SEN 1463

  • Print
Details
Category: Archive 2010
Hits: 1181
Table of Contents - SEN 1463

  1. SEN Submissions
  2. F1Q
  3. Team Selection Rebuttal - Simpson
  4. Team Selection Thought - Andriukov
  5. BIggles encore
  6. Editor TS Summary
  7. Airtek/Bauer RDT set for sale.


SEN Submissions


At a recent event a regular SEN contributor complained to me that he had thought out something very carefully and try to get a good presentation only to have it butchered when published and he was disappointed because felt that it distracted from the presentation of the important ideas. 

Firstly I have only limited time in getting the information out if I have to work on the format I will do it the best I can but I will not re-type the submission.

SEN comes out in two different formats - HTML and plain text. If your version has double underlining with the equal = character you are getting the plane text format. You can request the HTML format it is probably better.


I did a quick poll of a couple or regular contributor whose stuff always comes out well and they say that they use the full version of MS Outlook, NOT outlook Express to prepare their submissions.  They obviously do it it at work :-)

Results are always best submitted in a spread sheet that is separate from any  description of the event.   It should be a MS Excel or and Open Office calc spread sheet. If the results are embedded in a Word table, I have yo cut them out, put them in a spread sheet to print them. One of the reasons is that when a MS word table is converted to HTML it generates a lot of  hidden formatting characters that sometimes exceeds what some subscriber's ISP will permit.
 

If you are very fussy about getting your submission pretty in both formats the you can send one in HTML/MS Word format  and another in plain ASCII text with 60 character max to the line.

Do not go great lengths with MS word making your literary master piece very elegant, setting the font size, margins, the chances of this coming out right , given the wide variety of e-mail systems and mail programs is zero

F1Q

This new class is currently going through a very critical period. the number of particpants is increasing and people are figuring out how to make it work.  There are a small number of sportsmen, mainly from Germany and Finland who have produced high performing airplanes that easily exceed the performance envelope specified by the rules.

At some point it will be necessary to change the rule as these best of these airplanes exceed the vertical performance of a F1C model.

there are 3 issues -

  1. when should this rule change take place?
  2. what form should the new rules be, in particular how to restrict the performance. The CIAM FF technical sub committee is thought to favour the use of Energy Limiter devices.  This device is similar in concept to the fuel allotment used in the original Texaco event back in the 1930s - In this case your electric motor can draw a certain number of watt- seconds. there are other ideas such as battery or motor weight either as a absolute number or a percentage of the airframe.
  3. Should there also be an electric mini event, with a simpler form of power restriction.
A number of countries have made submission to the CIAM for review in  the December meeting. These will be voted on the March meeting. If you are interested in electric power then you need to tract this and give your opinion.





Team Selection Rebuttal Comments  
 
Gee whiz, Mike, our selection proposals are "Rube Goldbergesque", and the current process (only 45 years old and the likes of which have been discarded by every other aeromodeling country in the world) is under attack and we evidently are trying to "engineer" the program so we "can get on the team".
 
So, like our current political scene it seems we are being attacked and belittled in an attempt to shut us up.   <snip>
B******T!!!!
 
 My comments here are lengthy because I am addressing comments made by two individuals.  I hope everyone reads all the way through.  There are some important points made throughout.
 
Bill, I have been around World Championships since 1961, I have been to eleven of them as a matter of fact.  I have been on the F1C team four times (I have two Gold Medals and a Silver Medal from the team competition), I have been Team Manager four times, I have worked a World Championship on the processing team.  I was on the Team Selection Committee twelve years, served twice as TSC Chairman.  I am 74 years old and most likely won't make the team again,  (but that is okay, I have flown F1C since 1961 and I've enjoyed some success and have enjoyed the internatiional modeling community immensely!!!).    I know what I am talking about when I say that our team selection process needs to be brought up to date, so it can successfully continue within the limitations that are starting to set in as our program participant numbers dwindle.
 
