just look at the total maneuver in just those terms as you suggest. I have made some observations based on my experience as a judge at several World Championships, as a team manager at another World Championships, running and judging at our FAI Team Trials, judging here in the States from the local level to our Nats, training our Nats judges and running several judging clinics. Yes, a judge will assess a score for how well the maneuver is flown compared to the rulebook description. But if there is a significant deviation somewhere in a maneuver, most judges will make an incremental deduction in the resulting maneuver score in addition to what would have been received without the significant error. This is where I was talking about the situation when an error in one maneuver will penalize the pilot significantly more in a high K-Factor maneuver than essentially if that same deviation was made in a low K-factor maneuver. The deviations I am talking about here are not necessarily a function of one maneuver being more difficult than the other. I do not think the judge really takes into consideration that the singular deduction necessarily should weigh more or less for each individual maneuver based on relative K-Factors. A judge does not have time even if he has the mental capacity to process such information for each maneuver during every pattern throughout a contest. Related to this is the situation that I have seen at all levels of competition, including the World Championships. I have watched pilots perform level flight almost flawlessly. I have observed that there was no more than 1 or 1.5-foot deviation during the two level inverted flights which is well within the standard specified by the rulebook. Such a performance should receive at least a 9.5 if not a 10.0. Sadly, I have seen judge’s score that well performed maneuver as an 8 because they saw a barely perceptible variance in the level flight. In another example, I have seen judges take serious points away from the consecutive loops because one of the loops was only 2 feet from the ground. Without the error, the maneuver should have been scored something like an 8 or an 8.5. Because of the really low bottoms on one of the loops, the pilot might instead get a 7.5 or a 7.0 or even lower. I think the judges sometimes try to show how tough they are because it is easy to measure/identify these errors because of the proximity of the model and the ground. Yet that same judge will give an 8 or an 8.5 to some mediocre horizontal round eights that might have had some reasonable shapes and intersections and bottoms, but the tops were approaching 60-degrees, meaning that if the loops were reasonably round, the maneuver was too wide by as much as 30 to 40 feet. It is almost universal that judges do not score down for overly wide eights which generally approach 120-degrees in width and even 150-degrees during windy conditions. Now, we see judges awarding a good score even though the maneuver might have been 35 feet to wide, but the one loop in another maneuver that was 2 feet too low gets seriously penalized. Then another flyer comes along, comes closer to the proper size, and still has reasonable shapes, bottoms and intersections, and the judge penalizes that pilot because the maneuver looks too small and perhaps not quite as smooth. Even though this second pilot was flying a more technically correct maneuver, he looses points, big time, because of the K-Factor. Not only did he loose points inappropriately by being improperly judged, the high K-Factor further exacerbated the judging error. (Perhaps the ability of judges to determine the appropriate 45-degree parameters that describe most maneuvers and to determine the 90-degree width of the horizontal eights will improve with the placement of the 45-degree markers around the circle which is being proposed in the changes being considered for these FAI rules.) As I stated earlier, the only fair may to accommodate the fact that maneuvers have different difficulties is to actually first start with the score of the K-Factor for each maneuver. (For example, 180 points for the Square Horizontal Eights, 120 points for the Square Loops and so on.) Then deduct points according to the seriousness of the errors that appear. Or, perhaps as suggested by the judges that Igor has talked to, asses the total maneuver in terms of the total K-Factor score for that maneuver. (In other words, the judge would consider the Horizontal Square Eight in terms of 180 points being available instead of 10.) The next best thing would be to eliminate any K-Factor consideration as is being suggested with this change proposal. The worst thing that can be done is to continue the current K-Factor multiplier which is applied AFTER the 0 to 10 point score is determined by a judge. As I have tried to explain and what has been discussed before, this multiplier, after the judge’s assessment based on a 10-point maximum overemphasizes errors in high K-Factor maneuvers over the same error made in "less difficult" maneuvers. Keith | Tree | 163 |
| Igor Burger | Re: More on K-Factors | 04.03.2003 - 13:15:36 |
| >>>(Now that is a really brilliant statement!) I think what we are looking for is a way to consistently score each maneuver with what it deserves.<<<
:-) Yes Keith, exactly :-) >>>K-Factors still overemphasize errors in the high K-Factor maneuvers, given that the judges start with a constant point range for each maneuver (0 to 10, or in the case of the new proposal, this may be 0 to 100, which is no different than 1 to 10 if 0.1 increments can be used).<<< This is true IF the judging is based on „counting“ as you described. But it is not true if based on „comparing“. Comparing leads to different value of the same error on different figures. Your example shows it: >>>I have watched pilots perform level flight almost flawlessly. I have observed that there was no more than 1 or 1.5-foot deviation during the two level inverted flights which is well within the standard specified by the rulebook. Such a performance should receive at least a 9.5 if not a 10.0.<<< That is. I have many contests in my database, and if I do average value given for level, and for square eight, I do not see serious difference. I think you will agree that no one fly square eight as good as level flight. I do not see any other way than weighting. Well it can be that our judges do it different way, but if I look to my score sheet from Sebnitz, I see exactly the same. I did 2 + 3 final flights by 5 judges – 25 score sheets. I compared inverted level flight for k=2 and square eight for k=18. 18 from them were at or below 0,5 difference. 5 of them were +1 for level, 2 of them was 1 or more for eight. You wrote that the „weighting“ is mentally difficult. I do not think so. I think the „counting“ is more difficult. Your example of square loops and square eight is good result. If both are flown too low – means 4 segments of square eight is too low and only 2 segments of square loop is too low – will you cut down four increment instead of two increments for square eight? If yes, you are counting, if not you are weighting. It is question where you can think about and someone will answer yes someone no, and now – try to do it for every corner if flown too open ... I think every one will do it same way in both maneuvers – and this is what I mean – same errors are valuated different way on different figures. I really think it is easier and more common to „weight“ instead of count. If it corrupts to what I heard several times: „You are guys very close, so I give 7,5 to every figure – do it better you get 8 do it worse you get 7“ than it is typically judging of some errors with different weight than others if based on „counting“ but it is well acceptable on „weighting“ with k-factor. :-) ... I think this is highly subjective: >>>Then another flyer comes along, comes closer to the proper size, and still has reasonable shapes, bottoms and intersections, and the judge penalizes that pilot because the maneuver looks too small and perhaps not quite as smooth.<<< I this is typical disadvantage of „counting“. The figure should be „square“ the same way as ALSO of proper size. I think it is responsibility of judge to decide what costs what – the size, or radius, or look of square. Rulebook call for same value of all errors, but how measure and compare radius, shape, height and angle? I heard also notes that some flyers corrupt round figures with advantage of exact levels or intersections (I think you know who is addressed). But this is what is judge here for, we cannot dictate what error is that proper which he has to cut number for. I think the pattern should be also pretty, not only exact by rulebook. But this is highly subjective and I do not think it has what to do with the topic. Here I do not understand well: >>>As I stated earlier, the only fair may to accommodate the fact that maneuvers have different difficulties is to actually first start with the score of the K-Factor for each maneuver. (For example, 180 points for the Square Horizontal Eights, 120 points for the Square Loops and so on.) Then deduct points according to the seriousness of the errors that appear.<<< Why? If you have 100 points for every maneuver, what is far more than number of possible (or explorable) errors than the difficulty is included does not matter what is initial value. Assume you can do maximally 10 legal errors in one and maximally 60 errors in the second and every costs 1 point. Than every error costs the same amount in every figure. The result is, that you cannot fall under 90 for one and under 40 on the second. Those 90 and 60 are just dead value given to everyone and they do not make problems. Such judging really not need k-factor which is already included – range 10 or 60 points. That is exactly what I mean – counting every error same way and for same number of points. But present practice is different. My question is different – can a judge to count really EVERY mistake piece by piece? >>>The worst thing that can be done is to continue the current K-Factor multiplier which is applied AFTER the 0 to 10 point score is determined by a judge. As I have tried to explain and what has been discussed before, this multiplier, after the judge’s assessment based on a 10-point maximum overemphasizes errors in high K-Factor maneuvers over the same error made in "less difficult" maneuvers.<<< I agree IF you use “counting”, but do you see there is difference if you use “comparing” or combined method? But this all is still only subjective look to the whole thing – while one can argue one way, another can argue another way. I say k-factor also makes big advantage in differing if one round is flown by 40 or more flyers. What about it? We do not have any qualification (well - except championship) and if, than also those places under the final have right to be scored fair … If I compare results on current half point system than the equal result is not exception – it is often. It is true what Peter wrote that 100 point system can improve it, but we know it is on cost of subjective, and can be improper, decision of judge on log term judging. So still – where is that “wrong thing” (without any doubt) of k-factor, which is actually fair for all contestants and which help us better differ between flyers? igor | Tree | 164 |
| Andy Sweetland | Imminent closing of K factors topic | 20.05.2003 - 15:58:19 |
| Ladies & Gentlemen,
We note that there have been no inputs to this F2B WG internet forum since 4th March. We feel that we can therefore assume that the K factors topic (and those which appeared as "surroundings" to it) have now all been exhausted. Therefore we'll be ready to move on to the next area for discussion shortly. Before doing that however, we feel it worth summarising the inputs received, both during the 2001/02 period when we were working with individual National Reps by E-mail, and since Igor Burger was kind enough to set up this forum for us all to use: In brief, opinions seem to be quite strongly held in this area, with probably an overall but small(ish) majority in favour of doing away with K factors. However, as pointed out right from the start, we are trying to do more than "just a vote counting exercise", so we have carefully examined all the arguments raised by the "keep the K's" people. In the main, we feel that we're in just the same position that we were in at the end of the Nat Reps E-mail exercise in late 2001/early 2002 - i.e. the majority of the "pro K's" have not put forward any very convincing new arguments for keeping K factors - in fact, when you boil it right down, nearly all the "pro K's" say either "this is the way it's always been done", or they say "how can, say, the Take-off manoeuvre be given the same value as, say, the Clover manoeuvre?". As already discussed at length, both on this forum and via the Nat Reps earlier, we feel that compared to the advantages of dropping K's altogether (as we have also already explained at length several times before), neither of those reasons, nor any others put forward, seem to us valid reasons for keeping K factors - those arguments simply are not logical. But the exchanges earlier this year on this forum did bring up some new reasoning by some of the "pro K's" people however, with Igor Burger and Keith Trostle entering into a pretty deep series of postings which we observed with great interest. But towards the end of that correspondence we also noted that Igor (the "leader" of the "pro K's group" this time) also agreed with Keith (and others) that PROVIDED the judges used some sort of "error deduction" (or error addition) system for marking each manoeuvre, then there is no advantage in having K factors (and BTW, Igor also stated mathematically that even when not using deduction/addition, results with and without K factors were VERY close). But that correspondence did of course widen the subject into whether or not judges do use error deduction (or addition), and here we got inputs from some judges, some of them pretty/very experienced. On balance it seems that most judges do use some type of error deduction/addition (rather than studying the whole manoeuvre and then saying "that was a 7.5" - or whatever), and a number of you monitoring this forum may also have noticed the Stuka Stunt Works internet forum recently (www.clstunt.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi) where a number of interesting views on this and closely related subjects were also discussed (and these were NOT prompted by us we hasten to add!). Anyway, it seems to us that most judges we have heard from or whom we have contacted do use some sort of error deduction (or addition) method of scoring, and this is also the method which is recommended in the current Annex 4B ("Judges' Guide"). In short then, we find the case for retaining K factors "not proven" and therefore intend to present the CIAM March 2004 meeting with a Proposed New F2B Rules document which has NO K factor scoring. Just in case anyone has any last-minute points they want to make on K factors (but NEW points please!!) we will wait a day or two longer before presenting a new topic to start everyone off again. Once again very many thanks to all of you who have taken the time and effort to post. Peter Germann F2B WG Leader | Tree | 165 |
| István Travnik | Re: Imminent closing of K factors topic | 21.05.2003 - 10:25:15 |
| Dear Friends,
Last summer, during the World Championships in Sebnitz, I got the answer, what is the opinion of the REAL flyers, -not the members of the F2B Working Group, here. You have to remember, after that evening conference, there was made a petition (declaration, protestation), signed by 50-60 flyers, the bigger halfth of the whole "crowd". They categorically refused any attempt to eliminate the K-factors. From this point there is no further moral allowance of the Working Group, (or Discussion Forum) in this question, I think. We can try to make happy to the "crowd" against the crowd, but some theoreticians did it, in the XX. century, we now the result, thanks... I do not want to go into the tiny details, again: the K-factors are not "quality", but "quantity" paramerers, markers, and their role is clear: there are different manouvres, taking smaller, or bigger, shorter or longer part of the whole program, and K-factors reflect it, giving lighter, or heavier weight to that actual manoeuvre. If the judge could have a secretary (there is a PRESENT possibility in the sporting code, but NEVER came true...), the judge could easily dictate the scores side-by-side, corner-by-corner, all movements, which are clearly evaluable. Since every manoeuvre must have the same scoring interval, (only one reason is there: time is short to use different intervals), somehow must be there a possibility to give different weights to different amount of flying job. If we cancel the weighing, the F2B category will be pushed towards in the way to be a roulette, or BlackJack, etc. instead of remaining a sport... Try not to forget: how many REALLY significant flyers worked here, with us, from China, US, France, Russia, Ukraina, Japan... (I remember you: NONE!) Best regards: István Travnik, (fully supported by Hungarian flyers, and judges.) | Tree | 166 |
| Keith Renecle | Re: Imminent closing of K factors topic | 26.05.2003 - 12:27:12 |
| Hi all!
