Domene | Spletno gostovanje | Reseller gostovanje | EMAIL gostovanje
SSL certifikati | Spletne aplikacije na klik | Brezplačna spletna stran (Website Builder) | WordPress gostovanje
Spletne strani, brezplačna izdelava in namestitev | Poceni letalske karte | Letalske karte | Poceni hoteli

Bogdan · Objavljeno: 10 Feb 2016 07:24 Naslov sporočila:

Sta pa zanimiva komentar in odgovor nanj v zadnjem SENu. Nanašata se na manjše število udeležencev flyoffa v F1B na prvi tekmi za svetovni pokal v 2016 kot v prejšnjih letih, pri čemer avtor komentarja to pripisuje novi pravilom, v odgovoru pa so za to okrivljene čudne termike.
Odgovor tudi posreduje komentar na manjše število penjačev iz ZDA, za kar naj bi bil bolj kot pravilo 4s krive zahteve za RDT.
---
From: hermann andresen

Roger,
Do my eyes deceive me? Kiwi Cup, no NZ entries? Kiwi Cup, no Morrell? Kiwi Cup, not even a Roger?
Was there a conflict of interest, Reporter not flying? Or was Roger Morrell CD & thus ineligible?

Other observation: New Rules cut down those maxing out in F1B & flying in 7 min round to 60%.
We've come a long way from the introduction of 10 min max (in 1948?) when 0% of models would max w/out help.

Hermann
-----
Reply

Hermann, with an event like the Kiwi Cup it is not possible for the CD to fly in the event.

The weather was fine but the lift a little tricky and as always some sportsmen are adept at shooting themselves in the foot. This was responsible for the FO numbers not any clever rules changes.

The RDT requirement seemed to have a bigger adverse effect on the USA particpation in F1C than the 4 seconds ?

Roger Morrell

Bogdan · Objavljeno: 03 Mar 2016 03:59 Naslov sporočila:

Iz SENa
-----
From: Allard van Wallene
Hi,

The only argument which was presented to support the change from 7 to 5 rounds was the "too high physical effort". And when this proposal was voted upon, the only competitions for which this would apply were continental and world champs. World Cup competitions were not yet in the equation, they followed soon after. My argument against this proposal was, that in continental and world champs most teams have a retrieval team downwind, so the physical effort is actually less. Unfortunately this argument fell on death ears and the majority voted in favour of the 5 rounds. I would like to add some more arguments to go back to 7 rounds:

-Free flight is considered to be a sport, at least so we present ourselves to the 'outside' world. Using physical effort as an argument to fly less rounds appears to contradict this
.-Free flight is fun. We love to see our models fly. Why cut away 2/7 of flying fun?
-Despite the increased max in first (and maybe last) rounds, I still believe a 5 round concept will increase fly-off participation.
-7 rounds were never obligatory in the past. Some competitions were flown in 5 round format (due to bad weather or daylight restrictions), contest organisers were free to do so.
-Now there appears to be an open 'revolt' by some contest organisers against this rule. Two competitions during the Fab Feb ignored the rule. Now apparently the organisers of the Eifelpokal will do the same as apparently the majority of participants prefers 7 rounds (see http://eifelpokal.de/3.html). Maybe more will follow?

regards,
Allard

Bogdan · Objavljeno: 07 Mar 2016 07:18 Naslov sporočila:

Ob teh ironičnih idejah iz SEN 2122 se lahko kar malo nasmejemo - res je že smešno, kako nekateri radi eksperimentirajo in sebi prilagajajo pravila:
---
From: chris.edge

Lord SCAT,

Perhaps we shouldn't be looking to the past with respect to number of rounds and position of lines for FAI events. Accordingly I propose for all FAI Championship and World Cup events that a) we fly 8 rounds (reason: we haven't flown that number before so about time we did) and b) we ditch the line and have to launch within 5m of a single point (reason: so we don't have the problem to put a line out anywhere), with the 5m radius set out with a barbed-wire fence and guard-Haggis. OK, so this may result in a bit of push and shove when the thermal comes through but it would make for good spectator appeal.

EoB
---
Na kratko - Chris predlaga, da ne bi gledali nazaj v preteklost, ampak poskusili raje kaj novega. Saj res - da bi leteli 8 turnusov - tega še nismo poskusili, skrajni čas je za to. Pa kaj, če bi si omislili le eno sartno mesto s katerega bi vsi startatli svoje modele v krogu 5 metrov okrog njega. Na tej razdalji pa bi okrog in okrog naredili ograjo iz bodeče žice. Malo bi mogoče bilo težavno, bi pa bilo zanimivo za gledalce.

Bogdan · Objavljeno: 10 Jan 2017 07:02 Naslov sporočila:

V FFn in SEN je bilo objavljeno spodnje besedilo, ki je izvleček iz predlogov za spremembo športnega pravilnika FAI. Vsebuje nekaj zelo pomembnih predlogov, ki lahko pomembno vplivajo na tekmovalce in tekmovanja, zato se ga splača prebrati ter zavzeti in posredovati naprej svoja stališča. Sestanek CIAM, na katerem bodo obravnavali te predloge, bo aprila.
Če bo čas, sledi izvleček v slovenščini..

CIAM Info

Editor’s comment

We have included here a piece from Free Flight News written by Ian Kaynes. Normally we don’t re-publish items from FFn because it is their material and if you want to read it you should subscribe to FFn.

But as Ian points out in the article it may be some time before the FAI/CIAM publishes the information and it is very important because it concerns a number of critical rules changes and people need to understand them and get to their National Aero Club to offer input to April FAI/CIAM meeting. Naturally any discussion on SEN amd possible polls or surveys as mentioned above are welcome.

CIAM FREE FLIGHT PROPOSALS

By Ian Kaynes

The following is a summary of the free flight proposals
submitted to be considered at the April 2017 Plenary meeting.
The official agenda will probably not appear before late
February and so this summary gives an advance notice of the
contents for immediate discussion. The formal route for
comments is to send these to your national CIAM delegate, but
please wait and do that after the official agenda has appeared –
partly in case there are some differences between my summary
and what actually appears in the agenda, but also so that you
can quote the exact item number in the agenda.

3.1.3.a Number of flights

1) Canada, Denmark, Netherlands propose to return F1A F1B
F1C from 5 flights to 7 flights at World and Continental
Championships.

Reasons include:
Flying seven rounds will create a stronger competition, will
provide more enjoyment to the sportsmen and will reduce the
number of fly-off participants. The competitions are held for
the promotion of the sport, participants, and not the organizers.
More flights will reduce the number of fliers in the fly-off. It
will also be more satisfying for competitors who may have
travelled very long and worked for years to make their national
teams, that they are allowed to make seven flights at
championships, and not just five.

Preferred by a majority of competition participants. Free flight
is presented as a sport and the number of flights has been
reduced in the last rule change to reduce the physical effort
which contradicts this classification. To reduce the number of
fly off participants. To avoid lengthy breaks between the end of
the last round and the start of the fly off, which results in
timekeeping problems as non fly off participants leave the field
and might not return for the fly off

2) FFSC propose: Each competitor is entitled to five or seven
official flights. The number to be flown must be announced in
advance in the bulletin.
Reason: For some competitions likely to have good conditions
it is appropriate to return to seven flights

Definition of an Unsuccessful Attempt – Duration
less than 20 seconds

1) Denmark propose to delete the paragraphs “The duration of
the flight is less than 20 seconds” as a reason for a second
attempt in F1A, F1B, F1C, F1H, F1J, F1P and F1Q.

Reason: It is possible to dethermalize models with a radio-D/Tsystem
to make a bad start last less than 20 seconds. This is not
the intention of the rules, so it should be prohibited.

2) Belgium propose to delete just the F1C rule 3.3.5.c the
duration of the flight is less than 20 seconds.
Reason: Deleting the 20 s rule will reward the competitors that
fly reliable and thus safer models and will stimulate the
construction of such models. In case of maintaining the 20 s
rule, competitors might be tempted to use RDT for competitive
advantage rather than for maximising safety. For example: In
order to stay below the 20 s limit, competitors might be
tempted to shorten a bad but safe flight by RDT, possibly
resulting in a high-risk landing, too close to the starting line,
hurting people and damaging models, cars and others.

3.1.7. Duration of Flights

1) Netherlands propose to change 3.1.7, 3.2.7 and 3.3.7 to
have the first and second rounds as being the ones with
extended maximum, instead of the first and last round in the
current rules.

Reason: The last round is often the round with the strongest
thermal activity and wind speeds. A max of 4 minutes
contradicts the last sentence in paragraph 3.1.7 which reads
"Maximum durations greater than three minutes should only be
used for rounds at times when wind and thermal activity are
expected to be at a minimum.”The second round is often the
most difficult as thermals are not yet fully developed .
Consequently, a max of 4 minutes in the second round will
reduce the number of fly off participants. On average wind
speeds are still low in the second round compared to the third
to last round

2) FFSC propose to change these paragraphs to specify the
extended rounds to be the first round and one other round, in
order to give more flexibility of choosing when a second
longer maximum is used.

3.1.8 Classification – Flyoffs

3.1.8.a). FFSC propose to reduce the flyoff round period from
10 minutes to 7 minutes. For F1A, F1C and F1P this is a direct
reduction. For F1B there is an additional allowance that
competitors may wind one rubber motor before the start of the
7 minute period.

Reason: To make the flyoff a greater challenge by giving less
time to find good air.

3.1.8.f). Denmark propose to delete the group-flyoff possibility
Reason: The group-flyoff feels unjust and against the spirit of
free flight competition.

3.1.8.f). FFSC propose to modify the group flyoff rules:
- Adding the condition that it may be used only when it
would be difficult to provide enough timekeepers,
- clarifying item (6) as “If possible an equal number shall go
forward from both groups. If one group has fewer
competitors with a maximum than the other group, then the
number going forward from that group must be increased
by including the competitors with the best flights below the
maximum time. In order to go forward a competitor’s
flight time must be at least 75% of the highest time scored
in that group.”
- adding to (7) a clarification “without the 75% time
requirement of (6).”
- adding (9) a clarification about scoring: “Competitors
continuing from the group flyoff will be classified by their
time in the later single flyoffs. Their times in the group
flyoff should be recorded in the results but do not count
in assessing their final placing. There should be two columns
of times in the group flyoff results to show which times
have been flown in which group.