I have worked hard to raise the level of FAI free flight performance in America.  I introduced flying by rounds at the November 1965 WFFA contest at Tulare California.  We even had a novelty for those days of having flyoff flights all together at the same time.  In 1977, in the Sierra Eagles MAC, I started the Sierra Cup FAI contest.  In 1979 I was able to get the Sierra Cup on the FAI FF International Calendar, the first one in the United states.  Following the 1979 World Championships at Taft we hosted a huge contest of 135 F1A entries, 65 F1B entries, and 42 F1C entries, competitors from 23 countries, where really for the first time American competitor were able to compete against foreign competitors in a sanctioned Open International Contest. 
 
When the CIAM created the World Cup competition I immediately got the Sierra Cup on the International Calendar as an American World Cup contest.  I was the Sierra Cup Contest Administrator and the Contest Director for 25 years.  It was a lot of hard word, took a lot of personal time, but it introduced the American FAI community to foreign competitors, it gave them the chance to see foreign designs, to talk with them about everything under the sun pertaining to the F1events and then to obtain model parts, model planes, engines, etc., which in turn raised the performance level of the entire American F1 community.
 
SO DON'T TELL ME I AM DOING EVERYTHING FOR MY OWN BENEFIT, ENGINEERING A SELECTION PROCESS JUST SO I CAN MAKE THE TEAM!!!  
 
Bill, evidently you did not read my proposal very closely.  TWO FACTS       (1) The  free flight community has run out of qualified people for Contest Director.  All the qualified people are in the team program trying to make the team. Also, we are about to run out of a qualified model club to host and run a single Team Finals.  (Ask SCAT just how many more times they are willing to do it).
 
(2)  The USA Team funds are starting to run low, questions are being asked about how to fund future teams.   (Ask your TSC members where the deep surplus of team funds that were there in 2004 went.  Its my understanding that some of the recent teams were not held to their budget until the 2011 Team Program that included specific wordage on budget limitations, (see Part VI Program Finances and Budget, Program Budget section, para A. bold print). 
 
TWO MORE FACTS:
(1)  By having a multi-contest selection process we will utilize the established Contest Directors of the World Cup Contests and the AMA National Championships, with no additional requirements put on the contest director other than running the flyoffs in the same manner that they already do, and submitting complete results to the TSC just as they submit results to SCAT for the America's Cup.  If the Nats people can't do this then they shouldn't pass themselves off as a National Championship.
 
(2)  If we do not have a single Team Finals we do not have any Team Finals expenditures, which makes $4,300 available each cycle for funding the USA team.
 
I did not say that those that are on the team, should not be........I resent you thinking that about me, about anyone who submits a proposal other than the one we currently have.  You apparently want to belittle anyone who thinks different than you.  It appears that your idea is that everyone should still drive Black cars.
 
And yes Chuck, I am well aware of what the AMA published document titled "World Championship Teams" says about the team selection process, for all disciplines of aeromodeling that have a World championships.  And I'm sure that prior to the first first Team finals that there documentation read differently, but due to the incident at the 1964 Marysville Ohio Semi-finals the process was changed, and the Team Selection committee was formed......... I was on that Committee then as well.  
 
The "World Championship Teams" document also states in its Introduction "The object of the program is to have the US represented by teams of highly skilled AMA members and world-caliber competitors within a budget............."
 
And the "World Championship Teams" states (Page 8, para 1.a.) "The committee is expected to deliver a program in a format which will select the team which will best represent the United States at the World Championship".
 
In Section B. of the document, AMA lays out Performance and Program criteria that must be met for AMA to fund or to continue to fund any teams.  No, our program is not in danger of losing funding, but it does show that AMA is serious about Team and Program quality and what AMA is willing to spend their money on.
 
Chuck, you stated, and I quote  "In that document, it is assumed that there will be finals contest to select the team.  That assumption is played out in several sections of the document governing how a finals should be conducted.  That brings the obvious question of how are we to go around the AMA-established process?  I do not see such behavior as part of the Committee's activity.  We represent the AMA." 
 