On this K-factor issue, I have read the comments from all concerned, and it appears that the system does not prejudice any of the contestants in any way. It also does not have any effect on the way a judge looks at the flight when giving a score. These days with PC’s and spreadsheets, it is no problem for the tabulators to multiply the score by the K-factor, without introducing further errors. I agree with István when he says that it is a flier’s competition, and that the poll taken at Sebnitz is a pretty good reflection of how the fliers themselves feel. These fliers represent the majority of the countries that participate in the world champs. If they voted as a majority to keep the K-factor system, and it does no harm to anyone really, why are we trying to get rid of it? I have discussed this with all the South African F2B fliers, and our experienced judges, Peter Lott and Henry Kurowski. We all feel that the K-factors show the differences between the good fliers and the “not-so-good” fliers very clearly. This certainly helps us in our training and coaching. In the world champs, the big difference between the top fliers and the rest of us, is the way that they can perform the difficult maneuvers consistently with incredible accuracy. The differences in score between these pilots is minute, to say the least, and the K-factors amplify these points a bit. These “amplified” points help us to set targets in our team training programs, by showing clearly where our weak points are. Although my points here are not any “amazing” reason for keeping the K-factor system, I really do not see any valid reasons for getting rid of it. As for scoring in 100 point increments, I believe that this could work well. Since the completion of the Judging Instruction document, we tried to use a wider spread of the existing 10 point system with its 0.5 point increments. The first result was a drastic lowering of the scores, with much moaning and complaining from the fliers. A bad square eight, for example will quite easily score a 3, or lower. After a while, the scores became a little less harsh, and we found that the scores given by our judges were a much better reflection of our flying in relation to the rest of the world. Previous scores of 3000 points (3 judges) came down to between 2600 and 2700 points, which is what most of us scored at the various world champs that we have competed in. Sometimes the 20 point spread is just not enough when giving a score. The 40 point system in the USA is better, but difficult to think about quickly. In the same way, the metric, or decimal system is easier to use for quick mental calculations than the imperial system. So if we need a step forward, then 100 points will give a much finer system to the judges, that is to say, if the human mind can resolve a score quickly in 0.1 increments! Thanks again to all concerned with this forum, the end result will most certainly benefit everyone involved in F2B. | Tree | 167 |
| Bruno van Hoek | Re: Imminent closing of K factors topic | 27.05.2003 - 12:12:24 |
| I can only agree with most -if not all- of the comments put up against abolishment of the K-factor.
What -forgive my strong language here and there, but it makes me a bit emotional- annoys me to the bone is that apparently the workinggroup is heading towards rulechanges in a way they think of as right, explaining to those who do not agree, how wrong they are and then move on in the already chosen direction. At least that is how it feels to me. I fear this will be the end of the sport as I loved it. I was (almost) completely happy with the rules as they were, so are probably most of the flyers that did not respond. You know why most people don't vote on any elections, don't you? Because they are convinced it does not matter what they vote, because it's going to end the way they don't want anyway. Both as a judge and a pilot I never found the current way of scoring inadequate, so why change? K-factors? Fine, don't touch them... Engine size? 10cc for 2-stroke was more than adequate, and a .72 4-stroke will replace that happily. Model size? Is dictated by maximum linelength and enginesize, so no need to be put into rules... I have seen at least two examples of modeltypes that stay within the rules as they were and are a clear improvement over what we used to fly with, the Beringer's and Igor Burger's spring to mind here. I have not heard of anyone testing a model with some of the proposed specs (2x 2 m. incl. larger engine) and finding it much better than what we've got now. That would be a valid reason, but again I have no knowledge of such models being tested and evaluated. The proper order would be: Test, evaluate, present results and after that -maybe- propose rulechanges. The way it has been done sofar is the wrong way around. Things I never saw discussed here and that really matter to me -and who knows many more pilots, but they never dared to put this up- are the rules that determine the properties of flying sites, because at least the last two World Championships were flown at sites that were severely -maybe even totally- inadequate for F2B. Maybe fine for the other CL-classes, but not for stunt. Severe turbulence creating unequal circumstances and lack of training-facilities seem to be rather rule than exception here. I must stress here that the team that ran the F2B-event in Sebnitz did an excellent job, beyond any doubt! They had to work with what they had and did that more than 100%. Most times F2B seems to be crammed into places that are developed for and by F2A or F2C people, having totally different needs and apparently not the faintest idea of what makes a good Stuntsite. It's about time we tell the CIAM, we don't accept this any longer and any future World -or Continental- Championships site should be assessed first by F2B-knowledgeable people. If this implies that we can no longer fly together with the other CL-classes, than so be it. But I think we deserve this. An RC-championship with all classes on the same site would be unthinkable. If we don't think of ourselves as less than F3, we should strive for the same recognition. But again, if the rules will be changed the way it appears now, there is a good chance you will do so without me... | Tree | 168 |
| Claus Maikis | recent comments | 27.05.2003 - 21:44:25 |
| Comment. Not to rules, but to the latest comments in this forum.
If Bruno ( and obviously some other people ) feel “annoyed to the bones” I can fully understand how these people feel. HOWEVER I don’t have these feelings about the rules - I have them about their comments. It’s not the first time the F2B working group was accused of “moving on in an already chosen direction”. Interestingly this imputation was made mostly by people who have NOT been on the working group. I have been, and I know how this group has worked. By the way - it was not only this “official” list of members who have contributed ideas. As was clearly and repeatedly explained, every group member was asked to collect information from as much individuals in his country as possible. And this included some very competent person’s ideas. Or would anybody doubt the competence of let’s say Ted Fancher or Clemente Cappi, just to name two of those who gave valuable input, even if they were not named on any list. One word about “polls” and “majority”. A number of flyers, asked at a contest at any given date, with other things in their minds than rules, is not a majority. And whether an answer, given in a hurry, can be well thought through, is highly questionable. Let alone the question who was asked. If it is necessary to use some “strong language” to make things clear, okay we can do just that. I’m not going to raise the K-factor topic again here, just the way the topic is discussed. It’s quite obvious that the ( present ) system is not understood by many people, and that’s the reason that many people want to keep it, at all costs. They still seem to adhere to ideas from decades ago when our event was started , and have never since spent any thoughts about whether the system is really right. The arguments don’t have much merit ( just “keep it” is all they say ). And even mathematical undertakings didn’t prove that the K-factor is necessary. Not even Igor, our math genius, is strictly FOR the factors. The same way of thinking is true for the proposed model size or engine size. People react as if the rule would force them to go to the limit of this rule. Can’t they read? It’s the upper LIMIT , not the requirement! It’s ridiculous to argue about some centimetres more or less to give a precise rule. It is a good rule. Why? Good rules are not those which forbid or dictate a lot. Good rules are those which allow for maximum freedom! As Bruno points out quite right, model size is dictated by line length - and this is dictated by those already existing flight circles !!! This is why line length cannot be changed. What is very often forgotten is the fact that we have to consider insurance matters. And this is why we have to include a rule, whatever it says. One last point: judging from recent world championships the organizers really don’t seem to have “the faintest idea” about properties of flying sites. Yes, really. Instead they got us sites which were “ totally inadequate”. Must have been big blockheads! After all , adequate places can easily be found everywhere. Lots of plain areas, free of obstacles, plenty of perfect practice sites, unlimited use, what have you. You must be blind not to see them. I’m sure Bruno knows how to do it. Next time he runs a world championship he will find a perfect site for us, even in his highly populated mother country. If necessary he will not hesitate to fell acres of forest, remove mountains, rip down houses etc. At least I assume he has more than enough money to support any organizer to provide the facilities which are necessary to fulfil all those modest wishes. Thanks Bruno for your fantastic ideas. We really need such great minds. And we would really hate to “ do without you”. You make us laugh so much. claus | Tree | 169 |
| Dr Laird Jackson | K-factors and the recent comments | 28.05.2003 - 23:18:25 |
| Hi to all -
I have watched this forum but seldom commented. I have seen some of the recent input spurred by the announcement of the imminent closing of the K-factor commentary. I was interested in some of the commentary - some positively some not so - First let me comment on the short comments from Istvan from Hungary. In his note, he states that he supports the expressed opinions of the "real flyers" and not those of some others - included among those are (apparently) members of the F2B Working Group. I would be happy to accept Istvan's categorization of less than a "real flyer" for myself but I submit that such as Peter Germann and Claus Maikis - both of whom are most active in the Working Group - are, in fact "real flyers" -- both have participated in most if not all recent European and World Championships as well as numerous World Cup F2B events and both have consistently acquited themselves well in competition -- quite apart from their selfless work on behalf of F2B flyers worldwide. It is one thing to debate their opinions and quite another do question their intent let alone the "reality" of their participation in both the rules making part of the sport as well as its competition activity. This, or any other forum, should be participated in with appropriate respect for any other participant as (until definitively proven otherwise) having the intent and good grace to try to preserve and protect something we all appreciate. As for the debate on the K-factors and the expanded scoring - Claus and others have made most of the necessary points. I can contribute a bit of history since I am old and relatively useless for anything else. K-factors have been with us for a long time, and are based on use in other sports including full-scale aerobatics. In most if not all places where they are used, it is a mechanism to adjust for difficulty in separate maneuvers where the competitor chooses which maneuver to perform. If they choose a more difficult maneuver then they receive an appropriate reward in the scoring. In the case of F2B this is not so and therefore this reason is invalid in preserving the K-factors. From my perspective as an observer and the S/C chair, it seems to me that retaining the K-factors risks both intentional and unintentional skewing of the scores. From the unintended side, if a judge is differentiating between a good and a not quite so good square 8, then he or she may say "well that was about an 8 where as the one last flyer was a 7.5 and three flyers ago was about a 7.5 also. Then what happens is that the score reflects somebody receiving a score of 8x18, 7.5x18, and 7.5x18. My bet is that the judge does not think of it in that way - he or she thinks of a difference between 8 and 7.5 - not less and not more. If you want the judge to determine the score, then let the judge assign the number that goes on the score card, not a muliplier or a computer program. That way the judge can actually think of what he or she intends to assign as a differentiating score. As to expanding the scoring range - Kieth Trenecle has indicated that it can be done, but people are going to complain - "a 3 for my square 8?" - well one must remember these are scores for comparison only since we don't have world or meet or continentat records in F2B. Since we are asking the judges to determine who is best for the competition, let them compare the flyers. Would it not be more fair for them to compare as closely as possible by seeing the best flyers in sequence rather than separated by many other flyers (to say nothing of weather and turbulence variations). And a final bit of history. The original scoring paragraph stated that "Each judge shall assign a score to the individial maneuver of between 0 and 10 points". Notice that it did not say anything about what the increment should be. Using the original rule one could have used half points as now, 1/3rd points (which by the way about corresponds to the AMA point scale which is not 40 points but actually 30 since the scale is between 10 and 40 so anything less than 10 is not available), 1/10th points or 1/100th points if the judge and the competition wished. Unfortunately in the translation in the old printed rule books the change to mandate "at least" 0,5 increments for WC and CC got change to simple "0,5" increments. So now we have to change back to what we had in the first place. Just some thoughts - cheers - doc | Tree | 170 |