Reason: to clarify the rules to eliminate the misunderstandings
that arose in 2016.

3.3.2. Characteristics of F1C models
Some countries have submitted proposals on motor run and
also on changes to the RDT definition. For ease of comparison
these are split into the two subject items for this summary. I
have hear that there will be a revision to one of the German
proposals

Motor run

1) Netherlands and Germany propose two classifications:
a) Models with variable geometry (changes of camber,
incidence or area) grade A with maximum duration of
motor run 4 seconds
b) Models with fixed geometry (fixed camber and fixed
area) grade B with maximum duration of motor run 5
seconds.

Reason: The season 2016 shows clearly that there is a big
difference in using a Folder or Flapper with 4 seconds motor
run time in comparison to a normal straight model. In more of
90% of fly offs models with variable geometry are wining
competitions. Test shows that after climb there is a difference
from about 30 m in high and in glide there is a difference from
round about 60 to 90 sec or more in dead air.
To compensate the performance difference between categories
A and B there should be a difference in model specification
and a difference in motor run time. In this way new
developments are not blocked, investments keep valued.
The competitor can make his own choice, to take a grade A or
grade B model, depending on circumstances. Most important is
to avoid that many members of the F1C community will leave
the sport; because they feel it is no fun anymore because they
have to buy and use a model that is not easy to handle.
Competitors don´t have to use high-tech models which they
can´t handle. So it would be more save for everyone if people
can fly with models they can handle and have success with
them without stress. The sense of free flight is not to be pressed
in one direction and to have to use a special type of models.

2) USA propose a split motor run:
Maximum duration of motor run:
4 seconds for models with variable wing geometry
5 seconds for models with fixed wing geometry

Reason: The most recent rule change from a motor run of 5
seconds to 4 seconds has caused the fixed wing models to
become immediately obsolete. They were already at a
disadvantage due to lower climb height and poorer glide
performance, but with a 4 sec engine run, the disparity is more
obvious. The sportsmen who fly these simpler models can
upgrade (at great expense), but now the barrier to people who
want to enter into F1C is much higher. Much of the
construction and repair of the simpler models can still be done
by individual flyers. However, moving to variable geometry
models almost surely necessitates the purchase of ‘factory’
models from a very few suppliers.
It is important for us to continue to look for ways to keep
performance in check and reduce it where possible. However,
rendering simpler models obsolete in favour of more complex
and expensive models is a step in the wrong direction.

3) Canada propose to change the motor run from 4 seconds
back to 5 seconds;

Reason: This proposal is supported by the protest of 137
signatures from 15 countries which was submitted to CIAM in
June 2015.

Radio DT

1) From Germany, to be effective from 1.1.2020:
Change the requirement that the functions of radio DT from
MAY include stop the motor to MUST stop the motor.

Reason: The requirement to have a radio control for
dethermalisation was introduced as a safety measure. But with
a running engine the actuation of the dethermalisation may
destroy the model there will be not increase of the safety. Thus
it is necessary, that the radio control includes the possibility to
stop the motor. As this might have some impact to the timer
(likely an electronic timer to be used), this change should
become effective 1.1.2020, only.

2) USA “F1C models may be fitted with functional radio
control only for irreversible actions to control dethermalisation
of the model. This may include stopping the motor…”

Reason: RDT devices fitted to F1C models with mechanical
timers can only release the stabilizer after the model has gone
to glide. Releasing the DT line prior to glide will have no effect
during the “unsafe” part of the flight.
RDT does work on F1C models with electronic timers but
there is little RDT can do to increase safety. RDT would
normally be used if the model was going off pattern and
perhaps diving. Unless the wings are folded, pressing the RDT
will often rip the wings off and the fuselage becomes a more
dangerous ‘spear’ type projectile.

3) Canada propose: F1C models may be fitted with radio
control but only for irreversible action to control
dethermalization of the model.

Reason: ,Models equipped with mechanical timers cannot use
RC device. The usage of RC device almost always results in
breaking the wing of the model in flight and further increases
the possibility of harming people. The 2016 Sporting Code
does not specify when is required and/or when is mandatory to
use the RC device. It represents an unnecessary expense which
will result in further loss of competitors in this category.

4) Netherlands propose: F1C models must use radio control
only for irreversible actions to control dethermalisation of the
model. This includes stopping the motor if it is still running.
Any malfunction or unintended operation of these functions is
entirely at the risk of the competitor. Whenever the electronic
timer in the model is activated (e.g. put in non-flight mode
or starting position) the competitor must be able to stop the
motor and dethermalise the model.

Reason: Current used electronic timers already have the
possibility to be activated by radio even if the starter button
is not yet released. Some timers may need a software update.
Nowadays most glider flyers use electronic timer including
radio control to save their models and avoid dangerous
situations. Why should power models, which are more
dangerous, not have at least the same possibilities?

F1C for Juniors

Poland propose adding to 3.2 Characteristics with additional
requirements for Juniors’ models:
- Motor exhaust duct(s) connected with a silencer consists of
a single, circular and fixed chamber with an outlet diameter
8 mm. The total capacity of the silencer system must
exceed 12.5 cm3. Maximum total length of the system,
measured from the motor exhaust duct, including the
engine outlet, shall not exceed 150 mm.
- Reducers prohibited.
- Wing with fixed span and constant sprung profile (flaps
prohibited).

Reasons: Class F1P does not allow a smooth transition to F1C
class (from junior to senior
Class F1P with its technical rules is an archaic one. Result - a
small number of juniors compete in competitions especially in
EChs and WChs - 15 juniors F1P only in 2015 Junior WCh.
(Ed: F1C was used for5 Junior World Champs up to 1996 and
at the last 3 of those Champs there were fewer than 15 entries)
During the course of juniors there is no need to build from a
scratch or to invest in other models (just remove a muffler or
replace an engine and readjust a model) - to increase a number
of young players competing,
Reduced engine power and noise more secure to use a junior

F1P 3.6.3 Number of flights

FFSC propose to replace the number of flights paragraph
(a) by “See 3.1.3.a.”
Reason: To keep the number of flights flown in F1P consistent
with F1A F1B and F1C, particularly significant at Junior
Championships for F1A F1B F1P

3.4.2 Characteristics of Indoor Models Aircraft F1D
FFSC propose to add new paragraph: “The model shall
carry the FAI unique ID number of the competitor on the
motorstick written with permanent marker or other nonremovable
means.”
Plus a consequential change: to processing rules. Also to apply
to F1L, F1M and F1R.
Also for F1N FFSC propose to add at end of 3.7.2: The model
shall carry the FAI unique ID number of the competitor on the
upper surface of the wing.

Reason: To provide identification of the model with the
competitor and to add a check of the number to the indoor
processing requirements. As a new rule it is appropriate to
introduce this specifically for the FAI ID number and not
include the licence number alternative allowed under the long
established rules for outdoor models.

3.Q.2. Characteristics

1) Denmark propose to change the connector type for
connecting a Static Energy Test (SET) device. From “3.5 mm
male and female bullet connectors and the specification
of male positive/female negative” to “XT30 connector”
Reason: Safety. The connector combination as currently
required by the F1Q rules may very easily be connected
wrongly. For example, it is possible to short-circuit the Lipobattery
(the plus and minus terminals are connected with each
other by an error), or - again by an error connect two batteries
to each other. Both of these possible errors connections will
result in a short circuit of the battery with serious
consequences.
Furthermore, the current
connector can be errorconnect
to the SET
("Joule-tester"), so that it
has reverse polarity.
XT30 connector will
eliminate possible errors
– the XT30 connector is
“foolproof”.

2) Germany propose to reduce the maximum motor run to 30
seconds and energy budget to 3 Joules per gram and increase
maximum mass in energy calculation to 600 grams.
Reason: Reduce the model performance and balancing the
energy budget between different model designs to avoid that
any models will be obsolete under the new requirements.
Balancing the calculation weight will not add more energy for
heavier models compared to today. Also for these the reducing
to 3 J/g will decrease the absolute energy amount to reduce the
performance.

3) Denmark propose to reduce the energy budget to 3 Joules
per gram and increase maximum mass in energy calculation to
600 grams.

Reason: Reduction of F1Q model performance.
4) Denmark propose to delete the majority of paragraph b)
except for the last sentence (i.e. to enforce energy limiters by
deleting the option to have a motor run time) and to change (a)
to require “The SET must store and display energy amount
used and motor run time.”

Reason: Simple, reliable and fair - as well as limiters are now
available on the market.

5) Germany also propose to make energy limiters mandatory
but also revert to their idea of specifying system architecture
with “The energy limiter must interrupt the impulse signal
from the timer to the ESC and cuts of the motor(s) when the
given energy limit is reached, without need of interaction of
other devices. The ESC must always operate via its serial
connection to the energy limiter and not with direct connection
to the timer. The timer stays independent, but the energy
limiter may inform the timer about the end of the energy
supply.” They also add” The SET must store and display
energy amount used and motor run time”

Reason: The measurement method of the motor run in models
without limiter is very complicate and difficult applicable in
practice. As in this case the motor run is not to be timed in
flight, the compliance of the correct run time is not possible. A
rule which cannot be controlled should not to be used.
Energy limiters are approved devices also in other
aeromodelling categories. Reliable limiters which meets the
requirements are available on the market and also as an open
source project for self-made (for saving costs). The stored data
are replicable and verifiable. Limiter can be verified by the
CIAM EDIC commission.
The independence from the other electronic control
components (timer) is required to avoid manipulations by
software.

