SEN 1854

Details

Category: Archive 2014

Hits: 1213

1. USA Junior Team
2. USA Senior Team Update
3. Looking for F1C Timer gears
   
4. F1As for Sale
5. Question of timekeeping

February Free flight time accumulation

Besides the princes (those on the previous team, the manager and his assistant) and previous world champions that are exempt from accumulate time, the following have accumulated 75 minutes for the next finals at Boulder City:

A: Peter Barron, Pierre Brun, Pete McQuade, Shlomi Rosenzweig, Bob Sfleet, Brian Van Nest.

B: Carrol Allen, Paul Crowley, Ron Felix, Tom Ieorger, Blake Jensen, Ryan Jones, Aram Schlosberg, Tom Vacarro.

C: Ron McBurnett, Gil Morris, Faust Parker, Randy Secor, Roger Simpson.

At least 50% of the qualifying time

A: Timothy Barron , Kyle Jones, Don Zink.

B: Bill Booth, Bill Shailor, Even Simon, Greg Simon.

C: Dick Mathis

Less than 50%

A: Dave Bevan, Steven Spence, Gene Ulm.

B: Jim Bradley, Michael Davis, Martin Richardson, Aimee Schroedter.

C: Ed Carrol, Chuck Ethrington, Bucky Servates

Only registered

Jim Parker, Yuda Avela, Roland Solomon.

The others F1ABC fliers can fly at the team finals if they join the program ($90), pay the finals fee ($200) and a time bypass fee ($200). Juniors under 25 years have reduced rates.  Results are posted on www.freeflight.org or http://www.freeflight.org/Competition/USTeam/US%20FAI%20Team%20Selection%2011-16-13.pdf

If you have any issues, please first check your individual time postings as omissions are possible.

Aram

A question about timekeeping: - From the Free Flight group on Facebook

 In the CIAM agenda there is a proposal by FFTC that the times measured should be rounded instead of truncated, and the reasoning says:

"Reason: To provide a score closer to the time recorded. There is a particular problem with fight times just below a maximum, for example, with a 180 maximum, times of 179 and 180 currently give a score 179 – missing the maximum even though the timekeeper with 180 might have seen the model for longer than 180. The proposed change gives the benefit to the competitor in these unusual close situations."

    Tapio Linkosalo  Allard, sorry for an unclear post. My example above was not an interpretation of the proposed new rules, but an explanation how I interpret the current ones (first average, then truncate). If done as I interpret, even then the result of 179.9 and 180.2 would result a max. I edited my text to make it clearer (I hope).

    Allard van Wallene Good question. The example suggests truncation before averaging. Either way, the proposal makes things more fair in my opinion. But it cuts both ways, 19.5 seconds now yields 20 and therefore no reflight while before it was truncated to 19 and a reflight.

    Tapio Linkosalo I think there is no need for (the proposed) rule change. If you average first, then truncate, you get a max if the 180+ score is _more_ over the max than the 179+ is below. Moreover, truncating is more straightforward, and the common practice.

    Also your point about the change in 20 sec reflight interpretation is a valid one.

    Akihiro Danjo You are right, Tapio san. But there is a little correction. Timers use at least 1/100th sec reading watches. So, one timer 180.21 and another 179.79, ave time is 180.00, result is 180. One timer 180.21 and another 179.78, ave time is 179.995, result is 179.

    Tapio Linkosalo I stand corrected, Aki san!

    Roger Morrell Tapio. You may interpret it this way but that is not how the jury in France interpreted it. This was put in because the jury felt that the rules had to disallow the max but that it was not the right thing to do. Also part of the issue is to do with the time keeper who got over 180 keeping on timing past 180 or being allowed to count the time in excess of 180 before rounding

    Tapio Linkosalo Then I claim that the jury in France interpreted the rules incorrectly! As quoted above, the rules say "average, then truncate". I agree, that if the rules are not clear enough, they should be re-formulated, but I also think that the suggestion by FFTC ("first round, then average, then round again") is not the fairest way to go.

 I think it is obvious that the timekeeper getting over 180 has kept on timing until the model landed: in a case where it is a matter of seconds, whether the model made a max or not, the timekeeper should stare at the model and stop the clock when the model landed. Not keep looking at his watch to turn it off when it reaches 180. The rules already state, that if there is a _considerable_ difference in the times (for instance the one timer got 175), then it is a matter for the jury, not just straight arithmetics.

    Roger Morrell After checking with the team manager concerned the issue as that were not allowed to count any of the time in excess of 180 in the rounding process

    Chris Edge As a timekeeper at a few Champs the instruction was always to time the FLIGHT and then record the score for averaging/rounding with the other timekeeper(s). If this was not done in France then I'd suggest this was wrong. It is bonkers (technical term) to be looking at the watch to see if a max was made rather than timing the flight. CHE

    Aram Schlosberg ROUNDING first in the CIAM proposal is interesting. If the two times are 179.90 and 180.20, then rounding would entail 180 and 180 respectively, hence a (deserved) max. I suppose anything over 180 should be rounded to 180, so that the second time determines the outcome. If it's 179.51, its rounded to 180 and the person maxes. But if it's 179.49 it's rounded to 179 to an AVERAGE of 179.5. Here it should be rounded DOWN to 179, otherwise a max would be awarded when the second watch clocks 178.51 seconds!. So for this to work, a value of X.5 should be rounded down to X. Comments?

    Tiffaney O'Dell Well, it doesn't make sense to round in this case since you can't get above 180. So, you will always be losing time. Can't you just discount the timer who got it wrong?

    Rene Limberger We are in the year 2014 and clearly, the solution to this should be technology, not humans.

    Aram Schlosberg We can decide the time according to altimeters and maybe this will be done at the point when everyone has one. But at the moment it's by line of sight, subject to interference of fog, clouds, the sun and difficult backgrounds. Actually Marty Schroedter just won the Kiwi B morning flyoff timed through image-stabilized binoculars. (In retrospect, this might be a good investment;-)

There has been an ongoing discussion on FB about a proposed rule change that clarifies how scores are rounded and averaged. This is particularly relevant when the times are close to the max. The proposed rule change was put forward by the CIAM’s FF technical subcommittee. This is particularly relevant because the FFTSC was part of the jury that was called upon to resolve the issue at the 2013 World Champs in France.  Incidentally the two timekeepers were experienced and well known, one was French and one was from another country.  While some of the some commentators may think there is no need for the change and the jury’s decision in France was incorrect, this lack of clarity alone does indicate a need to re-write that section of the sporting code.

• Prev
• Next