| Dr Laird Jackson | K-factors and the recent comments | 28.05.2003 - 23:18:30 |
| Hi to all -
I have watched this forum but seldom commented. I have seen some of the recent input spurred by the announcement of the imminent closing of the K-factor commentary. I was interested in some of the commentary - some positively some not so - First let me comment on the short comments from Istvan from Hungary. In his note, he states that he supports the expressed opinions of the "real flyers" and not those of some others - included among those are (apparently) members of the F2B Working Group. I would be happy to accept Istvan's categorization of less than a "real flyer" for myself but I submit that such as Peter Germann and Claus Maikis - both of whom are most active in the Working Group - are, in fact "real flyers" -- both have participated in most if not all recent European and World Championships as well as numerous World Cup F2B events and both have consistently acquited themselves well in competition -- quite apart from their selfless work on behalf of F2B flyers worldwide. It is one thing to debate their opinions and quite another do question their intent let alone the "reality" of their participation in both the rules making part of the sport as well as its competition activity. This, or any other forum, should be participated in with appropriate respect for any other participant as (until definitively proven otherwise) having the intent and good grace to try to preserve and protect something we all appreciate. As for the debate on the K-factors and the expanded scoring - Claus and others have made most of the necessary points. I can contribute a bit of history since I am old and relatively useless for anything else. K-factors have been with us for a long time, and are based on use in other sports including full-scale aerobatics. In most if not all places where they are used, it is a mechanism to adjust for difficulty in separate maneuvers where the competitor chooses which maneuver to perform. If they choose a more difficult maneuver then they receive an appropriate reward in the scoring. In the case of F2B this is not so and therefore this reason is invalid in preserving the K-factors. From my perspective as an observer and the S/C chair, it seems to me that retaining the K-factors risks both intentional and unintentional skewing of the scores. From the unintended side, if a judge is differentiating between a good and a not quite so good square 8, then he or she may say "well that was about an 8 where as the one last flyer was a 7.5 and three flyers ago was about a 7.5 also. Then what happens is that the score reflects somebody receiving a score of 8x18, 7.5x18, and 7.5x18. My bet is that the judge does not think of it in that way - he or she thinks of a difference between 8 and 7.5 - not less and not more. If you want the judge to determine the score, then let the judge assign the number that goes on the score card, not a muliplier or a computer program. That way the judge can actually think of what he or she intends to assign as a differentiating score. As to expanding the scoring range - Kieth Trenecle has indicated that it can be done, but people are going to complain - "a 3 for my square 8?" - well one must remember these are scores for comparison only since we don't have world or meet or continentat records in F2B. Since we are asking the judges to determine who is best for the competition, let them compare the flyers. Would it not be more fair for them to compare as closely as possible by seeing the best flyers in sequence rather than separated by many other flyers (to say nothing of weather and turbulence variations). And a final bit of history. The original scoring paragraph stated that "Each judge shall assign a score to the individial maneuver of between 0 and 10 points". Notice that it did not say anything about what the increment should be. Using the original rule one could have used half points as now, 1/3rd points (which by the way about corresponds to the AMA point scale which is not 40 points but actually 30 since the scale is between 10 and 40 so anything less than 10 is not available), 1/10th points or 1/100th points if the judge and the competition wished. Unfortunately in the translation in the old printed rule books the change to mandate "at least" 0,5 increments for WC and CC got change to simple "0,5" increments. So now we have to change back to what we had in the first place. Just some thoughts - cheers - doc | Tree | 171 |
| István Travnik | "The word is a hazardous weapon" (Hungarian proverb) | 29.05.2003 - 01:58:34 |
| Dear Friends, I apologize myself: I used an unlucky expression on silent, but leading flyers, not working with us in the F2B Working group. Naturally Peter, Klaus and all pilots here, are REAL flyers for many years, no doubt, and I REALLY did not want to hurt them.
"Top", "Pinnacle", "Leader", "Finalist", "Significant", "Silent", - all these expressions would have been better... Over and above, I keep my opinion in the question of K-factors: there are different manouvres, taking smaller, or bigger, shorter or longer part of the whole program: somehow must be there a possibility to give different weights to different amount of flying job. Since nobody opposed this thesis, I think, I am right... Best regards: István Travnik | Tree | 172 |
| Keith Trostle | Re: K-Factors | 29.05.2003 - 06:43:50 |
| I do not think anybody will argue that some maneuvers are more difficult than others. There is a valid argument, among others, that the K-Factor system now used actually and inappropriately weights any single error in the high K-Factor maneuvers significantly more than that same error in a lower K-Factor maneuver. This has been previously discussed in this forum as have other legitimate arguments against the K-Factor scoring.
If the "thesis" is that some maneuvers are more difficult than others, Mr. Travnik is correct. If the "thesis" is that K-Factors must be used and that "nobody opposed this thesis", then Mr. Travnik is incorrect in that there have been several logical reasons submitted in this forum against the K-Factor scoring system. I know that Peter Germann is trying to close the discussion on this subject. I would like to conclude my comments here that in my opinion, the K-Factor does not accomplish what many think that it does to properly score the more difficult manuevers. However, whatever the scoring system being used, it can be said that the better flights generally will still be scored higher than poorer flights by any competent set of judges. Respectfully, Keith Trostle | Tree | 173 |
| István Travnik | Re: K-factors | 29.05.2003 - 09:33:04 |
| Dear Friends,
In my last comment I stated in other words: nobody explained that, why is better to give the same weights to different amounts of flying job. One remark: have you seen Bruno's analysis about WC 2002? See page 4: F2B is near to be a Roulette...:((( | Tree | 174 |
| Dave Gardner | K-factors and rules limits | 29.05.2003 - 23:20:25 |
| These two paragraphs really recap the essence and the reality of the proposed rules changes.
“Doc” Laird Jackson: As for the debate on the K-factors and the expanded scoring - Claus and others have made most of the necessary points. …..K-factors have been with us for a long time, and are based on use in other sports including full-scale aerobatics. In most if not all places where they are used, it is a mechanism to adjust for difficulty in separate maneuvers where the competitor chooses which maneuver to perform. If they choose a more difficult maneuver then they receive an appropriate reward in the scoring. In the case of F2B this is not so and therefore this reason is invalid in preserving the K-factors. Claus Maikis: The same way of thinking is true for the proposed model size or engine size. People react as if the rule would force them to go to the limit of this rule. Can’t they read? It’s the upper LIMIT , not the requirement! It’s ridiculous to argue about some centimetres more or less to give a precise rule. It is a good rule. Why? Good rules are not those which forbid or dictate a lot. Good rules are those which allow for maximum freedom! As Bruno points out quite right, model size is dictated by line length - and this is dictated by those already existing flight circles !!! This is why line length cannot be changed. What is very often forgotten is the fact that we have to consider insurance matters. And this is why we have to include a rule, whatever it says. I sat in on the meeting of the flyers in Sebnitz, and I, too, felt that the intent of these changes was entirely overlooked. It seemed that the entire European contingent was concerned that we would now have monster airplanes (didn’t they read the rule on size limits?), with ‘very unsafe overpowered engines’. Did they feel that way when fliers moved from 6cc to 10cc engines? Our event (F2B / Precision Aerobatics) is governed by certain physical limits, with the line length being very predominant. In reality (witness USA AMA Precision Aerobatics), there is no need for limits of ANY sort on the engine and airframe for this event. Maybe 15cc is a practical upper engine limit, but it is not ‘rule driven’, it is the physical limitation of the event. Sure, maybe Paul Walker’s B-17 would have used 4 of available 3.5 or 4cc engines if it were not for the 10 cc limit, but what difference would it really have made? It couldn’t practically fly any faster, nor practically weigh any more, without degrading the overall performance. Weight limits fall in the same category; the 10g pull test is the equalizer here. In the same vein, the k-factor is an artificial factor in our scoring; we don’t have a choice of maneuvers, as Doc Jackson has noted. Scoring is scoring, no matter what the method or the point count. All the 0-100 point spread would do is legitimize the original intent of the 0-10 point spread. It will take some adjusting of the judging mindset, but no competitive positions in an event are changed by the scoring method, the numbers are just different. A point which must be realized is that rules are for both the contestants and the organizers. As a long time ‘organizer’ (AMA CD) and having run events from small local events to the Nationals, complex rules just clutter up the contest organization with ‘fluff’ without benefiting either the contestants or the outcome of the event. All we do this for (presumably) is for the competitors to determine who may be the best on any given day; how we get that done should be as simple and easy as it can be, without compromising the outcome. (I’ve suggested drawing scores from a hat, but without a kind response!) My two cents’ worth, as a serious organizer and a long time mediocre pilot… | Tree | 175 |
| Andy Sweetland | Classification and Ranking | 13.06.2003 - 11:05:05 |
| Dear Friends,