6) USA propose to add a new item:
Flyoffs: If required, the jury or contest director may reduce the
energy budget by 0.5Joules/gram decrements together with 5
second decrements in the maximum motor run for flyoffs as
follows:
3.5J/gr with 35 sec maximum motor run
3.0J/gr with 30 sec maximum motor run
2.5J/gr with 25 sec maximum motor run

Reason: The rule proposal retains the energy multiplier and the
max motor run, but allows their proportional reduction in
flyoffs, if the need arises. The reductions are in 12.5% steps,
corresponding to 3.5J/gr and 35 second max motor run, 3.0J/gr
and 30 sec, 2.5J/g and 25 sec. Reducing the energy and the
motor run ceiling by 12.5% steps means that 40-second
cruisers will satisfy the 3.5J/gr energy multiplier with a 35
second motor run. Had the max motor run remain pegged at 40
seconds, there is an incentive to develop specialized models for
that combination.
F1Q models are processed prior to contest and their energy
level or the motor run for models without an energy limiter
(EL) is recorded. Because ELs and e-timers are not sealed they
can be reset during a contest, a timer or the contest director can
ask a competitor to demonstrate the programmed energy level
or motor run prior to the flight. Since motor run are recorded,
albeit inaccurately, it serves as a benchmark when the energy
multiplier is reduced in a flyoff. For example, dropping the
energy multiplier by 25% should correspond to a similar drop
in the motor run relative to the motor runs in the regular flights.
Otherwise, the model can be impounded and reprocessed after
the fact. Of course, motor runs exceeding the max motor run
are overruns

3.Q.8. Classification

Germany propose a reduction of energy in flyoffs by deleting
(e) and changing (d):
d) In the event of exceptional meteorological conditions or
model recovery problems, the Jury may permit the maximum
for a round to be changed that given under 3.Q.8.b. and
decrease the maximum energy amount up to 2 J/g AND the
motor run time linear up to 20 seconds according to conditions.

Reason: To avoid model damages or losses by landing outside of
the flying field or difficulties by observation the model by
timekeeper it should give the possibility for CD to reduce the
model performance for fly off rounds. This can be done very easy
by reducing the energy amount and motor time linear. Nor
changes for model trim are necessary.

3.Q.9. Timing

Denmark propose to Remove item (c) The motor run will be
timed…..

Reason: Section c) is in direct conflict with 3.Q.2 third last
paragraph (..”the motor run will not be timed in flight”)

Timing

1) Netherlands propose to add a new item to F1.2.1
Timekeepers:
c) In case competing fly-off participants are requested to
supply timekeeper(s) for a fly off (see a), these time keepers
must be randomly distributed among the competing fly-off
participants, e.g. by draw or moving timekeepers to respective
neighbouring starting poles.

Reason: To improve time keeping impartiality.

2) Netherlands propose to add a new paragraph F1.2.7 and
renumber the following paragraph regarding binoculars:
In flyoffs, electronic time and altitude recording devices may be
used mounted in or on a model. Such devices must be
commercially available with an altitude measuring frequency of
at least 2 Hz and display equipment like a computer, tablet or
smart phone equipped with graphing software must be available
to produce a time-altitude graph of the recorded flight. The
responsibility of the use and correct functioning of such devices
rests with the competitor.
The use of an altimeter is voluntary. Prior to each fly off,
participants with (reserve) models equipped with such recording
devices being switched on, should position their model(s) at
ground level no more than 5 meters from their assigned starting
pole. Upon instruction of the contest director, the participant will
have to lift the model(s) from the ground and hold the model(s)
elevated a number of times, the number and duration of these
movements is decided by the contest director thereby generating
an unique altitude-time signature. In case of a flight-time related
dispute, the competitor automatically may proceed to the
following fly off round. Any dispute must be marked on the
competitor’s scorecard for that fly off round. After the last fly
off but no later than 30 minutes from the end of the last flyoff,
the jury will ask the competitor who filed the dispute to read out
the altimeter data and present the altitude versus time graph. The
jury will check the signature in the graph and determine the
flown time for the fly off round for which a dispute has been
filed. If the moment of launch, landing and flight time can be
clearly established and the correct signature is present, the flight
time will be recorded for the final result. If any one of these
conditions is not met, the timekeeper’s time of the disputed fly
off round will be used as the score for that fly off round. If this
time is less than the maximum flight time set for that particular
fly off round, any subsequently flown fly off rounds will be
cancelled for that competitor. In case of a protest related to the
altimeter generated flight time, the altitude graphs must be made
available to the jury. Failure to do so will result in the time
keeper’s recorded flight time being the official score.

Reason: Make use of electronic possibilities. Recorded flyoff
times often suffer from inaccuracies as caused by time-keeper
skill, equipment used and/or poor visibility which could result
in flight scores which do not reflect the true performance and
proper ranking of sportsmen. The use of electronic altimetry
can objectively supply the flown time. Timekeepers are
however still required as per the current rules.
Some arguments have been raised against this proposal, which
I summarize below:
Electronic altimeters are inaccurate: as this may be true for the
measured altitude, the time base of these devices is accurate
and comparable to electronic stopwatches. The absolute
altitude values are not used for measuring the flown time, it is
merely the signature in the graph which is used for establishing
launch, landing and unique signature which is generated prior
to a fly off. These devices can be tampered with and pre stored
altimeter graphs can be presented as ‘proof’: the contest
director will define a unique signature which will mark the
start of a fly off and recorded flight. As the competitor does
not know such signature prior to the fly off, he can also not pre
record it.
Launch and landing cannot be clearly seen in the graph: launch
of F1B and F1C models can, without exception, be clearly
established in the graph. Also the launch of an F1A generates a
clear and distinct signature in the graph. If the model descends
and touches ground, the sink rate will show a marked
discontinuity in the graph. If the model does not sink it will
keep its altitude or climb and the dethermalisation will generate
a distinct signature in the graph. In cases where either the
launch (in the unlikely scenario where a model floats off the
tow line) or moment of landing cannot be established, the
altimeter result will be inconclusive and the timekeeper’s score
will be used instead.
Such devices are expensive and complex to operate: a typical
altimeter such as the one sold by ‘Hobby King’ costs less then
the average entry fee for a World Cup event. They are typically
plug and play: apply a lipo battery and they will start
recording. Analysis software is freeware and available for
Android and Window devices.
Sportsmen are forced to invest in additional equipment: See
above as to costs. The use of the altimeter is strictly voluntary.
There will always be a timekeeper who will record the flight
time.
Models can disappear from timekeeper’s view but the altimeter
can continue recording the flight: This is a valid argument,
however it is up to the competitor if he wants to take advantage
of the real flown time rather than the time the model is or can
be visible by the timekeeper. Basically, flying at a site with
many downwind obstructions will effectively be similar to
flying on a site with no obstructions if altimeter time keeping is
used.

3) Netherlands propose to add a new paragraph to the end of
3.A2B.6.: In flyoffs, a dispute can be solved by data as
recorded by an electronic altimeter. This dispute must be
marked on the scorecard for the disputed flight-time of the
flyoff round.

Reason: Addition of disputes and electronic altimeter in
relation to new proposal above.

World Cup

Poland propose; that any country may host a maximum of one
competition in each class on behalf of another organising
country.

Reason: Too many competitions organized in one country.
Because of transportation problems in competitions compete
competitors from an organizing country only. It distorts the
final World Cup results and virtually eliminates cup winning
by competitors from other continents

Damjan · Objavljeno: 10 Jan 2017 12:29 Naslov sporočila:

Tile večinoma niso normalni... Eni bi delali modele in tekmovali, eni bi pa samo pravilnike spreminjal.....
Če dajo navadne penjače na 5 sec., potem naj še F1A jadralnim modelom brez flapov in LDA profilov dajo 80 m vrvice za vlečt. Meni pa še 5 ali pa 10 m dodatno, dokler ne rešim problemov s hrbtom.... Laughing

Tudi pri RDT so nekateri prav pametni. V glavnem države, ki imajo najmanj, ali pa sploh nimajo penjačev. Zadnja leta namreč opažam največ razbitih modelov z elektronskimi timerji, saj , kot kaže, še vedno niso rešeni problemi vibracij....

Bogdan · Objavljeno: 10 Jan 2017 19:51 Naslov sporočila:

No, kakšen predlog bi že bil smiselen... Recimo kateri od tistih, ki bi vrnil kakšno stvar na stanje pred letom dni Smile

Damjan · Objavljeno: 10 Jan 2017 23:32 Naslov sporočila:

To ja. Se strinjam.

Bogdan · Objavljeno: 27 Jan 2017 20:01 Naslov sporočila:

Nekaj novosti novega FAI pravilnika za F1ABCH:

FAI Sporting Code General Section 2017
(Edina sprememba)
3.1.3 ISSUE OF SPORTING LICENCES.
...
A Sporting Licence shall be considered to have been issued, if the holder is listed on the FAI
Sporting Licence database by the authority that is issuing the particular Sporting License
together with all the required information and the period of validity of that particular Sporting
License.
The required information in the database must include, but is not limited to, the name of the
issuing authority, the name and contact details of the holder and a number given by the NAC.
...

