Espritmodel.com Telemetry Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Mar 05, 2013, 03:25 PM
hot air rises...
jfinch's Avatar
Pleasant Grove, UT
Joined Jul 2005
7,548 Posts
Discussion
Proposed F3K rule changes

If you're a USA pilot and haven't yet logged into the google groups area to download the CIAM 2013 Plenary Meeting Agenda for the proposed rule changes you should. And express your opinion over on google or directly to Terry Edmonds.

File is here (don't know if this will link): http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/tEs2UUJ...nda%20V1.0.pdf

Most of the proposed rules are just cleaning up of language which I don't care all that much about but these should generate some interest...

s) 5.7.3.2 is proposing to make it a zero flight if you leave the flying field even while your plane is in flight.

y) 5.7.4.5 is a proposal to require helmets.

ad) 5.7.8 is a rule to allow reflights due to contest or organizer error. (there are two other proposals along those same lines).

ai) 5.7.10.1 Proposal to reduce the total number of drops to ONE.

au) 5.7.11.5 Proposal to limit the max call in poker to 9:58

Nobody proposed to allow "end of window" call... bummer.

The F3K changes start on page 52.
jfinch is offline Find More Posts by jfinch
Last edited by jfinch; Mar 05, 2013 at 08:28 PM. Reason: Added CIAM agenda pdf
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Mar 05, 2013, 03:26 PM
Father of Fr3aK, DLG Pilot
tom43004's Avatar
USA, OH, Worthington
Joined May 2002
6,600 Posts
5.7.10.1 would ROCK!

Some more commentary:

s) 5.7.3.2 is proposing to make it a zero flight if you leave the flying field even while your plane is in flight.

This is ridiculous. Are we going to have line judges placed all around the field when flying? Ridiculous. Is this hoping to increase safety? What's the justification and purpose other than keeping people from wandering while flying poker with one thermal? Ridiculous.

y) 5.7.4.5 is a proposal to require helmets.

This is more ridiculous. I can't even form a comment that begins to state how ridiculous this is.

ad) 5.7.8 is a rule to allow reflights due to contest or organizer error. (there are two other proposals along those same lines).

This is typically already done if there's a problem with a matrix. CD discretion? Sounds like an attempt to make official something that's already commonplace.

ai) 5.7.10.1 Proposal to reduce the total number of drops to ONE.

Why not zero? I love the idea of limiting them. Let's eliminate them altogether.

au) 5.7.11.5 Proposal to limit the max call in poker to 9:58

What possible purpose could this have? Throw at the buzzer and you can get 9:59. At most contests, including our nationals, you could have called 10:03 and easily made it. If I get 9:58 and somebody else has the stones to call 9:59 good for him. I get a 999 for the round BECAUSE I GOT BEAT. Why not completely neuter the task and make the max call 1:00 instead? I'd love to hear the justification for this.
tom43004 is offline Find More Posts by tom43004
Last edited by tom43004; Mar 05, 2013 at 03:42 PM. Reason: Elaborating...
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 05, 2013, 03:42 PM
Registered User
United States, CA, Tehachapi
Joined Jun 2011
3,168 Posts
the link doesn't work
bwill6 is online now Find More Posts by bwill6
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 05, 2013, 03:49 PM
Chuck 'Em and Chase 'Em
Fly2High's Avatar
United States, NY, Plainview
Joined Aug 2005
8,058 Posts
Didn't 5.7.11.5 also clean up the language so that it doesn't sound like 5 throws are required and that the task can be done with a 5 or less?

I haven't had the chance to read it carefully but did they finally clean up the poker to restrict it to 5 throws max? I know there were some that read the old rule as allowing a 6th and the best 5 are what counted.

AS for preventing leaving the field, why penalize a guy with lesser eyesight? To what benefit is it to require a guy to stay in the launch/land field?


I hate the one requiring 250 meters(849.7ft) of fixed obstacles from the nearest edge of the start and landing field (no fixed obstacles - I am assuming trees are fixed obstacles) (pg 56 section O) 5.7.3.1). My field is only 1100 ft by 1200ft. We hosted the 1999 F3J US Team selections there but if that passes, I can no longer host a F3K contest....