The present F2B Working Group discussion subject (number 4, Scoring - i.e. the use of 100 point increments and removal of K factors) is now closed. Our thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to post, and to respond to other's posts. We would like to now move on to the last subject, number 5, namely "Classification and Ranking", and in particular, the proposals for handling contests with big entry fields (by means of using 2 Circles for Official Flights). In addition, there were numerous inputs earlier this year about the number of Judges to be used, especially at major contests, so as a result we have done some more work on the sub-paragraphs which deal with the number of Judges to be used for Fly-Offs at contests with both 1 and 2 Circles in operation. So the whole of the relevant paragraph, 4.2.19, is quoted below for your comment and discussion. PLEASE NOTE: Due to the dealine for completion of this whole exercise (November 2003) could we please have all your responses on this subject no later than 31st July 2003. This date may seem a little "extreme", but bearing in mind the fact that "the sum" of whatever inputs we get from you on these subjects will have to be incoporated into the present document, then that document will have to be finally updated, diagrams updated and returned to their positions in the document, plus incorporating a number of other inputs and then all manner of "document house-keeping" tasks, the remaining 3 months (August to October) is quite short for us if we are meet the required November 2003 date, especially as the European contest season now being in full swing as well, so do please try to meet the above 31st July deadline. Thanks. Peter D Germann Leader, F2B Working Group 13th June 2003 QUOTE: 4.2.19 Classifying and Ranking Contestants: At all contests the scores recorded by the judges for each Official Flight shall be processed by contest organisers as follows: a) Score Sheet forms shall be collected from the judges immediately after the completion of each Official Flight and delivered to the Scores Tabulator/s. b) The Scores Tabulator/s shall check each incoming batch of Score Sheet forms for legibility and completeness (including Flight Circle Number/Identifier if applicable). The score for the respective contestant in the respective Round shall be calculated by adding all the points awarded by each of the 3 judges for each manoeuvres into a single total number of points. If necessary, any Score Sheets with queries shall be retained before processing until a convenient point in the contest to allow clarification with the judge/s concerned. c) The total points score resulting from paragraph b) above shall then be entered against the respective contestant's name onto a Results Sheet for the respective Round. As soon as practicable after the completion of that Round, copies of the completed Results Sheet for the respective Round shall be posted, plus issued to contestants and other interested parties. However no Results Sheets shall be issued to any of the judges before the end of the contest. d) As soon as practicable after completion of the final (3rd or 4th) Round of the contest, organisers shall calculate the positions in the contest reached by all registered contestants up to that point in the contest ("placings"). When flown in 3 Rounds on 1 Flight Circle, the procedure shall consist of deleting the lowest score awarded to each contestant in a single Round and then adding his remaining 2 scores to produce the contestant's Final Result (or Fly Off qualification placing; refer paragraphs e) and f) below). When flown in 4 Rounds on 2 Flight Circles, the procedure shall consist of deleting the lowest score awarded to each contestant in each Flight Circle and then adding his remaining 2 scores to produce the contestant's Final Result (or Fly Off qualification placing). e) At World and Continental Championships and other limited international contests, organisers shall arrange a Fly Off amongst the 12 contestants holding the best scores ("placings") at the end of the 3rd (or 4th) Round. The Fly-Off shall consist of 3 separate Rounds flown on the same Flight Circle with a minimum of 15 minutes and a maximum of 45 minutes break between each Round. The flying order for each Fly-Off Round shall be established by random draw conducted by the contest organiser. At contests with 1 Flight Circle in operation each Fly-Off Official Flight shall be judged and scored by all available judges (minimum requirement 3 judges). At contests using 2 Flight Circles all Fly-Off Official Flights shall be flown on only 1 of the 2 available Flight Circles. In this case the Head Judge and Deputy Head Judge shall confer to select a minimum of 5 judges from the total number of 6 available judges. All the judges initially selected for Fly-Off judging shall judge and score all 36 Fly-Off Official Flights. The score for each contestant in each Fly-off Round shall be calculated by adding all the points for each manoeuvre awarded by all the judges into a single total number of points. f) Ranking of the 12 Fly-Off contestants shall be performed using the same principle as in paragraph d) above - namely, the lowest score of each contestant shall be discarded, with the remaining 2 scores to be totalled, so providing the Final Results scores (placings) for the 12 Fly-Off participants. g) Subject to available time, number of entries, and any other relevant constraints, organisers of other contests may also arrange a Fly-Off in accordance with paragraphs e) and f) above. h) At World and Continental Championships and other limited international contests only, organisers shall also rank the Final Results of all registered contestants for classification by National Teams. This shall be done by adding the position numbers ("placings") in the Final Results sheets for the members of each National Team, and shall include the results of the Fly-Off (paragraphs e) and f) above). National Teams shall be ranked by placing the lowest numerical total of each National Team member's position ("placing") in the highest National Team position, with complete teams (3 contestants) ranked ahead of teams with 2 contestants, and with 2 contestant teams ranked ahead of teams with 1 contestant. For example, the 3 members of the "Country A" team achieve 1st, 5th, and 9th places (total 15), but "Country A" shall be ranked ahead of "Country B" who achieved 2nd and 10th places (total 12) because "Country B" had only 2 team members. Notes: i) In accordance with the FAI Sporting Code, Section IV, Volume ABR, Section 4B, paragraph B.3.5, page 28, there are occasions when a National Team can consist of a 4th (junior) member. In this event the procedure for classifying National Teams shall be followed as above, with the 3 highest placings of the respective National Team to be used, regardless of whether or not a junior scored one of those highest placings. ii) In addition, the FAI Sporting Code, Section IV, Volume ABR, Section 4B, paragraph B.3.5, page 28 provides that a currently reigning World or Continental Champion may defend his title in the next respective (World or Continental) Championship. Such participation may, subject to the provisions of paragraph B.3.5 as detailed above, be on the basis that the defending Champion is (I) a member of his respective National Team, or is (II) simply a single separate entrant. In both such cases the individual Final Results placing of the defending Champion shall be calculated in accordance with the procedure at paragraph d) above, (plus, if qualifying for the Fly-Off, also in accordance with paragraphs e) and f) above). However, if such defending Champion is participating on the basis of being a single separate entry (II above) and not as a member of his respective National Team, then his Final Results placing shall not be used for National Team ranking. iii) At World and Continental championships and other limited international contests when the number of participating junior contestants is sufficient to award a separate title (such as Junior World or Junior Continental Champion), organisers shall rank all juniors both within the main Final Results sheet listing (paragraph c) above), and also as separate junior contestants within a separate Junior Final Results listing. The Junior Final Results ranking shall be calculated from the juniors' scores in accordance with paragraph d) above, with the 3 best placing juniors to be ranked separately as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd placed junior contestants. Juniors shall not be ranked according to nation, as in paragraph h) above, but where the number of junior contestants is sufficient, it is recommended that organisers arrange a separate Fly-Off for juniors only, as per paragraphs e), and f) above. Also, according to their scores within the Results Sheets listing for all contestants in the contest, junior contestants may also participate in the Fly-Off, as per the provisions of paragraphs d), e), and f) above for all other contestants. UNQUOTE: | Tree | 176 |
| Brett Buck | Re: Classification and Ranking | 16.06.2003 - 00:41:21 |
| Just out of curiosity, this appears to limit the maximum number of circles to 2. With a typical entry of maybe 90-100 contestants at W/C, even 2 circles is quite marginal and may still result in rounds wrapping over into a second day.
I would think that for 100 entrants, 4 groups would be perfectly acceptable, and result in relatively short rounds of around 4 hours. Two rounds a day would be quite doable. This gives a reasonable chance that the conditions and the judges will be reasonably consistent over the entire time, with time for breaks. 2 groups is a step in the right direction, but it's still a very long day. I can't really see any reason to limit it to 2 - with three, for instance, pick the top 4 or 5 off each circle to get the qualifiers, and then have 15 in the flyoff. As long as you don't intermingle the groups (one group per circle), there is no problem with not having all the contestants fly for each judges group. This is what is used for the US Nationals, with two classes of about 40 each, and 4 circles/groups going simultaneously. It has worked quite well, and it not quite so brutal on the judges. Brett | Tree | 177 |
| Claus Maikis | classification | 16.06.2003 - 02:30:33 |
| Reply to Brett
and to others also Yes we can see the problems with 100 competitors. And one suggestion to solve it is the “two circle format”. And we clearly see the advantages and disadvantages with this solution. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Brett’s suggestions ( 4 circles ) as far as contest organization is concerned. What many Americans do not know or do not realize: there are actually several open minds in the world who would prefer to adopt the AMA rule for the FAI Sporting Code. Except for some tiny modifications I’d be one of the first to vote for this solution. HOWEVER - what most people overlook is the practicality of particular suggestions. Pilots who are regular competitors on the L-pad at Muncie tend to forget that they enjoy the advantages of a perfect flying site, which probably is not available elsewhere in the world. I have been at Muncie - and it was like control line heaven. I just cannot imagine any organizer in the world who can provide us with a similar place. I have not been to all world championships sites, but I cannot remember that any of these places have ever been found perfect. If you have read some of those insane comments recently, you will have noticed that even good sites have been found inadequate. Now - if all those sites have not satisfied flyers, this indicates that perfect sites are difficult if not impossible to find ( let alone the cost of building those “inadequate” circles !! ). Which pretty much answers the question about the number of circles. By the way, this fact was the reason that Peter Germann considered the use of grass circles also, as these might be easier available. You should have heard the world wide cry ! It is one thing to express ones wishes - and it’s another thing to realize and PAY these! The number of judges is the next problem. For the “two circle system” a reduced number of judges ( 3 for each circle ) was suggested. At the Sebnitz WCh there were several flyers who demanded no less than 5 judges for every circle, and less than 5 was thought absolutely unacceptable. All right, these are the people who will never ever organize a WCh , and who have not considered what it will cost to pay 10 judges ( or 12 or 20 for a 4 circle system ). I know that the Sebnitz organizer was very carefully in selecting the judges for the WCh to reduce cost. After all you have to pay travel, and accommodation and food for one week. Please do a short calculation yourself ( mathematics is not my greatest talent ) and you will easily recognize the problem. So - I hope I’ve made it quite clear that I do not oppose a system similar to AMA . Instead I wished that some fine day our two systems would melt into one which all of us could be happy with. But - as Doc said: rules shouldn’t be made for the competitors only. They should also allow a potential organizer to run a contest of that level without going bankrupt. Without organizers - no contests any more !!! It’s that simple. claus | Tree | 178 |
| Brett Buck | Re: classification | 16.06.2003 - 03:49:32 |
| I certainly agree that the organizers shouldn't be overly burdened. But if there isn't an adequate site for a contest, then don't bid. We are talking about a world championship - not a bi-weekly local fun-fly! The concept of even attempting to run 90+ pilots with one circle and 5 judges *absolutely, positively* guarantees that (despite the good will and best efforts of all involved) that there will be a large element of luck, and some, well, 'anomalies' in the results.