FAI Sporting Code, Section 4 - Aeromodelling
Volume F1 Free Flight Model Aircraft 2017 Edition

...
GENERAL REGULATIONS FOR FREE FLIGHT CONTESTS
F1.1 ORGANISATION REQUIREMENTS FOR FREE FLIGHT CONTESTS
The organiser must :
F1.1.1 Starting Line
a) Provide a starting line in Free Flight contests for classes F1A, F1B, F1C, F1G, F1H, F1J, F1K,
F1P, F1Q and F1S from which launching must take place. This starting line must be
approximately at right angles to the prevailing wind direction at the start of each round.
b) Starting positions are indicated by markers, spaced at least 10 meters apart along the starting
line. The starting poles for F1C shall be at least 50m separated from the starting poles of
other Free Flight classes except for the powered classes F1P, F1J, F1Q and F1S. In the case
of F1A, the helpers shall launch the model at this pole. Each country and any reigning
champion or defending junior champion (C.5.3 d), if not a member of his national team, is
allotted a starting position for the first round by draw. In each successive round, all countries
move a defined number of starting positions along the line in the same direction; upon
reaching the end of the line, a country takes its next position at the other end of the line. The
number of starting positions to be moved is established by dividing the number of starting
poles by the number of official flights, the result to be rounded up to the next whole number
above. Each competitor in the fly-off is allotted a starting position by draw for each fly-off
round.
c) Spectators are not allowed within 25 m from the starting line. The only people allowed at the
starting position are contest officials, the competitor, his helper, the team manager and the
assistant team manager.
d) During the rounds test flying is not allowed near the starting line or upwind of the starting line.
The Organiser shall specify an area to be used for test flying during the rounds.
e) In Free Flight contests for class F1E, provide a starting line facing the wind with, on both
ends, one perpendicular parallel line following the slope. The timekeepers have to remain
behind the starting line whereas the competitor can launch his model in any position on the
slope between the parallel lines and below the starting line.
F1.1.2 Provision of Timekeepers
a) In Free Flight events, provide each starting position with two time keepers in
Championships or with at least one timekeeper for other contests. For fly-offs an additional
timekeeper must be provided (i.e. three for Championships, at least two for other
contests). All time keepers must have binoculars. Each starting position must be
equipped with at least one tripod for supporting binoculars.
b) In F1E Championships each country and the reigning champion, if not a member of this
national team, is allotted a pair of timekeepers for the first round by draw. In
successive rounds all countries change timekeepers by moving one down the list of
timekeepers. In other F1E competitions timekeepers are allocated to competitors in the
order in which they arrive at the starting line, the organisers may define a working time
during which the timekeepers remain available to each competitor.

F1.2 TIMING
F1.2.1 Timekeepers
a) Each team shall have the right to provide a timekeeper for the following classes of World and
Continental Championships: F1A, F1B, F1C, F1P, F1D, F1E with the organiser to be
responsible for providing lodging and food only. Teams must nominate only skilled
timekeepers and the timekeepers must bring binoculars, watches and tripods for their own
use. The organiser must use these timekeepers as a priority, before allocating duties
timekeepers of the host nation or other timekeepers.
b) Competitors may act as timekeepers.
F1.2.2 Model recognition
The timekeepers must familiarise themselves with the colour and shape of the model in
order to recognise it during the flight.
General Regulations for Free Flight Contests
SC4_Vol_F1_FreeFlight_17 Effective 1st January 2017 Page 12
F1.2.3 End of flight
The flight is considered ended when the model touches the surface of the earth, encounters
an obstacle which definitely terminates its flight or when it definitely disappears from the
timekeeper’s sight. If the model disappears behind some obstacles or in clouds, the timekeepers
are to wait for ten seconds; should the model not reappear, timing will cease and the ten
seconds will be subtracted from the flight time.
F1.2.4 Number of timekeepers
a) The flights must be timed by two timekeepers during the first seven rounds and, in the fly-off,
each flight must be timed by at least three timekeepers – the additional timekeepers
preferably to be picked among the competitors – with quartz controlled electronic
stopwatches with digital readout recording to at least 1/100th of a second.
b) All timekeepers must be equipped with binoculars.
F1.2.5 Position of timekeepers
The timekeepers must remain within a circle of 10 metres radius during the flights and time the
flights independently of each other.
F1.2.6 Time recorded
The time recorded is the mean of the times registered by the timekeepers, rounded to the
nearest whole number of seconds to the resulting mean time (0.5 second rounded up to the
second above) unless the difference between the times registered shows evidence of an error in
the timing, in which case the organiser will determine, with the FAI Jury, which time will be
registered as the official time or what action should be taken.
F1.2.7 Instructions for using binoculars at Free Flight Contests
a) The binoculars must have a magnification of at least 7. On each starting position at least
one of the binocular will be mounted on a tripod.
b) The timekeeper will adjust the binoculars before timing, so as to suit his eyesight. To do this
the focus will first be adjusted with the centre knob, and then by separate adjustment of the
adjustable eyepiece. The distance between the eyepieces will be adjusted so as to give a
circular field of view.
Note: Binoculars with no central focusing device will be adjusted by altering each eyepiece in
turn.
c) After adjustment and scale, readings will be noted. This should simplify readjustment if
needed.
d) The timekeepers must not use the binoculars whilst the model is being launched. Use of
the binoculars is suggested after about one minute of flight, except that in class F1A
binoculars should be used whilst the model is being launched with the aim of clearly fixing the
moment of its release in case the competitor has gone far away from the starting point.
e) Use of the binoculars must not be left until too late in the flight, when there is a risk of not
finding the model with the binoculars.

F1.3 PROCESSING OF MODEL AIRCRAFT FOR INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIONS
F1.3.1 Processing of Free Flight Model Aircraft - Class F1A, F1B, F1C, F1E, F1P
a) Model specification certificates and corresponding models must be presented on arrival at the
time of registration for the event. The organiser will indicate that these models have been
registered by a stamp or marking on the model across the edge of the FAI sticker. This
stamp or marking must not introduce any alternative model identification, this being
provided by the model identification code (C.11.1)
b) Official processing of the model characteristics will not take place before the start of the
contest.
c) Before the start and during the contest, the competitors have the right to have launching
cables (F1A) and motors (F1B) and swept volumes of motors (F1C, and F1P) officially
checked.
d) Before the start and during the contest, the competitors have the right to have the weight of
their models checked.
...

...
3.1.2. Characteristics of Gliders F1A
Surface area (St).......................................................... 32 - 34 dm2
Minimum weight ........................................................... 410 grams
Maximum length of launching cable loaded by 5 kg....... 50 m
F1A models may use radio control only for irreversible actions to control dethermalisation of the
model. Any malfunction or unintended operation of these functions is entirely at the risk of the
competitor.
...

3.1.5. Definition of an Unsuccessful Attempt
An attempt is classed as unsuccessful if the model is launched and at least one of the following
events occurs. If this happens on the first attempt then the competitor is entitled to a second
attempt.
...
c) It is apparent to the timekeepers that a part of the model becomes detached during the launch
by the helper, while the model is being towed, or during the official flight time.

...
3.1.7. Duration of Flights
The maximum duration to be taken for the official flights in world and continental championships
is four minutes for the first round and, if conditions allow, for the last round and three minutes for
the other rounds. In other international events a maximum of three minutes will be used for all
rounds unless different durations (not exceeding five minutes) have been announced in advance
in the contest bulletin for specific rounds.

3.1.8. Classification
...
f) If the number of competitors in a flyoff is 12 or more and is greater than 25% of the number of
competitors in the competition, then the flyoff may be split into two groups:
...
9) Competitors proceeding from group flyoffs to the later flyoffs will be classified only by times
achieved in the later flyoffs after the group stages. The times in group stages do not count
in their classification.

3.2. CLASS F1B – “WAKEFIELD”
...
3.2.2. Characteristics of Model Aircraft with Extensible Motors F1B
Surface Area (St) ......................................................... 17 - 19 dm2
Minimum weight of model less motor(s) ........................ 200 g
Maximum weight of motor(s) lubricated......................... 30 g
F1B models may use radio control only for irreversible actions to control dethermalisation of the
model. Any malfunction or unintended operation of these functions is entirely at the risk of the
competitor.

3.2.5. Definition of an Unsuccessful Attempt
...
a) It is apparent to the timekeepers that a part of the model becomes detached during the launch
or during the official flight time.
...

3.3. CLASS F1C – FF AIRCRAFT WITH PISTON ENGINES
...
3.3.2. Characteristics of Model Aircraft with Piston Motor(s) F1C
Maximum swept volume of motor(s) ............................. 2,5 cm3
No exhaust extensions whatsoever are allowed to the exhaust opening(s) of the motor
Minimum total weight ................................................... 300 g/cm3 swept volume of motor(s)
Minimum loading .......................................................... 20 g/dm2
Maximum duration of motor run: ................................... 4 seconds from release of model.
Fuel to a standard formula for glow plug and spark ignition motors will be supplied by the
organisers, and must be used for every official flight. The composition shall be as follows: 80%
methanol, 20% oil. Oil can be castor oil or synthetic oil. There is a free choice for the competitor.
...

3.3.5. Definition of an Unsuccessful Attempt
An attempt is classed as unsuccessful if the model is launched and at least one of the following
events occurs. If this happens on the first attempt then the competitor is entitled to a second
attempt.

b) It is apparent to the timekeepers that a part of the model becomes detached during the launch
or during the official flight time.

...
3.H CLASS F1H – FF SMALL GLIDERS
...
3.H.2. Characteristics of Gliders F1H
Maximum Surface area (St) .........................................18 dm2
Minimum weight............................................................220 g
Maximum length of launch cable when loaded by 2 kg ..50 m
The number of models eligible for entry by each competitor is three.
F1H models may use radio control only for irreversible actions to control dethermalisation of the
model. Any malfunction or unintended operation of these functions is entirely at the risk of the
competitor.
...

3.H.5. Definition of an Unsuccessful Attempt
An attempt is classed as unsuccessful if the model is launched and at least one of the following
events occurs. If this happens on the first attempt, then the competitor is entitled to a second
attempt.
d) It is apparent to the timekeepers that a part of the model becomes detached during the launch
by the helper, while the model is being towed, or during the official flight time.

----
ANNEX 1 RULES FOR FREE FLIGHT WORLD CUP
...
4. Points Allocation
Points are allocated to competitors at each contest according to their placing in the results and the
number of competitors beaten as given in the following table and the following items:
Placing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Points 500 400 300 250 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130
Placing 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Points 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
b) Points are awarded only to competitors in the top half of the results list (if N is the number of
competitors who completed a flight in the first round of the competition, then the points from the
above table are awarded only for places 1 to N/2, rounding up when necessary in calculating the
N/2 place).
...
10. World Cup Board
A Board of three persons shall be nominated by the CIAM Free Flight Subcommittee Chairman to rule
on any issue concerning the implementation of World Cup rules during a year. Any such issue must
be submitted in writing to the Free Flight Subcommittee Chairman. The World Cup Board is not
entitled to deal with any kind of complaint or protest concerning a single competition, which must be
considered by the FAI Jury for that competition.