SO if you want to have 9 guys on the field, you need 30M x 30 M for each or 90M x 90 M and if I am correct you'll need another 250 before and after for a total of 590M x 590M for a field of 9 guys = 1935.7 ft x 1935.7ft JUST FOR 9 GUYS TO FLY!!! OK so no one in the Northeast will be able to fly F3K....
Fly2High is offline Find More Posts by Fly2High
Last edited by Fly2High; Mar 05, 2013 at 04:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 05, 2013, 03:54 PM
hot air rises...
jfinch's Avatar
Pleasant Grove, UT
Joined Jul 2005
7,548 Posts
My opinion.

s) 5.7.3.2 is proposing to make it a zero flight if you leave the flying field even while your plane is in flight. Against.

y) 5.7.4.5 is a proposal to require helmets. Please NO

ad) 5.7.8 is a rule to allow reflights due to contest or organizer error. (there are two other proposals along those same lines). I can't think of any reason to allow a reflight for an individual. But if the pilot is screwed for something out of his control but within the control of the "contest" then a reflight would be warranted.

ai) 5.7.10.1 Proposal to reduce the total number of drops to ONE. Agree.

au) 5.7.11.5 Proposal to limit the max call in poker to 9:58 I don't really care all that much. The originators of this proposal claim a 9:59 call is somewhat timer dependent.
jfinch is offline Find More Posts by jfinch
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 05, 2013, 04:17 PM
Father of Fr3aK, DLG Pilot
tom43004's Avatar
USA, OH, Worthington
Joined May 2002
6,600 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfinch View Post
au) 5.7.11.5 Proposal to limit the max call in poker to 9:58 I don't really care all that much. The originators of this proposal claim a 9:59 call is somewhat timer dependent.
These are probably the same guys who turn in five second drops in 5x2.

There are lots of things that are mathematically impossible in an F3K contest, but why single this one out for a rule? I just don't get it.
tom43004 is offline Find More Posts by tom43004
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 05, 2013, 04:20 PM
a.k.a. Matt Nelson
MattN's Avatar
North Tustin, CA
Joined Oct 2008
1,753 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom43004 View Post
ai) 5.7.10.1 Proposal to reduce the total number of drops to ONE.
Why not zero? I love the idea of limiting them. Let's eliminate them altogether.
At first I thought 1 was good - gives some safety net in case of a problem beyond pilot control. But that got me thinking - what's beyond his/her control? Mid-air? nope. Equipment failure? nope (don't fly with marginal equipment). Tripping/falling? nope. Seems like the vast majority of "incidents" are controllable by the pilot, therefore 1 drop would only be 'justified' very rarely.

I'm starting to like the idea of no drops...
MattN is offline Find More Posts by MattN
RCG Plus Member
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 05, 2013, 04:30 PM
DS Addict
ALEX HEWSON's Avatar
Christchurch, New Zealand
Joined Jul 2005
5,060 Posts
Does Joe Bloggs get a say or influence over the changes??
ALEX HEWSON is offline Find More Posts by ALEX HEWSON
RCG Plus Member
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 05, 2013, 04:46 PM
G_T
Registered User
Joined Apr 2009
5,692 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattN View Post
At first I thought 1 was good - gives some safety net in case of a problem beyond pilot control. But that got me thinking - what's beyond his/her control? Mid-air? nope. Equipment failure? nope (don't fly with marginal equipment). Tripping/falling? nope. Seems like the vast majority of "incidents" are controllable by the pilot, therefore 1 drop would only be 'justified' very rarely.

I'm starting to like the idea of no drops...
I'm taking it you've never been SAM'd on launch. Etc. Crap happens.

Gerald
G_T is online now Find More Posts by G_T
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 05, 2013, 05:33 PM
Registered User
United States, CA, Tehachapi
Joined Jun 2011
3,168 Posts
Frankly, I don't care for any of them. I like having at least one drop and I'm not opposed to having more than one. Like G_T said, crap happens.

Helmets? Really?

Requiring pilots to stay in the flight box at all times? I fail to see the purpose in this. If there is to be a change here, I am in favor of abolishing the rule that states the pilot has to be in the box when the plane lands. Safety concern? No. Fairness? Tell me what's unfair about this.

Not really sure I understand 5.7.8. I'd have to see the specifics of the rule and when it comes into effect to really understand and have an opinion on it.

No 9:59 in poker? I'd like to hear the argument for this one as well. I frankly can't see why this is even being considered. Like Tom said, why not 8:00? Why not 1:00? It just doesn't make sense.
bwill6 is online now Find More Posts by bwill6
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 05, 2013, 05:44 PM
Aurora Builder
United States, MD, Lusby
Joined Nov 2003
3,419 Posts
I'm with Tom. I could swing a number of ways on the drops, but I don't think it usually has an impact. Of course lots of debate on that one. Sometimes equipment fails in manners you would never think, marginal has nothing to do with it. Mid airs can be beyond one pilots control...

Being penalized for flying outside the field boundary is ridiculous.

