SEN 2811
- Details
- Category: Archive 2021
- Hits: 847
SEN 2811
1. Fab February Postponed
2. F1A proposal falling down
3. OK with 7
4. Pro banning of "falling down”
Fab February Postponed
From :William Booth
Covid & Fabulous February
Health statistics published by the Kern County Health Department in the last couple days indicates that of the 216 cases of Covid reported in Lost Hills since March 2020, 48 have been reported in the last two weeks. That is 22% of the overall total. That is alarming. ICU bed capacity for the County is between 90% & 100% for all Kern County Hospitals, the closest of which is 45 minutes from the flying field. Add to that, Kern County is in what California calls "Tier 1" which prohibits gatherings with members of other households. All predictions are that this is going to get worse before it gets better. The first contests would be less than 4 weeks from now.
After some discussion the organizers of all the Fab Feb contests ( Ike & Kiwi, North American, Cal Cup and Max Men International ) have decided to postpone all of the events until later this year. Dates remain to be determined. We are all very disappointed, but in light of the current situation there is no other logical choice. Please be smart and stay safe.
Bill Booth
Contest Director Max Men International
F1A proposal falling down
From:Christoph Bachmann
Dear Roger
I am sending you my way of looking at the F1A proposal "falling down" for
publishing in SEN.
I will miss that we can't meet in Lost Hills this year. I wish you nice sporty
days in February.
Best regards
Christoph Bachmann
Responsibility for health
There are a number of known injuries caused by “falling” when launching an F1A
model. The falls when the start line breaks are not harmless and the risk of
severe head and brain damage is real. Fortunately, we haven't had a case like
this up to now. My opinion is that CIAM F1 has to bear responsibility here.
For example, it was said that a motorcycle fall while retrieving the model is
just as dangerous. Yes, that's right, but the legal regulation already exists
here and is not the responsibility of CIAM F1. In addition, it is not
necessary to bring back the model with a motorcycle to practice free flight
sports. Another argument against the proposal is that the timekeeper would not
see the fall. We initiators also looked at that. Rules are seldom absolutely
precise. The problem mentioned already exists in our F1A rules. If a pilot
loses the line when towing, no fellow is allowed to assist. The timekeeper
would also be responsible here. Whether he sees that, if it happens at a
further distance, is probably even more difficult to see than the falling.
Nevertheless, the rule applies.
It was also said that a zero rating in the event of an unintentional fall was
unfair. There is no zero rating, there is another attempt.
The proposed rule is not against the fundamental concerns of F1A sport to
promote glider models with the best flying characteristics. Good fitness
remains just as important.
As a CIAM F1 member I would like to take responsibility and avoid serious
accidents so that we never have to find out that we have not recognized a
significant risk.
Christoph Bachmann
CIAM F1 Member Switzerland and F1A Pilot
OK with 7
From:Michael J Woodhouse
I’m more than happy with winding inside the 7 minute window. It is part of the deal. The winding early is vague and easy to fudge. A couple of years back a well known flyer used in the 2nd fly off a model that had been wound prior to the previous fly off when he blew a motor when adding hand turns and no time left. He came 2nd.
Michael Woodhouse
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Editor’s comments
I removed the flyer’s name because it is kind of a criticism that is not collaborated and maybe more of a criticism of the rule.
The rule says that you can’t use a second motor in that fly off round. The rule does not say how long before the fly off the motor can be wound. As a CD I have attracted some criticism from flyers by delaying the start by as much as a whole minute or 2 after originally saying the Flyoff will start in 5 minutes. This is because they wanted to make sure all of their pre-wound motor were fresh, I needed to verify that everyone REALLY had timekeepers. . The is no rule that says how long before the start of the fly off the motor can be wound nor the CD’s actions in starting the round. Some common sense applies but that is maybe not enough . I am a little surprised than in the case Mike talks about the well known sportsman used a motor that must have been wound at least 30 , probably 60 minutes before.
But what all of this does indicate that the before the start motor winding is confusing. The reason for the proposed rule change.
Pro banning of "falling down”
From:Bernhard Schwendemann
Pro banning of "falling down"
Allard gave important arguments in his contribution for banning "falling
down" at the F1A start.
There were also opposing opinions.
In one post the responsibility of the athlete for himself was mentioned. But
this is only half of the truth. It is common in society in general and in
sports to regulate things to protect athletes. And it is common knowledge
that sportsmen often take too big risks due to very great ambition. The
organisation (FAI/CIAM) and the organiser bear a significant share of the
responsibility here.
Another post listed injuries that have occurred over many years in free
flight. However, these were accidents or technical failures. However,
"falling down" at F1A is part of the starting process.
The rules we set for ourselves don't just have to be suitable for the top 20
pilots in a class. They must also be suitable for all the others. Without a
large number of pilots in the midfield, there would be no organization and
no competitions for the top pilots.
What do we want? Do we really want a sport in which the athletes with their
helmets and protective equipment are sprinting over the field? What effect
does this have on observers? Even without falling down at the start, the
models will climb steeply upwards to great heights after the release. The
great experience of our sports will not be affected.
And for all who are afraid of falling without intension - with or without
intension, you will have a re-flight, this is foreseen in the proposal.
All this supports the arguments given by Allard.
Editor’s Comment
It is my understanding that Christoph and Bernard are the authors of the CIAM proposal with English and Rule Drafting help from Allard.