Bogdan

Allard van Walene
Poroča z letošnjega zasedanja CIAM / reports from 2017 CIAM meeting
-----
A short summary of what will be coming in 2018:
-No more 2-group fly offs
-Back to 7 rounds but 5 rounds still an option
-7 minutes working time in fly offs, F1B pilots are allowed to wind prior to this working time
-First round and one other round 240s max
-4 s engine run stays, no split of F1C class into flapper/folder and fixed wing
-If pilots bring their own time keeper to a fly off, these time keepers must be randomly distributed among fly off competitors
-no change in 20 s attempt rule (it stays as it is)
-radio operated engine shut down in F1C mandatory as of 2020
-F1D should have the FAI unique ID number marked on motor stick
-F1Q max 30 s motorrun, 3 J/g energy budget (capped at 550 g)
-F1N models shall carry the FAI unique ID number on the upper surface of wing

Bogdan

Podrobnejše poročilo o sklepih zasedanja CIAM izpod prstov Iana Kaynesa. Povzeto po SEN.
Detailed report about CAIMA meeting conclusions by Ian Kaynes. Taken from SEN.
---
Report by Ian Kaynes

The annual meeting of CIAM (the Aeromodelling Commission of the FAI) was held in Lausanne on April 27 to 29. A CIAM Bureau meeting was held on April 27, at the Maison du Sport, local to the FAI headquarters. This year the main Plenary meeting on April 28 and 29 was at the Hotel Savoy, an older and more imposing hotel up the hill towards the town centre. It was used instead of the usual location at the Movenpick Hotel because that one was being refurbished. The Savoy had similar facilities to the Movenpick, but with the advantage that the side meeting rooms had an easily connected display screen.
The Free Flight Technical Meeting (FFTM) which I chaired as chairman of the Free Flight Subcommittee (FFSC) was conducted on the morning of April 28, followed by some Plenary business and presentation to World Cup winners. The main Plenary meeting (at which the binding decisions are made according to the votes of national delegates) was on April 29th. All of the rule changes which were approved by the Plenary come into force in January 2018 unless stated otherwise.

The FFTM attendance was, as usual, larger than any other category technical meeting:
Wilhelm Kamp Austria
Cenny Breeman Belgium
Harry Ells Canada
Cesare Gianni Italy
Jari Valo Finland
Pierre Chaussebourg France
Bernard Schwendemann Germany
Andras Ree Hungary
Zdravko Toporoski FYR Macedonia
Allard van Wallene Netherlands
Ioana Dumitru Romania
Zorin Gabriel Valeanu Romania
Pavol Barbaric Slovakia
Per Findahl Sweden
Christoph Bachmann Switzerland
Mehmet Arslan Turkey
Ian Kaynes UK
Chuck Etherington USA
Rather than describing all the discussions at the FFTM and then the Plenary considerations of the same subjects, I will split the reporting into the major subjects.

Extra timekeepers
Netherlands proposed that if flyoff competitors are required to provide a timekeeper to help time the flyoff then these timekeepers must be distributed randomly instead of only being used for the supplying competitor. This was accepted unanimously by FFTC and Plenary. This adds a new paragraph (c ) to para F1.2.1:
In case competing fly-off participants are requested to supply timekeeper(s) for a fly off (see a), these time keepers must be randomly distributed among the competing fly-off participants, e.g. by draw or moving timekeepers to respective neighbouring starting poles.

Use of Altimeters for timing
Netherlands had proposed the use of altimeters as an alternative source of timing information in the event of some doubt about timing of a flyoff flight. At FFTM the arguments in favour were put by Allard van Wallene and the criticisms were voiced by the meeting, such as that it was legislating flight out of sight (against the current tightening of airspace regulations), would take a long time to decide the result of any flyoff round, and would undermine the timekeepers. After much discussion the meeting vote showed 7 in favour and 7 against. The vote in FFSC, which is also reported to the Plenary had 6 in favour, 9 against. I reported both votes to the Plenary and asked for delegates to vote and they responded with 14 for and 10 against so the process has been adopted. CIAM President stated that it was required to have devices reviewed by the CIAM EDIC system (Electronic Devices in Contests). The rule will appear in Volume F1 as a new paragraph F1.2.7 (with the current paragraph F1.2.7 regarding binoculars renumbered to F1.2. Cool

and with an addition to the timekeeper instruction annex:
F1.2.7 In flyoffs, electronic time and altitude recording devices may be used mounted in or on a model. Such devices must be commercially available with an altitude measuring frequency of at least 2 Hz and display equipment like a computer, tablet or smart phone equipped with graphing software must be available to produce a time-altitude graph of the recorded flight. The responsibility of the use and correct functioning of such devices rests with the competitor.
The use of an altimeter is voluntary. Prior to each fly off, participants with (reserve) models equipped with such recording devices being switched on, should position their model(s) at ground level no more than 5 meters from their assigned starting pole. Upon instruction of the contest director, the participant will have to lift the model(s) from the ground and hold the model(s) elevated a number of times, the number and duration of these movements is decided by the contest director thereby generating an unique altitude-time signature. In case of a flight-time related dispute, the competitor automatically may proceed to the following fly off round. Any dispute must be marked on the competitor’s scorecard for that fly off round. After the last fly off but no later than 30 minutes from the end of the last flyoff, the jury will ask the competitor who filed the dispute to read out the altimeter data and present the altitude versus time graph. The jury will check the signature in the graph and determine the flown time for the fly off round for which a dispute has been filed. If the moment of launch, landing and flight time can be clearly established and the correct signature is present, the flight time will be recorded for the final result. If any one of these conditions is not met, the timekeeper’s time of the disputed fly off round will be used as the score for that fly off round. If this time is less than the maximum flight time set for that particular fly off round, any subsequently flown fly off rounds will be cancelled for that competitor. In case of a protest related to the altimeter generated flight time, the altitude graphs must be made available to the jury. Failure to do so will result in the time keeper’s recorded flight time being the official score.

Number of flights
The FFSC had proposed changing the number of flights in a contest from five to “five or seven” with the number to be used to be defined in the advance information for the event. Canada and Denmark had proposed returning specifically to seven flights. In FFTM a large majority preferred the FFSC option and this was supported 28 for and 2 against in the Plenary meeting.
Para 3.1.3 (a) will read:
a) Each competitor is entitled to five or seven official flights. The number to be flown must be announced in advance in the bulletin.
This paragraph is references in 3.2.3 and 3.3.3 so that it also applies to F1B and F1C. The Plenary meeting unanimously accepted a change to F1P rule so that these also refer to 3.1.3.a for number of flights.

20 second attempt
Denmark had proposed deleting the rule allowing a second attempt after a flight of less than 20 seconds in F1ABCHJPQ, and Belgium had also submitted one just for F1C.
In the FFTM discussion included the illogicality of allowing a second attempt for a bad flight but not for a flight was just a few seconds short of a maximum, the history that removing the rule some years ago had been unpopular so that it had been returned, and that general application would have a more significant effect on less able competitors in national competition. After that the FFTM could not decide either way, the vote was 7 in favour and 7 against. FFSC had voted 6 in favour of the proposal and 9 against. When put to the Plenary meeting, delegates voted against the proposal by the narrow margin of 11 for and 13 against. So the 20 second attempt rule remains.

Duration of flights
The current rules specify that for championships the first round should be extended to four minutes and, if conditions allow, also the last round. FFSC had proposed changing this to be more flexible by specifying the first round and one other round. Netherlands had proposed changing it to the first and second round. FFTM unanimously preferred the more flexible FFSC option and this choice was confirmed by Plenary without a vote. The first paragraph of 3.1.7 will read:
The maximum duration to be taken for the official flights in world and continental championships is four minutes for the first round and, if conditions allow, for one other round and three minutes for the other rounds. In other international events a maximum of three minutes will be used for all rounds unless different durations (not exceeding four minutes) have been announced in advance in the contest bulletin for specific rounds.
The same change will apply to F1B and F1C since paragraphs 3.2.7 and 3.3.7 will be changed to say “see 3.1.7” (as agreed last year but not included in the 2017 volume).

Flyoff round time
FFSC had proposed reducing the time allowed for making a flyoff flight from 10 minutes to 7 minutes. FFTM views included complaints from some active flyers that it would increase problems for F1A towing with more action concentrated at the start of the round, but others agreed that a flyoff is a test of skill and reducing the time makes it a harder test. The FFSC had supported the idea 11 for and 4 against but the FFTM rejected it with 6 for and 7 against. With these different opinions the proposal was put to Plenary for their vote and they supported the idea with 20 for and 7 against.
The modified text for paragraph 3.1.8.(c) in 2018 for F1A will be
c) The organiser will establish a 7 minute period during which all fly-off competitors must tow and release their model. Within these 7 minutes, the competitors will have the right to a second attempt in the case of an unsuccessful first attempt for an additional flight according to paragraph 3.1.5. Starting positions will be decided by draw for each fly-off.
F1C and F1P follow the same text with “tow and release their model” replaced by “start their engines and launch their model”, but F1B introduces a new freedom to wind one motor before the start of the round:
c) The organiser will establish a 7 minute period during which all fly-off competitors must launch their model. Competitors may wind one rubber motor before the start of the 7 minute period. Within these 7 minutes the competitor will have the right to a second attempt in the case of an unsuccessful attempt for an additional flight according to para 3.2.5. Starting positions will be decided by a draw for each fly-off.

Group flyoffs
FFSC had proposed a number of clarifications to the group flyoff rules in the light of shortcomings found during its first year of use. These were accepted unanimously by the FFTM and supported by Plenary voting 21 for 3 against. Plenary agreed to a later request to make the clarifications effective from June 1 2017 so that they will apply for Championships and other events later this year.
Denmark had proposed to eliminate the group flyoff option. The FFSC had supported this proposal but FFTM were 2-11 against the idea, principally in order to keep it as an option to provide a way to run flyoffs if there is a significant shortage of timekeepers at any time. The proposal was supported by Plenary with 16 in favour, 12 against, so that the group flyoff option will disappear from the code in 2018.