The point is to pick the best flier in the world, not the pilot that had the good fortune to fly in the best air near the end of the round. It's unfair to the pilots, and even more so to the judges (whose job is brutally difficult even with 4-hour rounds, never mind 24-hour rounds over two days). Besides, I don't suggest that 3 or 4 circles be mandated, just that it isn't limited to 2. Then the sites that can accomodate 4 can use 4, and those that can't can use only 2. I frankly don't see why the rules should specify *anything* in the way of organizational factors like numbers of circles aside from the minimum requirement of a 90 foot paved circle and at least 2 judges per circle. Leave the detail to the organizers - if they want to run 6 circles and have the space and the personnel, why should the rule book prevent it? I don't necessarily advocate simply taking AMA rules and making them the FAI standard. But even if you did, the AMA rules say absolutely nothing about the number of circles, qualifying format, number in flyoff, etc. It's left to the individual event directors, and all they have to do is pick a fair method and publish it ahead of time. We have pretty much settled on 2 circles, 4 rounds, top 10 from each group fly off to get top 5, then fly off top 5 for Open championship. But if we got half the entry, it would probably change. I don't see why the rule book should specify this area, other than to give minimum requirement. But if there absolutely has to be a rule about organizational matters, I would say it should be to limit a circle/group to approximately 30 people. If there is an expected entry of 90, then there would have to be 3 circles of 30 each. Take the top 4 off of each circle, and you get 12, or 16, or ( 4xnumber) of people in the flyoff. This makes a round about 5 hours long, maximum (wtih two breaks). That's about as long as you can expect consistent results from a judge, in my opinion. Contrast that with 90 entrants and 2 circles. Each round will be about 10 hours (given a few breaks in the morning, lunch, and a few breaks in the afternoon). Start at 8AM, and you finish at 6. I challenge anyone reading this to stand on the pavement in Muncie in July for 10 hours and then tell me how well you think you could judge at the end of that time! Or even not require medical attention. There has to be some better way than limiting it to 2 circles for 100ish entrants. Brett As an aside, one thing you may not realize - the Muncie L-Pad, while very nice in quality, was a massive reduction in space from many previous NATs sites. There was a huge hue and cry when the NATs got permanently stationed there due to lack of paved practice area during the contest. I personally find the grass pad just fine (and preferable during those 95 degree/95% humidity Midwest days) but most people simply refuse to fly there. We had gotten used to maybe 10-15 practice circles, with most of them available all day long during the contest. These were held at various airports and military bases and space simply wasn't an issue. | Tree | 179 |
| Andy Sweetland | Re: classification | 16.06.2003 - 18:02:40 |
| Brett,
I'd like to comment on 2 separate parts of your last post. Firstly, you wrote: QUOTE: I certainly agree that the organizers shouldn't be overly burdened. But if there isn't an adequate site for a contest, then don't bid. We are talking about a world championship - not a bi-weekly local fun-fly! The concept of even attempting to run 90+ pilots with one circle and 5 judges *absolutely, positively* guarantees that (despite the good will and best efforts of all involved) that there will be a large element of luck, and some, well, 'anomalies' in the results. UNQUOTE: Brett, I, like many others inside and outside the F2B WG, entirely share your feeling about the purpose of a World Champs being to select the best C/L aerobatics pilot in the world and the World Champs not being a "bi-weekly local fun-fly"! BUT your recommendation along the lines of "if you don't have the facilities don't bid" unfortunately does not work out in practice - if you care to study the Minutes of Meetings of the CIAM Plenary Sessions held each year (available from the FAI website to download) you'll see that FAI/CIAM is not exactly overwhelmed with bids to run either World or Euro ("Continental") Championships! In fact if you look back over, say, the last 5 or 10 years you'll see only a few cases where there have been more than 1 NAC bidding to run such events, and in some cases you'll see years when it looked as if no one would bid at all, right up until the "last minute"! Bidding to run a World Champs is NOT like bidding to run an Olympics in as much as there is precious little other than the "glory" to be got out of running the event (apart from a lot of work and a hell of a financial burden) - it's just not like the Olympics with multi-million bucks potentially going to the winning bidder! I'll go further - you don't have to go far back into this Forum archive to see posts complaining about the "unsuitable" sites chosen to run recent World or Euro Champs! And in fact, in one way that comment is quite right, if only for just the reasons of judges' fatigue that you state - thinking back off the top of my head to 1996 I cannot think of one site where either a Worlds or a Euros has been held at a site which could have handled more than 1 circle - in some cases perhaps 2 circles, IF the 2nd circle was "allowed" to be grass! And that includes the 1996 Worlds in Sweden, which, as you suggested, used a dis/partially-used ex military airfield, and even there it was only possible to fit in 1 F2B circle at a runway/taxiway/runway junction (the width of a runway alone was insufficient to cater for full-length lines along it's length). And as a matter of interest, when Switzerland ran the World Scale Champs in 2000 (also on an disused military airfield) we had exactly the same problem with F4B (C/L Scale). But there, "fortunately", having only 21 contestants, we were able to use the one runway/taxiway intersection we had available for C/L without any problems. No Sir, sorry. Whilst I can't speak for Australia, New Zealand, Asia, or South America, the fact is that here in Europe (anywhere that I can think of) we're very lucky to get enough space for max 2 circles, and as above, in many cases, that 2nd circle is likely to be grass. Unlike Claus Maikis I haven't seen Muncie (yet - much looking forward to it!), but as he describes it, it really is C/L heaven (you lucky/well-organised people you!), and if some of your fliers think Mincie's bad in comparison to your "old days" at US military airfields, simply ask them if they'd like to have their Annual Nats cancelled altogether because of lack of a single suitable airfield within the whole country (that's something which is happening right now in the UK apparently, and is just one example of what I mean). Brett, you also wrote: QUOTE: Besides, I don't suggest that 3 or 4 circles be mandated, just that it isn't limited to 2. Then the sites that can accomodate 4 can use 4, and those that can't can use only 2. I frankly don't see why the rules should specify *anything* in the way of organizational factors like numbers of circles aside from the minimum requirement of a 90 foot paved circle and at least 2 judges per circle. Leave the detail to the organizers - if they want to run 6 circles and have the space and the personnel, why should the rule book prevent it? UNQUOTE: Again Brett, Peter Germann and I (and many others too) have a lot of sympathy for your approach, and in fact, we discussed this point at great length during earlier rules drafting work. But the problem with your suggestion of "let the organisers decide how to run it" is that, just as you say, we're talking primarily about a contest to decide the best C/L Aerobatic pilot in the World here. Whilst it is quite clear that the USA have both the facilities and the expertise to run a "fair" contest on more than 2 circles, how many other countries have this? Again, according to some recent posts here (and comments heard more than once over the years) some countries just don't have the facilities and expertise to run an F2B contest on 1 circle! Seriously, surely if the title "F2B World Champion" is going to mean anything at all, we can't have an event where, one year it was all done "properly" (i.e. proper judges and numbers of them; equal number of flights on each - different - circle; a standard method of working out how entrants - and nations - are to be placed according to dropping certain scores, etc; a standard method of handling Junior entrants; etc, etc), when the next time the F2B World Champ was chosen from a comp with 3 circles (say), each having a different number of judges, different number of flights on each circle, different method of calculating places, etc, etc? HOWEVER, it would be possible to amend the presently-proposed draft rules to set a certain "minimum standard/minimum procedure" PER CIRCLE to be used. Would this answer your point better in this area Brett? And does anyone else care to add a comment on this point? However, before replying on this (and at risk of being accused - yet again - of already having made up our minds before starting off on this exercise!), do please let me remind anyone who wants to post on the possiblity of "opening up" the rules to cater for more than 2 circles that: 1. As above, we think that there are precious few sites available that can manage 2 decent circles, let alone more than 2; 2. As they are presently written, today's F2B rules allow for ONE F2B circle only; 3. We felt the presently-proposed 2 circles procedure was a good compromise between all the problems that you outline so well Brett (judges' fatigue, etc) versus available sites versus overall contest duration. In other words do we really need to "clutter up" the proposed new rules by giving details of a multi-circle procedure which in reality would only be useable by, very probably, only 1 country in the world? Andy Sweetland | Tree | 180 |
| Brett Buck | Re: classification | 17.06.2003 - 05:36:59 |
|
I see no problem whatsoever if the procedure is tailored to the site, instead of forcing it to be the same every time. Allowing the organizers to optimize the use of space and energy they have insures that they always have the best possible situation for a particular year. If some years are better than others, that's a site limitation that could be taken into account when awarding bids. If you were to, for sake of argument, survey all member nations and make sure that the rules specified something every one of them could accomodate, all you would wind up with a very limiting set of rules. It would be consistent, but consistent isn't necessarily good. >HOWEVER, it would be possible to amend the presently-proposed draft >rules to set a certain "minimum standard/minimum procedure" PER CIRCLE >to be used. Would this answer your point better in this area Brett? Which is precisely what I suggested - a max of 30 or so on circle. To accomodate the current proposal, you'd have to raise it to 45, and that's just too many unless you want the thing to run for 2 weeks. However, before >replying on this (and at risk of being accused - yet again - of already >having made up our minds before starting off on this exercise!), do >please let me remind anyone who wants to post on the possiblity of >"opening up" the rules to cater for more than 2 circles that: > >1. As above, we think that there are precious few sites available that can >manage 2 decent circles, let alone more than 2; >2. As they are presently written, today's F2B rules allow for ONE F2B circle only; > > 3. We felt thepresently-proposed 2 circles procedure was a good compromise between all >the problems that you outline so well Brett (judges' fatigue, etc) >versus available sites versus overall contest duration. In other words >do we really need to "clutter up" the proposed new rules by giving >details of a multi-circle procedure which in reality would only be >useable by, very probably, only 1 country in the world? Without personal experience, I have to take your word for it, but I find it exceptionally hard to believe that Europe doesn't have parking lots (I hear Euro-Disney has a lot of free space...). Using the Muncie site as some sort of optimal situation is a strange perspective - given that the biggest complaint I normally hear with it is that it's too small and limited. There are PAMPA members who want Frank McMillan (and other EC members including me) skinned alive for not 'demanding' that the site be expanded. Heck, the US W/C bid was hoped to be a "lever" to help make a case to enlarge the L-Pad, and in fact, the original idea was to have the W/C at Oshkosh, WI because of the large amounts of available ramp space. Bill Lee could answer more definitely, but last plan I saw involved some non-trival amount of paving at Muncie in order to provide adequate space for a W/C (but unfortunately, not at the L-Pad). In any case, I think we can all agree with the concept that the current procedure is rather lacking. If everyone is bound and determined to limit it to 2, then even that is a big improvement. At least 2 circles will be used in Muncie. Brett | Tree | 181 |
| doc jackson | current discussion | 17.06.2003 - 17:58:04 |
| Again I apologize for a non-combatant making comments here. However, the current discussion is creeping closer to the business of the subcommittee. F2B is but one part of F2 albeit a somewhat dominant part in terms of numbers and interest. World Champs for F2 must take into account all 4 categories. A previous commentator thought that the F2B people should have their own WC separately from F2A,C,D. Might be fun but in the current climate I don't think it would be much of a WC. The current exchanges have dwealt on the number of F2B circles etc. Comments to the effect of only establishing minimums or guidelines are appropriate. Ask any lawyer or legislator and they will tell you not to make rules telling people what they CAN do - if you forget any detail then by default you CANNOT do whatever you forgot to put in the rule. Try to explain what is not allowed or what minimum standards are - it leaves the unforseen open to further discussion.
Within the CIAM, controlline is a fairly poor relative despite good numbers of participants and contestants and usually impressive numbers of contestants at any World or Continental (exclusively European thus far) championships. For example, even though the F3C Helicopter people have a small representation at the CIAM meetings and a small number of participants at their World Champs (recently concluded in Japan), and they admit that their competition is boring to watch and attracts few outside spectators ---- they have big and successful championships. Why? - my personal opinion is simple - money. Helicopters and their equipment sell a lot of high end stuff and some flyers appear to have bucks. In contrast, we in controlline are usually hanging on by our teeth. As seen in the recent discussions - few places on earth can support a controlline championships - the US is an exception to the European rule and Europe is where most of the CIAM competition occurs. Europe has a lot of people per unit of area so both space and space without noise complaints are at a premium there. The virtual disappearance of availability of airbase venues in the UK is a dramatic change from yesteryear. Even in the eastern US this is happening. And I suspect if you asked Kieth Trostle he would admit that the loss of the Mile Square facility in southern California is an evil portent for the future - golfers have taken over and that doesn't seem to provide much excuse in better use either for younger kids or for use in persons per unit area of the space. But golfers spend a lot of money, buy equipment from manufacturers with money, play a game heavily participated in by lawyers, (ahem) doctors, etc etc. So - wishing for better venues for champs ain't gonna cut it. We gotta do some work on our own behalf. How? I don't have any magic ideas but we should attempt to explore anything reasonable. I suspect that beginning to look at other examples of purpose-built and owned flying sites would be something to explore. AMA's site was built by modelers and is owned by modelers. A lot of current RC flyers (the older ones) got their start in controlline and, because of their age, may have some resources both economically and with contacts. Maybe some would be willing to help to establish some protected flying sites. It isn't impossible - the free flighters have done it in California by a combination of a few good people, some luck and a number of small donations from ordinary flyers. Theirs didn't happen overnight but only after a lot of work. It is not an impossible dream for us. Cheer up - there are some examples of progress. In Argentina - where the economy is so bad right now they will almost pay you to eat steak so they don't have to feed the steers any more - a few (read probably less than a dozen) controlline enthusiasts (mostly F2B) have run a World Cup competition now for 3 rounds holding it every odd year since 1999. They have international contestants (admitedly only a few French went there deliberately in 2001 - otherwise international means a few Brazilians who are relatively close by and a sprinkling of Russians who are living and working in the city) and have convinced their city of Rafaela (Northwest of BA) to build them a field with now 2 paved circles and ample ground space and a meeting facility. To my knowledge this is the only example of a controlline world cup outside of Europe - something even us big guys here in the US haven't managed. Maybe we ought to stop sweating the small stuff, campaign for 4-6 dedicated competiton sites around the world that we could use to rotate the World champs (and rotate a continental on the off year instead of always having only a European - might even get up enuff energy to have more than one continental in the off year?) gain public interest (and importantly media interest) find benevolent sponsorship that would mainly let us do our own thing with modest concessions to what the TV audience would like to see - show people that kids and adults can actually get a kick out of DIRECTLY flying a model rather than move little levers on a box or watch the thing rocket off into space and out of sight - and actually learn to understand and appreciate a sport which many of us actually love. The CIAM, its President, and the FAI itself would welcome and support efforts in this direction. There - I went and shot my mouth off again - doc | Tree | 182 |
| Bruno van Hoek | Internet - wars? | 03.07.2003 - 11:35:36 |
| I’ve noticed many times how almost complete wars broke out amongst members of internet fora.
