stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Derek Barry on July 28, 2017, 05:56:03 PM
-
I know that Mark wouldn't want to be in the middle of this discussion, and I apologise in advance for this...
...but apparently, our head judge isn't good enough for the European stunt Union. I'm not sure if they are just arrogant, or afraid. Any one of the judges at this year's AMA Nationals is more than qualified to judge a world cup, or a world championship. The move by the EU to not invite one of the best judges on the planet is.....well.... Pathetic.
Please do not think that I am implying that any of the other judges are not worthy, because I am not. However, to flat out deny our head judge is very troubling.
Just my .02
Derek
-
Derek....I believe that the FAI folk will hold that Americans are not that familiar with FAI scoring and therefore are infrequently asked to participate in WC event....
Americans seem much more accommodating. In 2004, I remember that there were at least two foreign judges in our Nats brought from the WC the week prior.
I would believe, too that the lack of favor for an American judge reflects world feelings....
Congrats again on your great performance at the Nats.....
-
I know that Mark wouldn't want to be in the middle of this discussion, and I apologise in advance for this...
...but apparently, our head judge isn't good enough for the European stunt Union. I'm not sure if they are just arrogant, or afraid. Any one of the judges at this year's AMA Nationals is more than qualified to judge a world cup, or a world championship. The move by the EU to not invite one of the best judges on the planet is.....well.... Pathetic.
I guess I have to remind myself of all very good the reasons we need the FAI to administer stunt contests. What were they again?
Brett
-
In 2004, I remember that there were at least two foreign judges in our Nats brought from the WC the week prior.
At World Championships, "...all the judges must be of different nationalities."
Keith
-
Does this mean there will be zero US judges at the worlds?
-
Does this mean there will be zero US judges at the worlds?
I could be mistaken, but I do not think the French have ever used a US judge when they have hosted the World Championships. The host country can choose whatever judges they wish. It is not unprecedented that a host country has not chosen a US judge. I am certain that at least once when Russia hosted the Championships, they did not use a judge from the US. (Also, I know that they once did use an American judge.) Also, Great Britain had planned on not using an American judge when they hosted the World Championships in 1978 but then elected to do so when the Russians boycotted the World Championships and did not send their judge.
I could be entirely wrong here, but I would not be surprised that more than half of the World Championships held since 1960 (the first year such events were held to basically the current FAI organization) have not had an American judge. One of the reasons is that the organizers must provide transportation for the invited judges. It is certainly a lot cheaper to use an European judge than one from the US.
As mentioned earlier, "all the judges must be of different nationalities." And the choices must come from a list of F2B judges that is maintained by the FAI. That list is made up from names submitted to the FAI by each of the member countries who choose to submit names.
Keith
-
We refuse to adopt their rules, we only hold one contest every two years that uses their rules, and then when they hold a contest, they get people who are experienced judging under their rules to do the judging.
And then we get bent out of shape.
Yup. Something is definitely wrong here.
-
Thing is...we need to remeber that we had our rules first. So how does THAT enter into the equation? Who refuses to play along with who?
-
We refuse to adopt their rules, we only hold one contest every two years that uses their rules, and then when they hold a contest, they get people who are experienced judging under their rules to do the judging.
And then we get bent out of shape.
Yup. Something is definitely wrong here.
Yup, America is the problem. That is exactly the kind of response that I would expect from you Tim.
Derek
P.S. We don't use their rules here, because ours are better. In AMA, you actually have to fly EVERY maneuver well, not just the square eights and the hourglass.
-
Thing is...we need to remeber that we had our rules first. So how does THAT enter into the equation? Who refuses to play along with who?
My man! 8)
Derek
-
Thanks, Keith, for the clarification on judges and the historical context of how often there wasn't a US judge.
-
We refuse to adopt their rules, we only hold one contest every two years that uses their rules, and then when they hold a contest, they get people who are experienced judging under their rules to do the judging.
And then we get bent out of shape.
Yup. Something is definitely wrong here.
I'm eternally grateful to NOT be adopting their rules, otherwise the Nats would become a Yatsenko plane contest.