Motor run in F1C
Germany, Netherland, and USA had made similar proposals for dual motor runs in F1C, keeping the current 4 sec for models with variable geometry (flaps or folders) and giving 5 sec to models with fixed wing geometry. FFTM discussed the desirability of having two options and the unknowns of whether the balance was correct. If the difference was too much it would alienate all those with flappers and folders. When it came to the vote the FFTM rejected the idea 5 for 8 against, almost the same as the 5-9 vote by the FFSC.
Canada had proposed returning to 5 sec run for all models, the FFTM unanimously considered this was an undesirable return to higher performance.
All the proposals on this topic were withdrawn at Plenary.

Radio Control DT in F1C
Various proposals had been made for changes to the current rule that insists F1C models must have an RDT system but without specifying that it must also be able to stop the motor. USA proposed returning the class to option fitting of RDT (like the rule in other classes). Canada also proposed optional RDT but for DT only and removing the even the option to stop the motor. Germany and Netherlands proposed changing the rule to insist that the RDT must be able to stop the motor, but with the key difference that Germany was asking to delay implementation to 202 in order to give notice of the change. The FFTM preferred the German option voting 11-2 for that proposal. It was accepted at Plenary by 20 votes for, 6 against. The other proposals were then withdrawn at Plenary. The relevant part of 3.3.2 will be changed to:
F1C models must be fitted with functional radio control only for irreversible actions to control dethermalisation of the model. This must include stopping the motor if it is still running. Any malfunction or unintended operation of these functions is entirely at the risk of the competitor.

Power models for Juniors
Poland had proposed using a degraded F1C model for the juniors, including silencers and banning flappers and folders. The FFTM noted that this was very unlikely to be more popular for juniors than the past options: F1C when originally used, followed by F1J now F1P. One of the criticism of F1P is that there are few events for it outside the championships, but the proposed F1C would not have been competitive in open F1C events. The general view was that it would be better to change to electric. FFTM unanimously opposed the Polish proposal and it was withdrawn at Plenary

Marking Indoor models
The FFSC proposed adding requirements to require rubber powered models to carry the competitor’s FAI Identification number be on the motorstick and hand launched gliders (F1N) to have the number on the upper surface of the wing. These were accepted unanimously by FFTM and the Plenary, with application to all classes in January 2018 (including F1D which is subject to a model specification freeze in 2018, but it was agreed that this did not change the actual model).
For F1D this adds a new paragraph at the end of 3.4.2
The model shall carry the FAI unique ID number of the competitor on the motorstick written with permanent marker or other non-removable means.
with similar changes for F1L, F1M and F1R.
For F1N add a new paragraph at the end of 3.7.2:
The model shall carry the FAI unique ID number of the competitor on the upper surface of the wing.

F1Q changes
There were several proposed changes for F1Q and these generally recorded fewer votes in FFSC, FFTM and Plenary, probably reflecting those without knowledge of the class not participating.
Denmark had proposed changing to the XT30 connectors which are more directly foolproof for polarity errors when connecting systems. It was not supported in FFTM and was withdrawn t Plenary.
Both Germany and Denmark proposed reducing the energy allowance from 4J/g to 3 J/g and a proportional change of the maximum motor run from 40 to 30 sec, and accompanied by an increase of the maximum mass considered for energy calculation from 500g to 600g. The limit had been 550g on earlier models and was reduced to 500g when previous changes were made. It was agreed that it would be more acceptable to change back to 550g rather than the extra increase to 600g. With this amendment the FFTM supported the proposal 8-2 and the Plenary unanimously endorsed this. The modified part of 3.Q.2 will read:
The motor run time will be determined by a maximum energy amount. In addition, motor runs over 30 seconds are regarded as overruns. The energy budget of each model is 3 joules per gram of the total weight. For energy calculations, weight exceeding 550 grams is to be ignored.
Denmark proposed removing the option (b) to measure power and calculate a motor run as a means of meeting the energy requirement, instead it would insist on an energy limiter (the current option (a)). This was discussed in FFTM, noting that the motor run calculation provided an easy introductory route for newcomers to F1Q flying other models such as F1S. FFTM voting supported the proposal 5-3 and Plenary followed that accepting the proposal with a 6-4 vote in favour. Germany had made a similar proposal but with the return of an architecture requirement for the energy limiter to be independent of the timer, such as had been removed a few years ago. This was opposed by FFTM and withdrawn at Plenary.
USA and Germany had proposed energy reductions for the flyoff. The USA proposal had graduations to 3.5, 3.0 and 2.5 J/g but the normal power had already been reduced to 3 J/g so it was easier to adopt the German proposal. That had specified any reduction down to 2 J/g but it was decided it was more appropriate to specify a single value of 2J/g. Whether or not to use this reduction in the flyoff is an option available for the Jury to decide. The proposal was accepted by the FFTM voting 8-1 and passed by Plenary 9 for and 3 against. The change deletes 3.Q.8.e), which states the run and energy remain the same in flyoffs, and modifies 3.Q.8.d) to read
d) In the event of exceptional meteorological conditions or model recovery problems, the Jury may permit the maximum for a round to be changed that given under 3.Q.8.b. and decrease the maximum energy amount to 2 J/g and the motor run time to 20 seconds according to conditions.
A proposal from Denmark to remove the 3.Q.9 item on timing the motor run was rejected by the FFTM mainly on the grounds that there is a rule limiting the motor run and it is not otherwise observed. It was withdrawn at Plenary.

World Cup events
Poland had proposed to limit the number of foreign-organised events in any one country to just one. While there was some support for a limit, it was felt that this was much too extreme and FFTM rejected it unanimously. It was withdrawn at Plenary.

Junior Age
Poland had proposed to raise the maximum age of a junior from 18 to 21. This had been discussed in the Bureau meeting. Control Line are studying the progress and continued activity of the juniors who have flown in their championships. I will endeavour to undertake a similar one for free flight. My basic view is that the specific championships held for juniors in free flight is a much more effective and distinctive way to involve juniors than the approach of control line and most of the radio control class which add a single junior to the 3-man team at ordinary championships. Our championships appear to work well with all the competitors being of school age, whereas expansion to 21 would introduce people who are effectively adults and either working or in higher education. A majority of FFTM opposed the Polish proposal and at Plenary Poland agreed to it being referred to the Bureau.

Submission of proposals
Canada had proposed bringing forward the date for submission of proposals to CIAM from November 15 to July 31 and included distributing proposals for opinions. It was considered unpopular to change the date to the middle of the flying season and I worked towards getting immediate availability of proposals after the submission date instead of having to wait for the formal agenda. There was agreement for this, but a complete visibility of the submitted files might have to wait in view of the current plans to totally revise the FAI websites. The proposal was referred to the Bureau.

Events for accepting a class for Championships
USA had submitted two proposals to change the required total number of competitors per year for an event to qualify for Championship status. One was for cutting the present 60 to 50 and the other reduced it to 40. Both quoted F1Q as an application, largely with a reason related to the high cost of an FAI Licence in the USA (which has recently been reduced from $100 to $75 per year). However, they did not propose to change the requirement for there to be at least six countries participating in each contest, and that would be a much more significant hurdle for F1Q. The proposals were not supported at FFTM and were withdrawn at Plenary.

Awards
There were six nominees for the CIAM Scholarship and the final selection from the free-flight dominated list was Taron Malkhasyan from USA.

At the World Cup awards there was the usually handful of individuals present to collect their awards, including Florian Winker for second in F1E Junior and Bojan Gostojic for first inF1B. Senior F1E was exceptional for having all three recipients present and, as well as the medals and diploma, this is an event with trophies for each place. The Winkers had specially driven from Germany that day and were returning home immediately afterwards.

Championships
The 2019 Championships were selected at this Plenary meeting.
The F1A F1B F1C World Championships had received bids from Serbia, USA and Macedonia. The bid from Macedonia was withdrawn and presentations were made by Serbia and USA. Serbia had chosen to follow the Italy 2012 schedule with the day of rounds for a class followed by a morning flyoff as the only event on the next day. The Zrenjanin schedule extended over 9 days excluding any additional World Cup events. The USA had followed a traditional timetable for the first week in October at Lost Hills. The Plenary voting awarded the event to USA by 27 votes against 14.
China had also signified an intent to bid, but since this was after the closing date for bids, I told them that it would be unlikely to the considered against the three valid bids. They are now considering a bid for 2021.
There had been some complaints that the USA bid had not been shown on the agenda. It was submitted just before the deadline of 45 days before the meeting, but the agenda is produced on the same deadline so that must be published by 45 days before the event. The deadlines are to be adjusted in future, but it is still better than years ago when bids were only submitted at the meeting.
The 2019 F1E World Championships had two bids, both of which were submitted late. Since there had been no bids made in time, the two late bids were considered. Both bids were for the regular sites, Slovakia at Martin and Romania at Turda. Slovakia was chosen with 24 votes against 15 for Romania.
The 2019 F1A F1B F1P Junior European Championships was awarded to the only bidder – Macedonia.. The F1D Indoor European Championships also went to the sole bidder, in this case the Czech Republic.

Bogdan

Povzetek najvažnejšega iz zgornje objave:
----
Slovenskega delegata (spet) ni bilo na zasedanju tehničnega podkomiteja za letenje s prostoletečimi modeli. Smile

Dodatni časomerilci
Dodatni časomerilci, ki jih udeleženci na prošnjo organizatorja prispevajo za flyoffe, morajo biti najključno razporejeni po startnih mestih - z žrebom ali na naslednje sosednje startno mesto.