Seems I’ve fallen into this trap too, no matter how much I would have liked to avoid it. Most has to do with trying to express opinions and maybe even feelings in a foreign language. I consider myself and certainly Claus to be in a better than average -for foreigners that is- command of English. Still, when talking personally I’d rather speak his language, German, since that would be a lot easier for me. But since the forum language is English, English it shall be. With earlier stated disastrous results... As it appears I’ve used an expression, that probably has a different ‘weight’ to me, than it has to Claus. I would use ‘annoyed to the bones’ to describe when I feel not taken seriously enough and therefore being in a rather sad mood. But reading Claus’ reaction, it seems to me that he took it for an insult, getting the impression of me being an angry, ravishing madman, which is not anywhere near my nature. Like said, to me English IS a foreign language after all... I don’t accuse the workinggroup of anything, I just stated how appears to me from where I am. The only contact I have to the ‘new rules - preparation committee’, as I would describe the workgroup, is through this forum. For example, I got the very first parts in writing only weeks before the closing date. Last mailed info I’ve got was on Nov. 14th 2001. (!) I followed things again on the internet when this forum became available. Besides, I DO take the workinggroup seriously, otherwise I wouldn’t respond, would I? Also I sense in his comments about my remarks about what I called ‘inadequate sites’ something of hurt feelings about his contestdirector-ship at the last WC. Well, I was very impressed by that. I tried to incorporate this in my original post but it seems to have landed somewhere in the bushes instead of on the runway, so I’ll put it once more explicitly: Claus I think that you (and your team) did an outstanding job in running the last WC F2B, and made the most out of the given circumstances. Period. What I’d like is that all of us look closer at possibilities to improve circumstances, so all pilots will have equal opportunities. In case of a turbulent site it’s a gamble. It wouldn’t make the top 10 pilots drop to rank 40 to 50 and vice-versa, but it can make so much of a difference within these groups. And I assure you, even I would rather be 43rd than 52nd. I’ve been very lucky in 1994, 2000 and 2002 to fly in relative good weather and have been able to perform up to my (modest) abilities, so it’s not for my own sake that I put this up. Still, to me this is the single most important issue, way beyond all other points of discussion. Then this subject about me organizing a Championship. Nice thought, but it takes more than one person to do this. Even if the entire CL population of the Netherlands would join in, there would be nowhere near enough people to run a contest like that. It’s not 1983 anymore... There is something else: Some years ago I indeed organized a Worldcup F2B-event, only 5 (!) participants (amongst them 2 foreigners) turned up. Needless to say that the RC-club that donated it’s site for three full days was not willing to repeat this experiment. O yes, the site had an almost 360 degrees horizon and enough space for two contest circles and a practice site. In a review I read amazement that nobody turned up to fly at ‘one of Europe’s best sites’, or something like that. So far my experience as an organizer, ‘never again’ as you’ve guessed... Best sites I’ve flown: Woodvale, Barkston Heath, Almere and De Peel airbase. Worst sites: Utrecht, Bochum, Pecs, Chestochowa, Shanghai, Landres, Sebnitz. Again, this is about opinion.... Best to do now would be for me and Claus to talk all this over with (after flying of course) a mug of beer (lager/ dunkles) at the Bietigheim contest, for I’ll come to Germany this weekend. See you Saturday! | Tree | 183 |
| Andy Sweetland | Internet Wars? | 04.07.2003 - 10:35:56 |
| Dear Bruno,
On behalf of "the F2B Working Group" (i.e. Peter Germann, the CIAM-appointed leader, plus myself, Andy Sweetland, Peter's assistant) I'd like to reply to the first part of your message. First, a bit of history if I may. It's over 2 years ago now (March 2001), when, following the work Peter and I did for the F2B Judges' Guide in 1999 and 2000, CIAM asked us to "go the next step" and produce a complete new set of rules for F2B. The prime criteria were (in NO particular order) remove the "grey areas" in the present rules; "open" the F2B contest to make it more "accessible" to beginners and to new technology (but at the same time without destroying the "spirit" of the present event – and certainly NOT to change the manoeuvres themselves); try and do something about the quite wide inconsistencies in judging/scoring standards; try and allow for a significant increase in the number of contestants appearing over the last few years at many of the larger F2B events (example - but NOT exclusively - at World and Euro Champs). Just to make one point clear here - like everyone else involved in aeromodelling administration, Peter and I are volunteers and receive not 1 penny for any of the costs involved. And just like everyone, Peter and I have to work in full-time jobs to earn our respective livings, meaning that this work is done in our “free time”. Perhaps unlike some others in aeromodelling administration though, both Peter and I are active C/L contest participants, and also perhaps unlike some others, neither of us are "all that hot" when it comes to modern IT technology (we neither of us have the time or knowledge to run our own web site home page for example). So right at the start we asked ourselves how we could perform this rule change exercise AND involve the max number of active F2B participants (note please, not "just" the fliers but the F2B judges and contest organisers as well), but at the same time keep our workload to a minimum (we had already seen during the F2B Judges Guide exercise that by trying to involve as many other people and ideas as possible we ended up with large E-mails, phone calls, and letters loadings - both in terms of phone bills etc and especially the VERY large and time-consuming work load). The idea we hit on was, first, do everything by E-mail; and 2nd, work to only 1 "F2BWG National Representative" per country, the idea being that we would simply send out "topics for discussion" to each Nat Rep, and each Nat Rep would then farm those out to the people in his/her own country and then collect the resulting comments to send back to us. To find those Nat Reps for each country we obviously needed someone with good English, someone with PC/E-mail, and someone with good contacts to/acceptance by the rest of the F2B community in his/her own country, so (with CIAM's blessing) we first contacted EVERY NAC on the FAI list explaining what we wanted and what being a Nat Rep would involve, asking each NAC to nominate 1 person from their own country. That was in April/May 2001 and predictably I suppose, some NAC's nominated a name pretty quickly, and in other cases we are still today awaiting answers from some of the other NAC's! For those countries whose NAC did not nominate someone but where Peter and I knew that there was an active F2B community in that country we then simply chose the name of a person that we knew (this again with CIAM's blessing), so that by June 2001 we had a total of 26 Nat Reps (as above, 1 for each country). From June 2001 until November 2001 (when CIAM required us to submit a complete set of proposed new rules for F2B) we sent out TONS of info (the above “Topic Groups“ to each Nat Rep, 7 in all), and again inevitably I suppose, some Nat Reps responded by the requested dates with clear summaries of all the responses that they’d picked up from F2B people in their own countries, and in some cases the responses from the Nat Reps were, shall we say, somewhat less than the above (in some cases responses were completely non-existent!) But whatever we did get in from the Nat Reps meant that we (at first) had the work of summarising all the inputs then circulating back to all the Nat Reps (so that everyone knew what everyone else was saying/thinking about a particular Topic Group). But after the first 1 or 2 goes of “just summaries“, some Nat Reps insisted that they should not get summaries but instead, verbatim copies of everything that every other Nat Rep had sent in instead (and that resulted in 20 odd pages of A4 typescript every time – AFTER we had spent MANY hours “transcribing“ notes of the telecons, “funny document formats“, and plus hand-written letters from people who were apparently unable to use the E-mail and a word processor!). Anyway, we did do all that for the remaining 5 Topic Groups so that the net result was that in November 2001 Peter and I (ably and willing assisted by a number of the Nat Reps let it be also said) were indeed able to put forward a complete draft of a proposed set of new F2B rules to CIAM. Those proposed new rules were then discussed at Plenary in March 2002, but because of CIAM procedures, any new set of F2B rules could not be brought into effect until 2005 (meaning that voting could be left until 2004). So it was decided that the above exercise should be “widened“ beyond the Nat Reps, first of all by holding a discussion evening during the World Champs 2002 at Sebnitz, and second by finding someone to host an F2B WG Forum on a web site to allow further general discussions. Now I was not at Sebnitz myself in 2002 (I was in hospital instead) but I do know that AS WELL as flying for the SUI F2B team, Peter Germann spent a LONG time preparing material for that meeting; and I also know that AS WELL as being primary F2B organiser plus CD for that Sebnitz World Champs, your friend Claus Maikis also spent a LONG time preparing material for that meeting too. Now I guess you were at that Sebnitz meeting yourself, and as above, I wasn’t, so will you please tell me/us, what, in your opinion came out of that meeting? From the (several) reports I received, your answer to that question has to be “not very much at all” - that is apart from a “petition” by a minority of F2B people present which said that the F2B rules should not be changed at all (BUT WITHOUT giving any reasons as to why the rules shouldn’t be changed – of course not)! Anyway, “ever-onwards” (!!), so Peter was able to get the kind assistance of Igor Burger and his software friends, as a result of which we now have this F2B Working Group Internet Forum. This, as you will see if you look, started off in August 2002 and currently has 164 posts all archived within it (excluding this one). Now you are no doubt asking what all that long and tedious “history” above has got to do with your post? Well 1st, as noted in detail above, right from the start there was a Nat Rep appointed for Holland and another for Belgium (I must apologise here Bruno as I’m not sure if you are Dutch or Belgian, please excuse me); 2nd, as also noted above, as well as circulating all the NAC’s right at the start, Peter and I also arranged for details of the whole exercise to be publicised in “Stunt News”, on Goeran Olsson’s web site, and on the FAI/CIAM web site; 3rd, and in addition, EVERY piece of correspondence we got in from/sent out to those Nat Reps up until Nov 2001 was also copied verbatim to EVERY member of the CIAM F2 Subcommittee; 4th, the details of the evening meeting to be held in Sebnitz were also publicised by ALL of the above methods well before the meeting took place; 5th, as soon as this F2BWG Forum was up and running, that fact was also publicised to ALL the above, and further, as it became clear to us that Leonard Neumann’s Stuka Stunt Works Forum in the US was attracting a lot of Stunt/PA attention, details of/a link to this Forum was also posted at Leonard’s SSW Forum. In short Bruno, as far as your point about not being aware of what was happening/being kept up to date is concerned, I can only say that whilst we agree that F2BWG details were not printed underneath the page 3 girl in your favourite national newspaper, we certainly HAVE gone to a great deal of effort and time to try and ensure by