I think you have it wrong........... the Committee represents the program participants, and interfaces with AMA on our behalf.  You are suppose to be one of us.
 
Let's go back to the document "WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP TEAMS" and look at Section II Team Selection Committees, para C. Committee Responsibilities, sub-para b. Program Improvement............. which states "At the end of a cycle the committee shall provide a period during which recommendations for program improvements are solicited.  After considering all inputs, the Committee shall prepare a proposed program for presentation to the program participants.  The AMA/Competition Department will then send a ballot to the program participants for their approval."  
 
The TSC does not have to "go around the AMA-established process" as Chuck said, it need only to fit the proposal into the document requirements.  At the 1996 TSC in-person meeting the TSC agreed to a multi-contest selection program.  This was possible because I, as TSC Chairman, had previously discussed the proposed selection process with Hq AMA and they had agreed to the program if we made each contest the same as a Team Finals, and they okayed team selection from an accumulated result at the end. 
 
The same thing can happen again if the person(s) discussing the proposal with the AMA Competition Department is 100% in favor of the proposal!  That person(s) should explain the situation the FAI free flight community now finds themselves in, and how we would go about selecting future teams.  The AMA competition department used to have a very favorable opinion of the F1 selection program as we were the best organized and at one time anyway, were the only program that actually had money.  I see no reason why they would not work with us to change over to a multi-contest selection process. 
 
And of course the immediate question will be about the Contest Director and the Jury.  One thing to keep in mind.  Each F1 Class is a seperate contest (direct quote from Ian Kaynes).  The Sierra Cup and the Max Men contests can be Co-CDed.  One CD can fly F1A while the Co-CD runs the F1A contest, then the one who flew F1A can run the F1B/F1C contests.  The same can work for all contests.  At the Nats all three events are flown on seperate days, very easy to do.  As to the jury, at the Sierra Cup the jury is made up from a competitor from each class, this has been reported in the Jury report to CIAM and there have been no problem with this.  I believe this is true for the MaxMen contest.  Three well known and experienced Competitors make an excellent jury, they know the rules best, their reputation keeps everything as it should be.
 
The 1996 Multi-contest proposal was scrubbed when it became apparent that the requirements for flyoffs and non-completed flyoffs had not been addressed properly.  This time it has.
 
Roger Simpson


Andriukov modification and reasons

After Finals there are 9 happy guys who like the current format... True or False? I asked 6 team members who were present at the Patterson. ALL SIX prefer multiple contest system. In my opinion it is the only way to achieve the two main objectives.

1. We want strongest fliers to be selected
2. We want the system to encourage people to fly and increase participation.

Let’s have a look at both topics

1. What is strong flier? If you look around, you may probably say: this guy is strong flier and that one is not quite... How do you know? Try to dig into your mind and you will likely see: you intuitively assign "strong flier" label to the guy who often wins large contests! OK, let's go one step further. Does that "strong flier" win all the contests? No. Why? Because of the nature of our sport and its rules. We count every flight, not the best of many attempts. So, we need sufficient statistics. When the single finals 14 round system was developed 50 years or so ago, you could drop a quite a few flights and make the team. Back then it was sufficient statistics, but not anymore.

2. The most valuable thing that the selection process must have is producing fair results. If so, anybody will have a clear path to the team: make your models fly better, become stronger flier yourself and you will have a fair chance to make the Team. This clarity is the most motivating thing. Not lottery.

Roger Simpson system looks really good to me. I would suggest just couple of changes.
Count 5 best results out of 6.
Define the selection contest as this:
”Before the beginning of each year Team Selection Committee designates 3 most reputable contests in US as selection contests, preferably in different parts of the country.” This will keep door open for any club to apply.

This system will make me travel to all of them. It will save me time and money. This year I took a week of vacation and arrived to Lost Hills 8 days before the Finals. If it was 3 contests, I would only take three Fridays off.  Fliers who only attend local contests will be able to see all of USA at their own field. Isn't this a promotion of the sport?