Uporaba višinomerov za merjenje časa
v Športnem pravilniku bo dodana nova točka
F1.2.7 V flyoffih je dovoljena uporaba naprav za snemanje časa in višine, ki so lahko nameščene v ali na model. Take naprave morajo biti na voljo v splošni prodaji (komercialno), s frekvenco merjenja vsaj 2 Hz, na voljo pa mora biti tudi naprava (npr. računalnik, tablica ali pametni telefon) z grafično programsko opremo za prikaz grafov sprememb višine s časom posnetega leta. Za uporabo in pravilno delovanje takih naprav je odgovoren tekmovalec.
Uporaba višinomera je prostovoljna. Pred vsakim flyoff-om morajo udeleženci s svojimi (rezervnimi) modeli, opremljenimi z vklopljenimi takimi snemalnimi napravami postaviti svoj(e) model(e) ne več kot 5 metrov od dodeljenega startnega mesta. Udeleženci morajo po navodilih vodje tekmovanja večkrat dvigniti model s tal in ga držati dvignjenega, število in trajanje takih premikov določi vodja tekmovanja, s čimer se ustvari enoličen podpis višine-časa. V primeru, da pride to spora glede časa leta lahko tekmovalec avtomatično napreduje v naslednji krog flyoff-a. Vsak spor mora biti označen na tekmovalčevem kartončku z rezultati za ta krog flyoff-a. Po zadnjem flyoff-u, vendar ne kasneje, kot 30 minut po koncu zadnjega flyoffa, bo žirija zahtevala od tekmovalca, ki je prijavil spor, da odčita podatke višinomera in predloži graf višine s časom. Žirija bo preverila podpisv grafu in določila čas letenja za sporni krog tekmovanja. Če se lahko jasno določijo časi trenutka izpustitve, pristanka ter leta modela in je vsebovan pravi podpis, se čas leta zabeleži za končni rezultat. Če katerikoli od teh pogojev ni izpolnjen, se bo za rezultat v tem frogu flyoffa upošteval časomerilčev čas tega kroga flyoffa. Če je čas krajši od maksimalnega časa določenega za ta krog flyoffa, se temu tekmovalcu izbrišejo vsi naslenji krogi flyoffa. V primeru protesta, povezanega s časom leta pridobljenim z višinomerom, je potrebno žiriji dati na voljo grafi višine. Če to ne bo izpolnjeno, postane čas leta, ki ga je zabeležil časomerilec, uradni rezultat.

Število letov
Odstavek 3.1.3 (a) se bo glasil:
a) Vsak tekmovalec je upravičen do 5 ali 7 uradnih letov. Število letov mora biti najavljeno vnaprej v razpisu (biltenu).
Na ta odstavek se nanašajo tudi podobna določila za F1B,F1C in F1P.

20 sekundni poizkus
Določilo ostaja v pravilniku, rezultati glasovanja na treh nivojih so bili precej tesni.

Duration of flights
The current rules specify that for championships the first round should be extended to four minutes and, if conditions allow, also the last round. FFSC had proposed changing this to be more flexible by specifying the first round and one other round. Netherlands had proposed changing it to the first and second round. FFTM unanimously preferred the more flexible FFSC option and this choice was confirmed by Plenary without a vote. The first paragraph of 3.1.7 will read:
The maximum duration to be taken for the official flights in world and continental championships is four minutes for the first round and, if conditions allow, for one other round and three minutes for the other rounds. In other international events a maximum of three minutes will be used for all rounds unless different durations (not exceeding four minutes) have been announced in advance in the contest bulletin for specific rounds.
The same change will apply to F1B and F1C since paragraphs 3.2.7 and 3.3.7 will be changed to say “see 3.1.7” (as agreed last year but not included in the 2017 volume).

Flyoff round time
FFSC had proposed reducing the time allowed for making a flyoff flight from 10 minutes to 7 minutes. FFTM views included complaints from some active flyers that it would increase problems for F1A towing with more action concentrated at the start of the round, but others agreed that a flyoff is a test of skill and reducing the time makes it a harder test. The FFSC had supported the idea 11 for and 4 against but the FFTM rejected it with 6 for and 7 against. With these different opinions the proposal was put to Plenary for their vote and they supported the idea with 20 for and 7 against.
The modified text for paragraph 3.1.8.(c) in 2018 for F1A will be
c) The organiser will establish a 7 minute period during which all fly-off competitors must tow and release their model. Within these 7 minutes, the competitors will have the right to a second attempt in the case of an unsuccessful first attempt for an additional flight according to paragraph 3.1.5. Starting positions will be decided by draw for each fly-off.
F1C and F1P follow the same text with “tow and release their model” replaced by “start their engines and launch their model”, but F1B introduces a new freedom to wind one motor before the start of the round:
c) The organiser will establish a 7 minute period during which all fly-off competitors must launch their model. Competitors may wind one rubber motor before the start of the 7 minute period. Within these 7 minutes the competitor will have the right to a second attempt in the case of an unsuccessful attempt for an additional flight according to para 3.2.5. Starting positions will be decided by a draw for each fly-off.

Group flyoffs
FFSC had proposed a number of clarifications to the group flyoff rules in the light of shortcomings found during its first year of use. These were accepted unanimously by the FFTM and supported by Plenary voting 21 for 3 against. Plenary agreed to a later request to make the clarifications effective from June 1 2017 so that they will apply for Championships and other events later this year.
Denmark had proposed to eliminate the group flyoff option. The FFSC had supported this proposal but FFTM were 2-11 against the idea, principally in order to keep it as an option to provide a way to run flyoffs if there is a significant shortage of timekeepers at any time. The proposal was supported by Plenary with 16 in favour, 12 against, so that the group flyoff option will disappear from the code in 2018.

Motor run in F1C
Germany, Netherland, and USA had made similar proposals for dual motor runs in F1C, keeping the current 4 sec for models with variable geometry (flaps or folders) and giving 5 sec to models with fixed wing geometry. FFTM discussed the desirability of having two options and the unknowns of whether the balance was correct. If the difference was too much it would alienate all those with flappers and folders. When it came to the vote the FFTM rejected the idea 5 for 8 against, almost the same as the 5-9 vote by the FFSC.
Canada had proposed returning to 5 sec run for all models, the FFTM unanimously considered this was an undesirable return to higher performance.
All the proposals on this topic were withdrawn at Plenary.

Radio Control DT in F1C
Various proposals had been made for changes to the current rule that insists F1C models must have an RDT system but without specifying that it must also be able to stop the motor. USA proposed returning the class to option fitting of RDT (like the rule in other classes). Canada also proposed optional RDT but for DT only and removing the even the option to stop the motor. Germany and Netherlands proposed changing the rule to insist that the RDT must be able to stop the motor, but with the key difference that Germany was asking to delay implementation to 202 in order to give notice of the change. The FFTM preferred the German option voting 11-2 for that proposal. It was accepted at Plenary by 20 votes for, 6 against. The other proposals were then withdrawn at Plenary. The relevant part of 3.3.2 will be changed to:
F1C models must be fitted with functional radio control only for irreversible actions to control dethermalisation of the model. This must include stopping the motor if it is still running. Any malfunction or unintended operation of these functions is entirely at the risk of the competitor.

Power models for Juniors
Poland had proposed using a degraded F1C model for the juniors, including silencers and banning flappers and folders. The FFTM noted that this was very unlikely to be more popular for juniors than the past options: F1C when originally used, followed by F1J now F1P. One of the criticism of F1P is that there are few events for it outside the championships, but the proposed F1C would not have been competitive in open F1C events. The general view was that it would be better to change to electric. FFTM unanimously opposed the Polish proposal and it was withdrawn at Plenary

Marking Indoor models
The FFSC proposed adding requirements to require rubber powered models to carry the competitor’s FAI Identification number be on the motorstick and hand launched gliders (F1N) to have the number on the upper surface of the wing. These were accepted unanimously by FFTM and the Plenary, with application to all classes in January 2018 (including F1D which is subject to a model specification freeze in 2018, but it was agreed that this did not change the actual model).
For F1D this adds a new paragraph at the end of 3.4.2
The model shall carry the FAI unique ID number of the competitor on the motorstick written with permanent marker or other non-removable means.
with similar changes for F1L, F1M and F1R.
For F1N add a new paragraph at the end of 3.7.2:
The model shall carry the FAI unique ID number of the competitor on the upper surface of the wing.

F1Q changes
There were several proposed changes for F1Q and these generally recorded fewer votes in FFSC, FFTM and Plenary, probably reflecting those without knowledge of the class not participating.
Denmark had proposed changing to the XT30 connectors which are more directly foolproof for polarity errors when connecting systems. It was not supported in FFTM and was withdrawn t Plenary.
Both Germany and Denmark proposed reducing the energy allowance from 4J/g to 3 J/g and a proportional change of the maximum motor run from 40 to 30 sec, and accompanied by an increase of the maximum mass considered for energy calculation from 500g to 600g. The limit had been 550g on earlier models and was reduced to 500g when previous changes were made. It was agreed that it would be more acceptable to change back to 550g rather than the extra increase to 600g. With this amendment the FFTM supported the proposal 8-2 and the Plenary unanimously endorsed this. The modified part of 3.Q.2 will read:
The motor run time will be determined by a maximum energy amount. In addition, motor runs over 30 seconds are regarded as overruns. The energy budget of each model is 3 joules per gram of the total weight. For energy calculations, weight exceeding 550 grams is to be ignored.
Denmark proposed removing the option (b) to measure power and calculate a motor run as a means of meeting the energy requirement, instead it would insist on an energy limiter (the current option (a)). This was discussed in FFTM, noting that the motor run calculation provided an easy introductory route for newcomers to F1Q flying other models such as F1S. FFTM voting supported the proposal 5-3 and Plenary followed that accepting the proposal with a 6-4 vote in favour. Germany had made a similar proposal but with the return of an architecture requirement for the energy limiter to be independent of the timer, such as had been removed a few years ago. This was opposed by FFTM and withdrawn at Plenary.
USA and Germany had proposed energy reductions for the flyoff. The USA proposal had graduations to 3.5, 3.0 and 2.5 J/g but the normal power had already been reduced to 3 J/g so it was easier to adopt the German proposal. That had specified any reduction down to 2 J/g but it was decided it was more appropriate to specify a single value of 2J/g. Whether or not to use this reduction in the flyoff is an option available for the Jury to decide. The proposal was accepted by the FFTM voting 8-1 and passed by Plenary 9 for and 3 against. The change deletes 3.Q.8.e), which states the run and energy remain the same in flyoffs, and modifies 3.Q.8.d) to read
d) In the event of exceptional meteorological conditions or model recovery problems, the Jury may permit the maximum for a round to be changed that given under 3.Q.8.b. and decrease the maximum energy amount to 2 J/g and the motor run time to 20 seconds according to conditions.
A proposal from Denmark to remove the 3.Q.9 item on timing the motor run was rejected by the FFTM mainly on the grounds that there is a rule limiting the motor run and it is not otherwise observed. It was withdrawn at Plenary.