-
Didn't Big Art judge at a WC in Europe...maybe even in France? D>K Steve
-
The maneuvers are the same. Looking for mistakes is the same.
Hell, the FAI judges guide was put until our rule book as the official way to look at the maneuvers.
After working with Mark for this past nats I am confident he could write down the proper score as good as anyone on the planet. Why they won't be asking him as a judge is not clear at this time but they have their reasons. To bad for the competitors.
-
Didn't Big Art judge at a WC in Europe...maybe even in France? D>K Steve
No, not in France.
He judged in China, Sweeden, and Ukraine.
-
Yup, America is the problem. That is exactly the kind of response that I would expect from you Tim.
You, Derek Barry, are not all of America.
Best you remember that.
-
Thanks for the reply, Paul. Were there any other US judges at other WC that you've attended? Or do you know if there were some before you attended a WC. Could GMA have been a WC judge sometime in the '60's? H^^ Steve
-
We refuse to adopt their rules, we only hold one contest every two years that uses their rules, and then when they hold a contest, they get people who are experienced judging under their rules to do the judging.
And then we get bent out of shape.
Yup. Something is definitely wrong here.
Well, the FAI essentially adopted our rules. They just use a different scoring system, and it took them 30 or 40 years to get that part right. Yes, the FAI scoring is different than ours, but it takes maybe one or two flights for an experienced judge to adjust his or her scoring ranges to accommodate either system. Also, our current Judge's Guide is a direct lift from the FAI rulebook before the FAI totally revised/refined their maneuver descriptions several years ago. The wording in our Guide has been "refined" over the years, but it is still essentially as it was in an earlier FAI rulebook which was considered an improvement over what we had in our Judge's Guide previously. There are some procedural differences between the FAI and our AMA rules, but those have nothing to do how an experienced judge will score a pattern.
Also, there is not a universal "policy" that host countries do not use a judge from the US. Yes, a number of World Championships have been held without a judge from the US. But that does not mean that a judge from the US has never been used.
The only thing that is "definitely wrong here" is that some individual obviously does not understand what the FAI rules are and how they compare to our AMA rules. And I do not know who the "we" are that "get bent out of shape" except for a few poorly informed malcontents.
Keith
-
We refuse to adopt their rules, we only hold one contest every two years that uses their rules, and then when they hold a contest, they get people who are experienced judging under their rules to do the judging.
And then we get bent out of shape.
Yup. Something is definitely wrong here.
Yup, your statement is wrong.
Stunt was made right here in the USA. The rest of the world took the event and let the FAI administer it so there would be one set of rules for all of the European and other countries to work under. Makes total sense. That way when they travel all around to their neighbor's contests they are still flying the same set of rules across country lines. It really does make sense to do this in Europe. For other countries out by themselves I don't think so, but that's just me. They would have to have their own governing body to set rules and standards, maybe it's just easier to let the FAI cover it for them. I don't think stunt in Canada is run by the FAI either, correct me if I am wrong Canadians, but I think they took the FAI rules and changed them a bit to their favor and govern the contest rules with their own governing body. We have the AMA, removing ourselves from them to go to the FAI would end all representation we have now.
BUT, there is one thing we must remember when the rest of the world allowed the FAI to administer their event they changed one of the core principals of our Event 322. They removed the BOM thus turning it into a flying only contest. Whereas here in the states, the originator of stunt, we still have the BOM. We are required as competitors to understand and excel in all facets of control line model aviation in order to compete at the highest level at the Nats. We don't just "wave the handle around" (Ted Fancher quote there) We have to excel in building the model, finishing the model, understand trimming principals and apply them, and wave the handle around. Our Event 322 fosters model aviation and the exploration of aviation. The AMA and BOM all those years ago was a brilliant move to get people into and interested in model aviation not just buying planes and flying them. And please don't take that statement wrong I am not saying those under the FAI cant and dont apply all of the things I have listed. I am in no way whats so ever stating any such thing. But they can buy a full tilt rig and go enter the WCs and win it. You can't do that at our nats. And after winning one building the thing made it that much sweeter!