Alex Andriukov



Plan B:  Evolution:
 
Or… we could try to refine the existing Finals Program. 

As Chuck Markos points out, much of the recent Revolutionary discussion for change may be moot.  The majority of questionnaire respondents “are in favor of the current program”, and Chuck rightly points out that AMA has a document titled “ World Championship Teams”, which the “Team Selection Committee follows as closely as possible …to select a Team”.  So any changes to this process will need to be officially proposed, accepted, sanctioned and adopted through the traditional AMA channels, otherwise we may no longer continue expect their generous support.
 
Bill Shailor also rightly challenges those with concrete ideas to step up and spell out what is wrong, what needs to be changed, or what could be improved ?  In reading the recent SEN discussions several themes appear in common, so let’s take some examples:
 
1)  Hard Luck stories, single point failure robs gifted flyers of chance to demonstrate their capabilities (Achterberg and indeed the experience of a majority of competitor’s at each and every Finals)
 
Gizmo failed; Bad prop fold; function line broke; glow plug flamed-out; wing rod broke on launch; timer jammed; towline broke; battery went dead; DT’ed early; best model didn’t DT; flyer gave up after first round — you know their stories.  Murphy could have been a preeminent FAI Finalist, had his own Law not prevailed.
 
2)  Hold two back-to-back one day contests to give flyers a second chance (Jim Parker)
 
This concept appears to have much popular support, and could be easily and seamlessly conducted using the present 3 day / 2 events per day format, counting each day separately. 

However, one major weakness has also been clearly stated in SEN (Roger ???).  It is not possible to equally compare scores and results from two different days held under different conditions.  One day could have easy conditions and the other tough conditions and so who gets the 3rd Team Place and Alternate position ?

But probably a more crucial problem is the likely lack of available daytime and personnel to organize literally twice as many fly-offs to a satisfactory conclusion, during a 3 or 4 day period.  All contest are weather dependent, but maybe shorter rounds and longer fly-offs might help alleviate the schedule.  But it just might not work ?

3)  Reduce Round times closer to realistic 20 minutes per flyer (Aram Schlossberg).
 
Competitors currently have a dedicated timer and a full 30 minutes each to fly.  At a WC the 3 Team-mates have 60 minutes between them, ie a maximum of around 15 minutes each to prepare and launch with little time to spare after each max has been recorded.  Therefore, why not reduce the Finals rounds to 20 minutes each, with a 10 minute break, flying two events per day (as at present), ie each round will start on the hour and on the half hour (easier to remember throughout the day).  This could save about 2 hours during each day, allowing this time to be better used for fly-offs (see below).
 
4)  Current Finals format places too high an emphasis on consistency during rounds, but does not adequately test fly-off performance of selected Team (opinion of many)
 
At the recent Finals there was no fly-off in F1A.  But this was NOT because there were no max-outs, but because there were no double maxouts on both days.  Maybe THIS is the root problem raised by Jim in #1.  What if instead, the criteria for fly-off eligibility was changed to anyone who has maxed out on EITHER day (ie similar to the concept of two separate-day-contests).  Such a policy would have resulted in the following increased fly-off participants in 2010.
 
But note that competitors with only a single one-day max-out, would still carry with them the deficit of time they dropped on their bad day into their overall final score — ie, a real motivation to keep flying, do well, and not give up:
 
F1A: 7 in Fly-off:  Brian Van Nest, Robert Sifleet (- 5 sec), Jim Parker (-60 sec), Andrew Barron (-91 sec), Michael Thompson (-94 sec), Jon Davis (-110 sec),  Rene Limberger (-147 sec).  (17 flew; Don Zink and Pierre Brun DNF Day 2)

F1B: 12 in Fly-off:  Alex Andriukov, Robert Tymchek, Dave Saks, William Booth, Michael Davis (-8 sec), Greg Simon (-31 sec),  Charlie Jones (-38 sec),  Robert Piserchio(-58 sec),  Martin Schroedter (-60 sec),  Jim Bradley (-62 sec),  Anthony Ulm (-125 sec),  Eddie Vanlandingham (-139 sec).  (25 flew; Bill Shailor and Tom Vacorro DNF Day 2)