all conventional aeromodelling channels that as many F2B’ers as possible are always fully informed, wherever they may be. If you have not been kept in the picture then I suggest you take it up with your F2BWG Nat Rep, with your “local” F2 Subcommittee member, with your own NAC officials – or perhaps you may even consider taking at least some of the “blame” yourself - you clearly do have PC/Internet access and I’m personally convinced that even if you were not reached by any of the above sources, 5 minutes effort with any competent Internet Search Engine would have enabled you to find us (and having found us it would only take periodic return visits to keep yourself up to speed – not forgetting that with this Forum you automatically get an E-mail every time a new post is received as well). As far as use of English is concerned Bruno, you’re quite right and it IS difficult for someone without English as a mother tongue to be sure that any criticism he/she writes in English will actually come across in the same “tone” to everyone else, be they English or any other nationality. In fact both Peter and I DO sympathise with and make due allowances for that when receiving inputs, particularly especially since I, a native English speaker, have to use my (not very good) German in Switzerland every day, and as Peter, a native German speaker, uses English in his everyday business life. But with respect, you have missed the point here Bruno – regardless of how harshly or gently your criticism was phrased, you were making criticisms based on a) your own lack of knowledge (something which, as above, you have to take at least partial responsibility for yourself), and b) your criticisms were not only inaccurate but also did NOT contain any alternative suggestions as to how to solve the problems you were complaining about. Your friend Claus Maikis has put it very well in a post to another Forum recently – to be ignorant (even of one’s own sport/hobby) is not in itself a particular “sin”, but to allow yourself to criticise others who are working dammed hard and long on your behalf WITHOUT bothering to first get the facts, and to criticise WITHOUT bothering to offer any reasoned arguments and any alternative suggestions most definitely IS a “sin”. And in my opinion, that remains a “sin” regardless of how well or how poorly your English was written! Let me put it this way – I’m a very slow builder, but with all the time and effort I alone have personally put into the F2BWG I could have built at least 2 “full-blown” F2B models instead – and that does not include Peter’s many man hours either. Now suppose for a moment that I had built 1 or both of those models (instead of spending hours writing F2BWG stuff like this), and also suppose that the resulting models were as crappy as a number of people have said the Proposed New F2B Rules are. Now suppose that I turned up at your flying field (or at the fields of any of the other Proposed New F2B Rules complainers – many of whom have managed to be far more personally insulting that you have by the way!). What do you think would happen? My guess is that if my mythical model really was as crappy as the complainers say the new rules are, then whilst there may well have been a certain amount of “giggling behind the hand” I am also quite certain that F2B’ers being what they (generally) are, there would also have been a lot of practical help and advice along the lines of “you’ve got a problem here but how you fix it is like this”. Why not a similar reaction to the Proposed New F2B Rules (many have managed to find the time to do exactly that). Now Bruno, whether your original criticism was couched in perfect English or not, please ask yourself if your criticisms contained any elements of the F2BWG facts, and if your criticisms contained any attempt to help Peter and I to find an acceptable way around the “problems” you raised? And if not, why not? It was that point to which Claus was referring when he made his post about what you have referred to as “Internet Wars” Bruno, and if you take the trouble to read back through posts on this and other Forums, and if you ask Claus to show you all the F2BWG Nat Reps correspondence from the 2001 period, you’ll see that quite a few people have not only criticised but have criticised in a way which I can only describe as offensive and personally insulting - AND like yours, many criticisms have been made WITHOUT first bothering to check the mass of correspondence which is freely available to all who can be bothered to look at it. Some have even gone so far as to accuse Peter and I of having a “hidden agenda” where, regardless of any inputs received from anyone anywhere, we are just determined to press ahead with certain pre-planned and fixed ideas. And they have said that REGARDLESS of the fact that even a brief study of all that mass of correspondence clearly shows this really is not the case, and REGARDLESS of the fact that once the final draft of the new rules are presented to CIAM in Nov 2004, the work is finished (finally!) and Peter and I have will NO opportunity to have any further influence on events whatsoever (it then becomes a matter for the whole of the CIAM F2 Subcommittee to accept/reject, and if accepted, then to be formally voted on at Plenary by the CIAM National Representatives – 1 country 1 vote). “Hidden agenda” indeed – that’s just utter rubbish! So to you Bruno, and to all other detractors who have bothered to read this far, I’ll speak now just for myself and say that I have now lost all patience with ALL criticisms UNLESS they are supported with reasoned arguments PLUS alternative suggestions. If you Bruno, or any other complainers do that then you’ll find that Peter and I will seriously consider your suggestions; we will put them up to everyone else via this Forum; and we will thank you if accepting your suggestions or explain why not if rejecting them. And again speaking purely personally Bruno, if you and the other detractors cannot be bothered to criticise in that way then please don’t bother at all any more because you won’t get any answer from me – I’ve got the Euros just in front of me, (yet another) major redraft of the new rules to complete by Nov, and several models to build (including a decent F2B model in time for the US Nats 2004), plus a living to earn. So I just do not have the time or the patience to react to anyone’s negative whinging and personal attacks any more. You and everyone else in the F2B community have a golden opportunity to take an active part in influencing the new F2B rules for the next XX years – an opportunity which NOBODY from any other of the FAI aeromodelling disciplines has ever had before as far as we are know. It’s up to you if you use it decently or just waste it. Andy Sweetland | Tree | 184 |
| Bruno van Hoek | To Andy | 08.07.2003 - 19:57:05 |
| Dear Andy,
It won't be much of a surprise that I disagree with you on some of the points you put up, but I found your historic overview not boring at all and it makes me believe that we agree on many more things than we differ. I'm Dutch, by the way... I had a good conversation with Claus last weekend and we parted as the best of friends, still having different points of view on some matters, agreeing wholeheartedly on others. But that's like real life, isn't it? I also had a brief chat with Peter about this all, and we'll continue communication next week. I proposed to have a meeting like last years', not with much preparation tough. Just a place to sit all together and talk things over. From your remark about 'having the Euros in front of you' I deduct that you will be in France too, so that would be great! I'm about to pack now -we always like some extra time to adapt to a new site when there is so much at stake-, so I won't write any further, but I'm looking forward to a healthy discussion (and good Championships of course!)next week! Yours sincerely, Bruno | Tree | 185 |
| Andy Sweetland | Latest and "Final" Proposed New F2B Rules | 18.09.2003 - 22:26:51 |
| Ladies & Gentlemen,
I have just sent a separate E-mail direct to Igor Burger providing him with a .pdf copy of the above document (which dated 18th September 2003). In that message to Igor I have asked him to delete the present version of the Proposed New F2B Rules from this Forum and replace it with this new, 18th September version. I'm sure that it will appear there soon after I have posted this message. Please look out for it. When you get read/download copy please study it carefully. As suggested in the heading above, Peter Germann and I believe that this really is now the "final" version that should be presented to CIAM (by the way, the deadline for presenting it is 15th November 2003), but just to give everyone here a last chance to make any more suggestions/spot any errors (!), Peter and I ask anyone who wants to comment on this new version to does so NOT LATER THAN MONDAY 27th OCTOBER PLEASE. Since the last version was published here (I seem to remember it was dated something like Jnauary or February of this year), Peter and I have received a lot of inputs, many of them very useful indeed (but some perhaps a little less so unfortunately!). But anyway, thank you to everyone who did take the trouble to contact us. As you will see when comparing this new September 2003 version with the previous version, we have made a number of changes, ALL of which have been in reponse to the above valuable inputs, and NOT just as a result of Peter and I "dreaming in the bath tub"! But rather than bore everyone with a long list of the differences between the old and new versions, we'll just leave you to look for yourselves! Please do feel free to make any comments/suggestions on this new version as soon as possible, but as above, do please respect the above 27th October deadline otherwise Peter and I will have trouble meeting that CIAM 15th November deadline. Thanks to everyone for their interest. Krgds Andy Sweetland, Assistant F2BWG (with Peter Germann, Leader F2BWG). | Tree | 186 |
| Igor Burger | Re: Latest and | 19.09.2003 - 09:47:41 |
| Hi All,
The new text is already uploaded and available for download. igor | Tree | 187 |
| Brett Buck | Engine Controls | 21.09.2003 - 00:15:23 |
| Thanks very much for the update. I see that my concern about limiting it to only 2 circles has been addressed. Outstanding, I think it's the best way to go for all concerned. And, I had thought it had fallen on deaf ears.
I am curious about the new paragraph on onboard engine controls (i.e. piston motors cannot have any control, even onboard feedback). I haven't formed an opinion about it, but could you perhaps explain the reasoning. Last I heard, it was pretty much "anything goes" as far as it concerned the engine, roll, or yaw, as long as it was not in-flight adjustable from the outside. I understand the reasoning for mechanical controls for pitch (since I was at least one of the people who suggested it). I agree that the engine should at least be limited to pilot control via the lines, but the proposal is far more restrictive. Brett | Tree | 188 |
| Andy Sweetland | Re: Engine Controls | 21.09.2003 - 12:27:07 |
| Thanks for the comment Brett - nothing ANYBODY says falls on deaf ears I assure you!
The reason it has taken so long is that a) both Peter and I have full-time jobs to do; b) we're both active modellers; c) it's a pretty fundamental re-write (one of the reasons for that being the request - yours wasn't the only one, and I'm NOT being snide here - to have more than 2 circles). Re the engine thing, most of that happened late last year when I was still unable to use the PC for very long after my back operation. Consequently Peter has most of the info on that so I'll pass your comment on to him for an answer. As above though, do please understand that that may take a little time - but everyone who asks questions will get answers eventually, certainly before the "real final doc" goes to CIAM in November. Krgds Andy Sweetland | Tree | 189 |
| Brett Buck | Re: Engine Controls | 23.09.2003 - 06:21:15 |
| My apologies - I found the engine control discussion, way back from a year ago. I just missed it before.
