New Products Flash Sale
Thread Tools
Old Mar 05, 2013, 04:25 PM
jfinch is offline
Find More Posts by jfinch
hot air rises...
jfinch's Avatar
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.
Last edited by jfinch; Mar 05, 2013 at 09:28 PM. Reason: Added CIAM agenda pdf
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Mar 05, 2013, 04:26 PM
tom43004 is offline
Find More Posts by tom43004
Father of Fr3aK, DLG Pilot
tom43004's Avatar
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.
Last edited by tom43004; Mar 05, 2013 at 04:42 PM. Reason: Elaborating...
Old Mar 05, 2013, 04:42 PM
bwill6 is offline
Find More Posts by bwill6
Registered User
the link doesn't work
Old Mar 05, 2013, 04:49 PM
Fly2High is offline
Find More Posts by Fly2High
Chuck 'Em and Chase 'Em
Fly2High's Avatar
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....
Last edited by Fly2High; Mar 05, 2013 at 05:00 PM.
Old Mar 05, 2013, 04:54 PM
jfinch is offline
Find More Posts by jfinch
hot air rises...
jfinch's Avatar
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.
Old Mar 05, 2013, 05:17 PM
tom43004 is offline
Find More Posts by tom43004
Father of Fr3aK, DLG Pilot
tom43004's Avatar
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.
Old Mar 05, 2013, 05:20 PM
MattN is online now
Find More Posts by MattN
a.k.a. Matt Nelson
MattN's Avatar
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...
RCG Plus Member
Old Mar 05, 2013, 05:30 PM
ALEX HEWSON is offline
Find More Posts by ALEX HEWSON
Remember... Fly for fun!
ALEX HEWSON's Avatar
Does Joe Bloggs get a say or influence over the changes??
RCG Plus Member
Old Mar 05, 2013, 05:46 PM
G_T is online now
G_T
Find More Posts by G_T
G_T
Registered User
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
Old Mar 05, 2013, 06:33 PM
bwill6 is offline
Find More Posts by bwill6
Registered User
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.
Old Mar 05, 2013, 06:44 PM
samc99us is online now
Find More Posts by samc99us
Aurora Builder
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.
Old Mar 05, 2013, 06:51 PM
David Forbes is offline
Find More Posts by David Forbes
Registered User
David Forbes's Avatar
[QUOTE=
y) 5.7.4.5 is a proposal to require helmets.

Maybe body armor too if Gavin is on the field

Dave
Old Mar 05, 2013, 07:22 PM
Indgroove is offline
Find More Posts by Indgroove
Registered User
Indgroove's Avatar
[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
Old Mar 05, 2013, 07:27 PM
Thermaln2 is offline
Find More Posts by Thermaln2
Transplant Chey WY from Reno
Thermaln2's Avatar
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
Old Mar 05, 2013, 07:33 PM
Thermaln2 is offline
Find More Posts by Thermaln2
Transplant Chey WY from Reno
Thermaln2's Avatar
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


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 09:29 PM
Discussion Coming proposal for Rule change, F3K oakman7004 Hand Launch 42 Nov 15, 2009 01:28 PM
Discussion F3K rules - potential for ammendment? Chris Gibbs Hand Launch 81 Nov 30, 2007 10:04 AM
F3K rules and tasks Phil Barnes Hand Launch 74 Oct 23, 2006 01:05 AM
Discussion F3K Rules - Goddo hlgflyer Hand Launch 2 Mar 15, 2006 03:57 PM