F1C: 8 in Fly-off:  Henry Spence, Mike Roberts, Randy Secor, Faust Parker, Don Chesson (-8 sec), Edward Carroll (-12 sec), McBurnett (-70 sec), Roger Simpson (-195 sec).  (16 flew; Mike Achterberg, Matt Gewain and Austin Gunder DNF Day 2)

But just as the argument goes that the Finals rounds shouldn’t be lost because of a small mistake, so the Finals fly-offs shouldn’t be won or lost on one lucky or unlucky flight.  Therefore, as a minimum, the all-inclusive fly-off rounds should consist of at least the 5 minute round and the 7 minute round, (and for the fly-off to continue for any who are still maxed out for the whole event).  So, each flyer’s final score will therefore be the overall accumulated total, including any dropped time in all the rounds and both fly-offs.

Another Proposal:

In an attempt to address all these concerns a proposal could be written along the following lines, but hopefully expressed more elegantly and concisely. 

The Premise:  The US Team Selection Finals format will comprise of two separate-day qualifications, and must include a mandatory fly-off finale to determine the Team:

The US Team Selection Program will include the following tasks: 

1) 14 qualifying rounds per discipline, held over three days (7 rounds per day as at present) for each discipline (example A + B, B + C & C + A) with the objective to down-select the group of competitors who will participate in the culminating mandatory fly-off Finale rounds.

2)  A minimum of two mandatory Fly-off rounds will be flown by all fly-off Finale qualifiers per discipline (5 minutes and 7 minutes max) to be held, irrespective of whether or not these competitors have achieved a maximum score during the preceding rounds.

3)  Following the first two mandatory fly-off rounds, those competitors who are still maxed out will continue fly-offs as required (ie 9 minute and / or early morning round) until the top 3 Team Members and 1 Alternate are selected.

Eligibility for advancing to the Mandatory Fly-off rounds will be as follows: 

1)  All competitors who have maxed out all the rounds on at least one single day (ie either day 1 or day 2) 

2) In the event that fewer than 30% of the total participants who have flown (rounded to the nearest whole number) have achieved a one-day maximum score (in their discipline on either day) then the next highest scoring competitors, totaled over both days, will also be advanced to the mandatory fly-off rounds to make up this 30% figure, irrespective of whether they have achieved a full score on either day (example: 5 one-day max-outs, from the 28 entries who flew x 30% = 8.4, rounded to 8 persons who will compete in the two mandatory fly-off rounds.  So the next 3 highest competitor’s scores (from both days totals combined) will also qualify for at least 2 more mandatory fly-off rounds, to produce a field of 8 competitors)

3)  In the event of tied round scores, all those with exactly the same two day total score will be advanced, even beyond the 30% participation objective (example, 10 flyers max-out both days then all ten advance to the mandatory fly-off with no additional participants; or, given 5 one-day max-outs, plus next 2 highest scores, plus in this case the third highest identical score achieved by two competitors where both will also advance, ie in this case 9 advance to the mandatory fly-off rounds).

The CD shall arrange the daily schedule to allow for all normal qualifying rounds to be completed, or cancelled as necessary, in time to permit a minimum of two one hour mandatory fly-off rounds to be completed, and be concluded at least 30 minutes before sunset.  At the CD’s discretion, qualification round times may be reduced to a minimum of 20 minutes flying and 10 minutes break, with 1 hour between each round, announced in advance in the Finals Program, as needed to make the daily schedule:

1)  Day 1 — 7 qualifying rounds, no fly-offs

2)  Day 2 — 7 qualifying rounds, 2 mandatory flyoff rounds one hour apart (5 & 7 mins) for first event to be completed (ie F1B) plus any further rounds (9 mins) as time permits