I really don't agree at all about the danger of a "technology war" based on engine regulation, but if the proposed passage is reasonably agreeable to everyone, I wouldn't want to impede the progress just to make an issue of it. I don't think it's a vitally important detail. Several of my fellow countrymen would probably dispute the point, however. Brett | Tree | 192 |
| Andy Sweetland | Re: Engine Controls | 23.09.2003 - 07:55:38 |
| Hi Brett,
I'm glad you found it. I think this item is pretty much like several areas in that "people" tend to fall into 2 quite sharply divided camps - there's the "leave eveything as it is" brigade, and then there's the "lets have everything new" people (that's a bit of an over-simplification, but I guess youi know what I mean). As far as engines (and model spec generally) is concerned, quite a few want nothing at all changed, whilst others want pretty much "no technical limits". What we've tried to do is to try and incorporate as much of both elements as we can - e.g. we feel that "new ideas" are not necessarily bad (the Stunt model "spec" has developed over the years already, and with the possible continual improvement of, for example, electric power, we want to try and ensure that the new rules do not artificially inhibit future technical development). But on the other hand, neither do we want Stunt (or any other C/L class for that matter) to "develop" into something which could, in a few years time, look like "an RC model which also just happens to have it's pitch manually controlled". In other words, to try to make sure that the "technical spirit of C/L" remains as it is now/always was, but ALSO, for purely practical reasons, even though we are not against those who want to try "new technology", we certainly do not want a situation to develop where we would have to take "anti-accidental interference" steps like they have to in RC (e.g. impounding of transmitters, frequency pegs, etc). That to us would NOT be "the spirit of C/L" (apart from any purely practical/organisers staff considerations). Thinking of developments such as infra-red (or whatever) control of throttles (for example), we are not against such developments per se, but took a lot of highly-qualified technical advice and ended up with the conclusion that for purely practical purposes, nobody could GUARANTEE that such equipment system would not accidentally interfere with someone elses similar system (or be inadvertantly affected by radiation that just happens to come from nearby - such as garage door openers, mobile telephones, kids with toy-shop RC cars, etc, etc, etc). So the new text bans all such (or at it least tries to), but WITHOUT shutting the door to people who are inclined toward technical innovation in Stunt. The above is something of a shortening/over-simplification of the reasoning that led to today's text, and I'm sure that you'll appreciate that it isn't an easy path to tread (either technically, or from the viewpoint of the emotions of both the strongly pro and the strongly anti). But with the inputs that you found in the archive in this Forum, together with a number of other inputs that I believe Peter got at around that time, I believe (hope) that we have (more or less anyway) managed to tread that fairly fine line. Again, thanks for your comments, and about an earlier comment of mine, Yes, of course you're quite right, many of us (most anyway) have full time jobs, plus "own modelling", plus families, plus all this "other stuff"! Krgds Andy Sweetland | Tree | 193 |
| Igor Burger | Re: Engine Controls | 23.09.2003 - 12:36:58 |
| Hi Andy,
You are right >>>"people" tend to fall into 2 quite sharply divided camps<<<. I wrote lot of inputs about engine controlling in this forum – I wanted to have this thing as open as possible, so I am from that >>>strongly pro<<< group. If I like something on this hobby then it is technical challenge and development. I do not enjoy conservation of actual status quo, doing three flights a week and sleeping well with 5 years old model hanging on wall above me. I also do not think that such devices can lead to technical war or lead to danger models. But I can imagine that someone wants to conservate rules for models they actually have. So I feel limited but life is hard. :-) However, if the actual situation is really as you wrote: >>>"leave everything as it is" brigade<<< (but I never really heard it directly and I did not see any such input on this forum), and those devices are acceptable on electric and gas turbine power plants, then I agree, and I say I go for electric ASAP, but I afraid this WILL be technological war of battery burners and this will end up at >>>an RC model which also just happens to have it’s pitch manually controlled<<<. I still think that allowing of them also on combustion engines will leave the situation patient. Lot of those devices on combustion engines are very trivial and well working. I think they can satisfy most of us, who wants to try something new, and they still not bring any significant advantage to old style, so it does not push to build new models immediately. Remote control by pilot is another story, and I thing disagreeing with engine control is just misunderstanding between remote control and automatic self-stabilization of run. But my real problem with actual text is on another place. I understand you are under pressure of disagreeing with regulators on one side and legalization of actual regulators in use. You mentioned pipe and tank self regulation. But we have many others, not mentioned but used, like change in combustion under load, prop with clever airfoil loading engine if unloaded in thrust, tank behind the engine making lean run nose up and many others – may be even not explored yet, but certainly present. I understand you would like to say, “everything not used yet is disallowed”, but your try is not thorough – and cannot be - just because our limited knowledge. I know there is already lot of invested time to bring this to perfect succesfull conclusion, but I afraid it is under current circumstances not possible. The old rules are imperfect in this point, new rules are much better (means more precise, not more acceptable for me), but there are still holes. I hate saying we do not use self-regulation, if we all use it and we cannot live without it. I am also very sorry I do not bring better wording. I can not, because I really do not understand well what and who do not like to allow. What exactly is problem on some kind of self-regulation? I would really like to see some arguments or inputs on this forum to clarify it and allow well specified wording in usual form: “all is allowed beside: xxxxx ….”. At present time I see the only way: to make a three of four exact pictures of allowed configuration - nothing lese – something like description of speed pylon and handle in F2A rules - but it is the last think I would like to see. This is technical sport, which have to ask for technical invention (AND ALLOW!!!), not throwing of well-described iron balls differing in color scheme. (sorry just joking :-) ) Rules must satifly both groups - those who like push development somewhere and also those who do it just to come time to time to field, meet a friends and make (or even by) new model every 15 years. I do not know why to limit some of them/us ??? Yes, I mean I feel limited, I am from that group of >>>strongly pro<<<, but I understand if there is a >>>group of strongly against<<< I must accept some compromise, but voice of that groupe never reached me, what they exactly say beside >>>leave everything as it is<<>> leave everything as it is<<< we not need new rules, if they do not like to present it here, can we at least know what exactly they mean? I believe there IS a way how to well specify solution which makes both happy. Another thing: I understood the higher volume of combustion engines as way how to get less aggressive, more silent and friendlier power train with regular cheap R/C engine. I understood the way to do it was proper regulation. It is now disallowed ... I am little bit confused ... regards igor (this is not official Slovak input to rules, it will come later – just my thoughts) | Tree | 194 |
| Brett Buck | Re: Engine Controls | 23.09.2003 - 19:07:06 |
| >Thinking of developments such as infra-red (or whatever) control of
>throttles (for example), we are not against such developments per se, >but took a lot of highly-qualified technical advice and ended up with >the conclusion that for purely practical purposes, nobody could >GUARANTEE that such equipment system would not accidentally interfere >with someone elses similar system (or be inadvertantly affected by >radiation that just happens to come from nearby - such as garage door >openers, mobile telephones, kids with toy-shop RC cars, etc, etc, etc). >So the new text bans all such (or at it least tries to), but WITHOUT >shutting the door to people who are inclined toward technical >innovation in Stunt. > As you may or may not know, I was at least one of the people who suggested the distinction between IR or other wireless control vice "through the lines" control, so I'm with you that far. I agree that we shouldn't be smearing the definition of "control-line" into some hybrid C/L/R/C model . The interference problem doesn't even enter that line of reasoning - it's a matter of defining what it means to be a C/L model. Several of my countrymen disagree*, but what the heck, it's a free country... But I do have a bit of a problem with restricting on-board, non-interactive systems like regulators, roll and yaw stabilizers, engine controls, etc, or anything that you send down the lines, or with extra lines. These types of items are conceptually different from radio or other EM links. The proposal allows active yaw or roll stabilizers, but prohibits active engine regulation. I honestly don't see the distinction. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the primary counter-point is that it's a potential technology race and conflict between the "haves vs. have-nots". I would contend that given if this is the argument, workable active roll and yaw control would be FAR more beneficial than an active throttle or mixture control regulation. Whether one likes it or not, given that you will be able to use up to a piped .90/(15 cc) 2-stroke, the engine and HP *is not likely to be an issue*, and therefore, active regulation or control will prove to be almost entirely moot. But actively stabilizing the trim would be a potentiall HUGE advantage that could easily become mandatory if one had a workable system. My point is not to argue against active stabilization. But if you are willing to allow that (practical or not), allowing active engine regulation seems like a minor side issue given the rest of the proposed engine rules. It was my opinion (when Keith asked for it a year and a half or so ago) that there should be essentially *no* restriction on regulation and stabilization systems as long as: 1 they didn't violate the concept of a C/L model (either operated throught the lines, or operated with no inflight-contact like an engine regulator) 2 they didn't act in pitch (because if they did, you would never be able to tell without extensive analysis whether or not some unknown electronic device attached to the elevator was a damper, or an autopilot). This still seems like the approach that results in the best combination of allowing innovation without violating the basic precepts of the event. Brett *As I am sure some of you are aware, there are US fliers who beleive that the restriction in IR controls (in other words, the Z-Tron) proposed here is aimed at particular individuals. Like I said, it's a free country... | Tree | 195 |
| Claus Maikis | latest comments | 28.09.2003 - 18:08:38 |
| Re: latest comments
After reading the latest comments I’ve got the impression that there are still a few misunderstandings. Also there seems to be a tendency to support ideas (= solutions ) which are mainly suggested to fulfil ones own wishes. I’ve talked to several people about several topics recently ( for example : contest organization ). When I explained in detail how many things and what kind of things have to be considered, most of these persons had to admit that they just “ had not known” or forgotten to consider. And the same is true for many arguments in this forum. Please let me offer some basic thoughts. 1) I don’t think there is a “ leave everything as it is” group. Even the most determined diehard will have to accept that our changing world will cause changes in our sport, whether we like them or not. I think this is basically accepted. 2) When discussing rules some people seem to get carried away . They are enthusiastic about their own ideas, and about the successful results of these. However it appears that they just forget the meaning and content of our sport: “control line” in general, and “precision aerobatics” in particular. Why should we allow elements of other categories? There’s no need to do so. Why should we look for any kind of wireless control? We have chosen “control line” because we like to control our airplanes with lines. No need to add other means of control, which will obviously water our category. You may call me a purist. Okay, so what! What’s wrong with this? Take one example: football ( the European kind ). The rules say it’s not allowed to use hands. Even if man is more apt with his hands - no, hands are not allowed! And rightly so. The use of hands would destroy football, it wouldn’t be football anymore. 3) By the way - the prohibition of hands is exactly the fascination, the special attraction of football ! A restriction shouldn’t be seen as an unpleasant limit only. At the same time it is an exciting challenge. What can I do, and how well can I perform within given borders . In our case with two lines. A gun can shoot a much longer distance and can hit the goal much more precisely , both at the same time, than a bow and arrow. And yet archery is still a challenging and popular sport. Very often restrictions allow to execute a sport AT ALL ! ( just consider practicability, danger, noise problems, cost etc.) 4) Don’t tell me that we cannot find enough challenge and excitation within our frame. The development of airplane design, construction methods, and engine technology during the last decade will tell you the whole story. Progress has sometimes even taken such steps that some of us cannot follow even now! 5) Which brings us to ( in my opinion, and not only mine ) the most important point. A class has to be defined in such a way that the largest possible number of people can participate. If the rules allow highly sophisticated, complex, and sometimes expensive material, then a certain percentage of potential new participants will be cut out right from the beginning. Even some old hands ( with some of them being experienced persons, at that ) will leave the sport ( I know quite a few in control line and free flight ). Just look over to the other circles, F2A and F2C ( and F1C )! In some countries these events are dying, in some countries they already have! It’s not just by chance that aerobatics is the most popular control line event. It’s the most simple class! I can understand that technically oriented people like to experiment, to develop, to create ( I’m a creative type myself, even if not on a technical level ). However rules shouldn’t be formulated so that special high skills will be rewarded. Everybody must have a fair chance. Still the best will win, but the largest possible number should have the possibility to take part. In football only the very best will reach the champion’s league, but everybody can kick a ball. You are crying that no new blood is joining our ranks, and you still want to allow complex technology? I’m confused. 6) I’m already hearing the argument “you can buy it”. Oh - and where is the creativity left then? 7) It seems to me that many arguments are not much more than just supporting the writers desire to shape the rules just as he likes them to be, for his own comfort and success. That’s not the way rules can be found. Rules have to be formulated so that they further and promote the respective sport - even if they are not fulfilling all my wishes. What’s wrong with a basically simple event? I can easily renounce on scale warbirds, engine throttles, retract gears, landing flaps, sliding canopies, waving pilots, and what have you. If I want to have this there’s still the scale circle. All sports have rules, and most of them are restrictions. For good reasons. Let’s discuss rule proposals and change Control Line Aerobatics to HOW it should be - but don’t change WHAT it is. Sokrates ( some 2500 years ago, imagine! ) said: “It’s the simple things which are the most difficult ones”. regards, claus | Tree | 196 |
| Igor Burger | Re: latest comments | 29.09.2003 - 15:28:49 |
| Claus, I mostly agree what you wrote (well … beside one point), so here are my notes:
1/ I did not heard serious call for remote control of engine power output. You wrote: >>>Why should we allow elements of other categories? There’s no need to do so.<<< Well, I fully agree, but I do not know why exactly you wrote about it and I afraid we speak about different things. So I think it can be good idea if you write what exactly you mean. 2/ You also wrote: >>>A class has to be defined in such a way that the largest possible number of people can participate.<<< Exactly! And this is I think about those automatic „self controlling devices“ and so I think it is related to my previous input. It would be mistake to mean that I am speaking about >>> highly sophisticated, complex, and sometimes expensive material ... certain percentage of potential new participants will be cut out right from the beginning.<<<. I am speaking about very trivial devices which we ALREADY HAVE installed in our ships like clever undercambered props modifying engine output or very effective regulation appearing because of 4-2-4 run of 2-cycle engine, which is altered just by different load of engine and thus self-controlling. The actual wording of rules is very precise (compared to the old) and thus I would expect that also interpretation should be precise. So if the wording is based on enumeration of possible devices, there is very high probability there is something forgotten or not discovered yet (see my two examples). So I would really rather specify what is NOT allowed. Otherwise we risk that someone just come and disqualify all flyer |