Also they have strict rules under the FAI on how the contest is to be run and administered. 100 fliers on one circle comes to mind many times....yuck. Their rules are so tight they can't make a change to the format when there is the option to do so and spread the contest out over multiple circles and get a more fair representation of the flying. 2004.... I judged the nats this year and on day one our circle judged 36 flights and we finished up around 2:00 I think. My mind was pretty much toasted. It was a very hot still day. I can't imagine having to do 4 more hours and countless more flights just because the event rules say it all has to run on one circle while three other circles sit there empty all day long. That is just stupid. With that kind of restriction a single round can run into 2 days. How on earth is that a proper way to run an event? The competitor might get a flight time on Tuesday morning and then not fly another official for a day an half....no thanks not interested in a format that can make things so tough on the judges and competitors when it could be so easily handled differently. Our AMA lets PAMPA run the event and we do so however we see fit per our rules and CD/ED on the site at the time. Our format has been refined over many years of hard work by many individuals over the past 40+ years. It really works and really works well. To toss it out in favor of an organization that does not favor our best interests would be well, like staying in the Paris Accord... S?P
Speaking of our rules, our AMA is an excellent governing body. Every single one of us as a member of the AMA can submit a rule change proposal to the AMA for any event and it will be discussed and voted on in a public fashion by our contest board members. From what I have gathered over the years the FAI doesn't quite work the same way. If we did allow Event 322 to fall under FAI rule we would have practically ZERO say as to rule changes and format setups etc. PAMPA would have NO official place or power to run the event. It would be terrible if the FAI administer stunt in the USA.
So, having said all that, we did NOT refuse to adopt their rules, they chose to change ours....
-
Different contest different scoring criteria. There's a governing body not the AMA. If you fly there you fly by their rules. How many judges at the worlds? What countries have representative judges this year? Must be a lot of countries left out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Many competitive events weight elements differently. Gymnastics for instance. The FAI chose to score similarly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Yep. Orestes busts impressive corners.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
.
How many judges at the worlds? Must be a lot of countries left out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For the World F2B Championships, 6 judges are used. They use 3 judges on each of two qualifying circles. Every contestant will have the opportunity to fly two flights on each of the two qualifying circles. The rules restrict the number of flights a judge can score on a single day to 50!. If there are 80 entries, that means that 320 flights are flown during the qualifying rounds, 160 flights on each circle and will require 4 days for the qualifying rounds. The top 15 fliers from the qualifying rounds go into the finalists rounds. This is based the best flight from each of the two qualifying circles. 16th though last place is based on the same best of each of the two qualifying circles. (With as few as 70 entries, not unusual, the judges will still be scoring as many as 48 flights on each of 3 days - a miserable task?) The 15 finalists go into a 3 round finals that takes two days on a single circle with all 6 judges as a new contest. The first day, there are 30 flights, the second day is the 3rd round of 15 flights with the placement based on the best 2 of the 3 flights.
To be invited as a judge to the World Championships is indeed an honor. But it is a gruesome task. That is 3 or 4 days with 40 to 50 flights each, then the finals rounds - one day with 30 flights and the second day with 15 flights.
When these rules were being finalized several years ago which introduced for the first time a multiple circle format for the FAI F2B rules, the US made suggestions/proposals to provide for 3 and 4 qualifying circle formats to reduce the workload on the judges and to shorten the qualifying period. These were not accepted probably for several reasons. One would be the expense of importing more judges. The other is the real problem that most venues in Europe have a difficult time to provide even two circles for the F2B competition, and those are often of "poor quality" at best. To have as many as 3 or 4 qualifying circles essentially could not be considered.
Keith
-
You, Derek Barry, are not all of America.
Best you remember that.
Most American stunt flyers agree with me, especially those who have actually competed in both, FAI and AMA events. How many team trials or world champs have competed in? Zero? Yeah, that's what I thought.
Best you remember that.
Derek
-
Since Precision Aerobatics (stunt, no matter how you slice it), is all subjective anyway, what's the difference ? Z@@ZZZ Z@@ZZZ Z@@ZZZ
-
Doug needs to be a congressman or president or something! Well, he IS something!