World Cup events
Poland had proposed to limit the number of foreign-organised events in any one country to just one. While there was some support for a limit, it was felt that this was much too extreme and FFTM rejected it unanimously. It was withdrawn at Plenary.

Junior Age
Poland had proposed to raise the maximum age of a junior from 18 to 21. This had been discussed in the Bureau meeting. Control Line are studying the progress and continued activity of the juniors who have flown in their championships. I will endeavour to undertake a similar one for free flight. My basic view is that the specific championships held for juniors in free flight is a much more effective and distinctive way to involve juniors than the approach of control line and most of the radio control class which add a single junior to the 3-man team at ordinary championships. Our championships appear to work well with all the competitors being of school age, whereas expansion to 21 would introduce people who are effectively adults and either working or in higher education. A majority of FFTM opposed the Polish proposal and at Plenary Poland agreed to it being referred to the Bureau.

Submission of proposals
Canada had proposed bringing forward the date for submission of proposals to CIAM from November 15 to July 31 and included distributing proposals for opinions. It was considered unpopular to change the date to the middle of the flying season and I worked towards getting immediate availability of proposals after the submission date instead of having to wait for the formal agenda. There was agreement for this, but a complete visibility of the submitted files might have to wait in view of the current plans to totally revise the FAI websites. The proposal was referred to the Bureau.

Events for accepting a class for Championships
USA had submitted two proposals to change the required total number of competitors per year for an event to qualify for Championship status. One was for cutting the present 60 to 50 and the other reduced it to 40. Both quoted F1Q as an application, largely with a reason related to the high cost of an FAI Licence in the USA (which has recently been reduced from $100 to $75 per year). However, they did not propose to change the requirement for there to be at least six countries participating in each contest, and that would be a much more significant hurdle for F1Q. The proposals were not supported at FFTM and were withdrawn at Plenary.

Awards
There were six nominees for the CIAM Scholarship and the final selection from the free-flight dominated list was Taron Malkhasyan from USA.

At the World Cup awards there was the usually handful of individuals present to collect their awards, including Florian Winker for second in F1E Junior and Bojan Gostojic for first inF1B. Senior F1E was exceptional for having all three recipients present and, as well as the medals and diploma, this is an event with trophies for each place. The Winkers had specially driven from Germany that day and were returning home immediately afterwards.

Championships
The 2019 Championships were selected at this Plenary meeting.
The F1A F1B F1C World Championships had received bids from Serbia, USA and Macedonia. The bid from Macedonia was withdrawn and presentations were made by Serbia and USA. Serbia had chosen to follow the Italy 2012 schedule with the day of rounds for a class followed by a morning flyoff as the only event on the next day. The Zrenjanin schedule extended over 9 days excluding any additional World Cup events. The USA had followed a traditional timetable for the first week in October at Lost Hills. The Plenary voting awarded the event to USA by 27 votes against 14.
China had also signified an intent to bid, but since this was after the closing date for bids, I told them that it would be unlikely to the considered against the three valid bids. They are now considering a bid for 2021.
There had been some complaints that the USA bid had not been shown on the agenda. It was submitted just before the deadline of 45 days before the meeting, but the agenda is produced on the same deadline so that must be published by 45 days before the event. The deadlines are to be adjusted in future, but it is still better than years ago when bids were only submitted at the meeting.
The 2019 F1E World Championships had two bids, both of which were submitted late. Since there had been no bids made in time, the two late bids were considered. Both bids were for the regular sites, Slovakia at Martin and Romania at Turda. Slovakia was chosen with 24 votes against 15 for Romania.
The 2019 F1A F1B F1P Junior European Championships was awarded to the only bidder – Macedonia.. The F1D Indoor European Championships also went to the sole bidder, in this case the Czech Republic.

Bogdan · Objavljeno: 27 Dec 2017 10:30 Naslov sporočila:

Na spodnjem naslovu je na voljo nova verzija Športnega pravilnika FAI za prosto leteče modele, ki bo veljala v letu 2018:

https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/documents/sc4_vol_f1_freeflight_18.pdf

Bogdan · Objavljeno: 30 Dec 2018 21:06 Naslov sporočila:

Športni pravilnik FAI za letenje s prosto letečimi modeli z veljavnostjo v letu 2019 je na voljo na

https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/documents/sc4_vol_f1_freeflight_19_2.pdf

Bogdan · Objavljeno: 01 Mar 2019 12:04 Naslov sporočila:

Po prvi objavi pregleda trenutnih uvrstitev v Svetovnem pokalu za 2019 Iana Kaynesa so se pojavili komentarji o novem načinu izračuna točk, ki je bil uveden v tem letu. Sprememba je bila sicer sprejeta že na zasedanju CIAM 2016 z začetkom veljavnosti 1.1.2019. Tule je besedilo spremenjenega člena v športnem pravilniku FAI, ki ureja to temo:

Športni pravilnik FAI
Poglavje 4 – Letalsko modelarstvo
Zvezek F1
Prosto leteči letalski modeli
Izdaja 2019
Velja od 1. januarja 2019

DODATEK 1 - PRAVILA ZA SVETOVNI POKAL V LETENJU S PROSTO LETEČIMI MODELI
...
4. Dodelitev točk
Točke se tekmovalcem dodelijo na vsakem tekmovanju glede na njihovo uvrstitev v rezultatih
ter glede na število premaganih tekmovalcev v skladu z naslednjimi točkami:
a) Za izračun točk za Svetovni pokal se upoštevajo le tekmovalci, ki so opravili let v prvem
turnusu tekmovanja. Število teh tekmovalcev je označeno z N,
posameznikovo doseženo mesto na tem seznamu pa je označeno s P.
b) Točke se dodelijo le tekmovalcem v zgornji polovici seznama z rezultati
(če je N število tekmovalcev, se točke dodelijo le za mesta od 1 do N/2,
pri čemer se pri računanju N/2, če je potrebno, to število zaokroži navzgor,
to število pa označimo s H).
c) Število dodeljenih točk je 500 za zmagovalca in se linearno zmanjšuje do nič
za najvišje postavljenega tekmovalca, ki ne prejme točk.
Za tekmovalca na mestu P to izrazimo z:
točke= 500 * [ 1 - (P-1)/H ]
Izračunane točke se zaokrožijo navzgor do najbližjega celega števila točk.
d) V primeru izenačenega rezultata na kateremkoli mestu si tekmovalci na tem mestu delijo točke,
ki bi jim bile dodeljene za mesta, če bi ne bi bilo enakih rezultatv (zaokroženo navzgor
do najbližjega celega števila točk).
e) Vsak tekmovalec, ki dobi točke za doseženo mesto je upravičen tudi do ene bonus točke za vsakega
tekmovalca, ki ga je premagal na tekmovanju. Število tekmovalcev, ki jih je premagal nekdo
na mestu P, je (N-P). Zmagovalec je nagrajen še z dodatnimi 25% bonus točkami, to pomeni,
da prejme 1.25*(N-P) točk, zaokroženo navzgor do najbližjega celega števila točk.
f) V mladinski razvrstitvi v F1A , F1B, F1P in F1E se točke dodelijo glede na razvrstitev mladincev.
g) Če tekmovalec mladinec prejme za Svetovni pokal v odprti (skupni) razvrstitvi v F1A, F1B, F1C ali F1E
več točk, kot bi jih prejel za mladinsko razvrstitvev svetovnega pokala za uvrstitev med mladinci,
se njegove točke v mladinki razvrstitvi svetovnega pokala povečajo na njegovo število točk v skupni razvrstitvi.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAI Sporting Code
Section 4 – Aeromodelling
Volume F1
Free Flight Model Aircraft
2019 Edition
Effective 1st January 2019

ANNEX 1 - RULES FOR FREE FLIGHT WORLD CUP
...
4. Points Allocation
Points are allocated to competitors at each contest according to their placing in the results and
the number of competitors beaten according to the following items:
a) The only competitors considered for the calculation of World Cup points are those who
completed a flight in the first round of the competition. The number of these competitors is
denoted by N and the place of an individual in this list is denoted by P.
b) Points are awarded only to competitors in the top half of the results list (if N is the number of
competitors, then points are awarded only for places 1 to N/2, rounding up when necessary in
calculating the N/2 place, denote this number by H).
c) The number of points awarded is 500 for the winner and linearly decreases to zero for the
highest place competitor receiving no points. For the competitor in place P This is expressed
by:
points = 500 * [ 1 - (P-1)/H ]
The points calculated are rounded up to the nearest whole number of points.
d) In the event of a tie for any placing, the competitors with that placing will share the points
which would have been awarded to the places covered had the tie been resolved (round up
the score to the nearest whole number of points).
e) Each competitor awarded placing points is also eligible for one bonus point for each
competitor they have beaten in the competition. The number of people beaten by someone in
place P is (N-P). The winner is awarded an additional 25% bonus points, that is he receives
1.25*(N-P) points, rounded up to the nearest whole number of points.
f) For F1A Junior, F1B Junior, F1P Junior and F1E Junior points are awarded according to
Junior classification.
g) If a junior competitor scores more World Cup points in an F1A, F1B, F1C or F1E open
classification than he would be awarded in the Junior World Cup from the junior classification,
then his Junior World Cup points will be increased to the same as his open classificaon points.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Domene | Spletno gostovanje | Reseller gostovanje | EMAIL gostovanje SSL certifikati | Spletne aplikacije na klik | Brezplačna spletna stran (Website Builder) | WordPress gostovanje Spletne strani, brezplačna izdelava in namestitev | Poceni letalske karte | Letalske karte | Poceni hoteli

Domene | Spletno gostovanje | Reseller gostovanje | EMAIL gostovanje
SSL certifikati | Spletne aplikacije na klik | Brezplačna spletna stran (Website Builder) | WordPress gostovanje
Spletne strani, brezplačna izdelava in namestitev | Poceni letalske karte | Letalske karte | Poceni hoteli