Forced to wear a helmet is even more ridiculous. Wear one if it makes you more comfortable. I've never once felt it would make me safer flying DLG. I wear helmets while engaged in extreme activities, and rightfully so (sitting here nursing a sprained thumb as a result of ski failure on one of, if not the steepest mountains in North America, go Wyoming!). DLG is not an extreme activity.
samc99us is offline Find More Posts by samc99us
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 05, 2013, 05:51 PM
Registered User
David Forbes's Avatar
United States, FL, Gainesville
Joined Dec 2005
2,821 Posts
[QUOTE=
y) 5.7.4.5 is a proposal to require helmets.

Maybe body armor too if Gavin is on the field

Dave
David Forbes is online now Find More Posts by David Forbes
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 05, 2013, 06:22 PM
Registered User
Indgroove's Avatar
United States, TN, Knoxville
Joined Feb 2007
109 Posts
[QUOTE=David Forbes;24333690][QUOTE=
y) 5.7.4.5 is a proposal to require helmets.

Maybe body armor too if Gavin is on the field

Dave[/QUOTE]

LOL
Indgroove is offline Find More Posts by Indgroove
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: This Forum is Great
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 05, 2013, 06:27 PM
Registered User
Thermaln2's Avatar
Reno Nevada
Joined Oct 2007
2,522 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly2High View Post
I hate the one requiring 250 meters(849.7ft) of fixed obstacles from the nearest edge of the start and landing field (no fixed obstacles - I am assuming trees are fixed obstacles) (pg 56 section O) 5.7.3.1). My field is only 1100 ft by 1200ft. We hosted the 1999 F3J US Team selections there but if that passes, I can no longer host a F3K contest....
Actually, in some way, I agree with this idea. I personally think that canopies, chairs, advertising flags and items 20 ft tail should not be within say approximately 50-100 ft of the flying box. I can take the trees, like at Poway, but canopies so close to the edge of a field basically eliminates low level flying in the near area of the flight box, hence reducing the flying area. Likewise, planes and people should be some small distance from the line. At Poway, one contest, the hay was nearly 4 feet tall, right next to the southern flight box area. This meant that you had to be careful otherwise the hay grabbed your tail feathers like an arresting hook of a carrier. At one time flags were placed at the corners of the flightbox that were 10ft or so tall. This was not liked by many. This issue is always a problem when the flight area is small. But trees and more natural objects are just things you can't move, and they offer obstacles much like trees and sand traps do in golf. Your skill is to work around them. Canopies and such are not. The trees also offer areas so thermal pop-offs as well as challenging your depth perception.

Just an idea I thought about submitting.

In Europe , etc, the areas of flying are large and do not offer as many physical choices for pilots to consider when finding lift.

Here in the Reno/Carson area we have very large and unhindered pastures to fly in. In some areas the mountains actually hide the profiles of our planes so we cannot distinguish them from the mountain background. Your learn to handle them. Also, wide open areas do not permit you to read leaves swirling by thermals, so you learn to see color changes in the sky or dust/insects in the air. Close-by trees make it easier to find thermals outside of relying just on the plane.

Chris
Thermaln2 is online now Find More Posts by Thermaln2
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 05, 2013, 06:33 PM
Registered User
Thermaln2's Avatar
Reno Nevada
Joined Oct 2007
2,522 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by G_T View Post
I'm taking it you've never been SAM'd on launch. Etc. Crap happens.

Gerald
There are no Mulligans in the real game of golf, why should we have them here. crap happens is an excuse for not being prepared with your plane or your chosen environment. If you don't want to be "SAMed" then don't put yourself in the position to be SAMed. It's all part of the game, and part of the strategy. Not much different than NASCAR racing, or skiing, or track and field. If you put yourself in the position to be runoff the road or running track, then you have not considered the strategy of it all. You have to be prepared.

IMHO

Chris
Thermaln2 is online now Find More Posts by Thermaln2
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Alert F3K - formulating a ballast rules change - HELP NEEDED TO PASS!! Fly2High Hand Launch 201 Feb 23, 2010 08:29 PM
Discussion Coming proposal for Rule change, F3K oakman7004 Hand Launch 42 Nov 15, 2009 12:28 PM
Discussion F3K rules - potential for ammendment? Chris Gibbs Hand Launch 81 Nov 30, 2007 09:04 AM
F3K rules and tasks Phil Barnes Hand Launch 74 Oct 23, 2006 12:05 AM
Discussion F3K Rules - Goddo hlgflyer Hand Launch 2 Mar 15, 2006 02:57 PM