3)  Day 3 — 7 qualifying rounds, 2 mandatory flyoff rounds one hour apart (5 & 7 mins) for the second and third events completed (ie F1A & F1C), each event started with half-hour separation (ie on the hour and on the half-hour) plus any further rounds (9 mins) as time permits

4)  Day 4 — Reserve Day and / or Early Morning rounds, as necessary

Final scores to determine the US Team will be the accumulative total of:

1)  Total qualifying round score over two days (14 rounds)

2)  Plus 2 mandatory fly-off round scores for those advanced to fly-offs (2 rounds)

3)  Plus any additional fly-off rounds, as necessary (all other deciding fly-offs)

On a personal note, for all the years I have participated in, or witnessed the US Team Selection Finals (over 15 Programs), I do believe that the Team Selection Finals has been, and remains, the single best and most exciting FAI contest held in America (irrespective of location).  Everybody who is anybody is there from all across the US.  It’s often the only time you get to meet many of the fellow FAI flyers from across the States.

Everybody attending is well prepared, with their best models, trimmed, practiced and ready to go with their top game.  The format is fair, everyone gets an equal shot, on their own pole, with their own timer, and lots of help and support available from others as and when needed.  There are no excuses, except for what can go wrong that is within your own control.  It doesn’t get any better than this — except of course the World Championships itself.

Fly-offs are crucial in Free Flight to determining a winner.  Invariably there will be drama, upsets, close calls, uncertainty and jubilation at the conclusion of the event.  We NEED a BIG FINISH to celebrate our Team’s accomplishments and expectations.  That’s what makes a Team Finals.

—  Biggles






Editor/Moderator Comments


Firstly what's great about all the proposals are that they come from people who have actively taken part in the Team selection process for many years.  The only particpant who is not current is Biggle and now that he has hung up his F1A towline maybe he's waiting for F1Q to make it to the world stage.


In summarizing the articles written so far the reasons why people are looking at changing the Team Selection process are, in no particular order:

  1. Because we are finding it hard to get good people to run the finals mainly because it is always at the same site , Lost Hills.
  2. Because missing out on a place in the team when the selection is a one time event is demotivating to a significant section of the active community FAI free flight community..
  3. Because the current system does not generate sufficent net funds to help the team.
  4. Because the current system does not select the best team?
  5. No one else does it this way, in particular the Ukranians spread it over several contests so that way must be better. :-)
  6. The selection of the the TSC members is not-democratic so using the TSC as a representaive democracy to come up with a new Selection plan will not truely represent the desire of the particpants.
Proposals

So far the most thought out proposals mentioned here are Roger Simpson's with Alex Andriukov's modification.

Also Alex was the only person to actually explain how a multi-contest format might address  the motivation issue or rather the lack of motivation in not getting on the team after a one contest finals with this comment " This clarity is the most motivating thing. Not lottery."

Biggles looked at everything from every angle but did not provide a single solution.

I believe that the only way there will be a change, that that's what the particpants want is if at the time of the in-person TSC meeting , the TSC members  can say - hey Sportsman X has written this proposal, he has addreses the issues and he has a grass roots consensus behind him .


One procedural note, Roger included references to some people/groups/events in the current US political landscape.  These were for illustration only. These were taken out.  This is not intended to be a critisim of Roger or his position.  In fact I agree with his position the bitterness and  tactics employed in US politics should be kept away from model sport. But I did not want include a reference that might imply an alignment one or another with anything political.

 

For Sale: Bauer RDT System - 5 Receivers - 1 Transmitter

for sale is a complete, ready to use Bauer RDT system including 5 (five) receivers and 1 (one) transmitter. the receivers are for internal use - aka have 3 wire ribbon cable and 3 pin connector. if an interested buyer would like external mount, i would be willing to modify for right-angle headers on request.


system is completely functional and ready to use, great shape. great range on all receivers. lipo in transmitter holds charge well.


$600 (450euro) for complete set incl. shipping worldwide.


interested buyers please contact me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


Rene Limberger




..............
Roger Morre