Thanks Doug.
dg
-
I think what's being overlooked here with this angst about the FAI is that the FAI isn't just about model planes but it covers all types of amateur aircraft from hot air balloons to hang gliders to models and everything in between. That's why it's called the Federation Aeronautique Internationale so that any attempt at a record means that certain rules have to be followed whether it be an altitude record for a hang glider or fastest speed for a CL model so any one from any country can claim a record if they abide by the rules. F2B is just a subset of a subset of a subset under FAI rules. F is for model aircraft, 2 is for CL and B is for stunt. There's nothing to stop an individual country or club making up their own rules but if they want to compete against another country or club then they'll need to have the same rules.
-
BUT, there is one thing we must remember when the rest of the world allowed the FAI to administer their event they changed one of the core principals of our Event 322. They removed the BOM thus turning it into a flying only contest. Whereas here in the states, the originator of stunt, we still have the BOM. We are required as competitors to understand and excel in all facets of control line model aviation in order to compete at the highest level at the Nats. We don't just "wave the handle around" (Ted Fancher quote there) We have to excel in building the model, finishing the model, understand trimming principals and apply them, and wave the handle around. Our Event 322 fosters model aviation and the exploration of aviation. The AMA and BOM all those years ago was a brilliant move to get people into and interested in model aviation not just buying planes and flying them. And please dont take that statement wrong I am not saying those under the FAI cant and dont apply all of the things I have listed. I am in no way whats so ever stating any such thing. But they can buy a full tilt rig and go enter the WCs and win it. You can't do that at our nats. And after winning one building then thing made it that much sweeter!
Doug,
What a great review of the factors that differentiate the U.S. stunt event from that which has devolved internationally; specifically, our American AMA rules requiring competitors in the US to have developed championship level expertise in all the facets that are required to be a true "Champion" of CL aerobatics (craftsmanship, artistry, power-train technology, flight trim aerodynamics and, yes, "waving the handle around" once the aforementioned skills are understood and individually conquered). These unique demands are 100% the result of "our" BOM rule.
Bravo!
I ruefully hearken back just a few days to a "front page , above the fold, continued on back pages of the front section article in the SF Chronicle--with pictures--"raving over the recent development of "drone racing competitions", the author agog over the thrill of it all (including "cool" nicknames for the hot shots steering the plastic toys they bought off the shelf at Amazon) as if these overnight charioteers are some sort of modern cyborg warriors. I almost barfed.
The US CLPA event is all but unique in the world today in the demands it makes upon those who embrace its competitive challenges. The suggestion that we should just accept the fact that the European dominated FAI has eliminated all but the handle waving as the final word re the event's competitive standard--in an event Americans invented--doesn't sit well with me either.
Just between you and me, Doug, I'd be embarrassed to have a photo published of me proudly holding a stunt ship somebody else designed, built and finsihed in front of a trophy I "won" as if its existence had anything to do with me and not just my wallet.
There's plenty of that sort of self-deluding "ain't I great" posturing for pictures to go around for those that find such fulfilling. Their names, however, have no business sharing a place on a trophy with Palmer, Aldrich, Gialdini, McDonald, Fitzgerald, Walker and...yes...Moon.
Ted
-
Most American stunt flyers agree with me, especially those who have actually competed in both, FAI and AMA events. How many team trials or world champs have competed in? Zero? Yeah, that's what I thought.
Best you remember that.
Derek
-
I think what's being overlooked here with this angst about the FAI is that the FAI isn't just about model planes but it covers all types of amateur aircraft from hot air balloons to hang gliders to models and everything in between. That's why it's called the Federation Aeronautique Internationale so that any attempt at a record means that certain rules have to be followed whether it be an altitude record for a hang glider or fastest speed for a CL model so any one from any country can claim a record if they abide by the rules. F2B is just a subset of a subset of a subset under FAI rules.
I think the commenters generally know all that. Without getting into why the FAI needs to exist, or why French aviation buffs should be able to declare themselves the arbiters of international aviation (despite having contributed nothing of consequence to the development of fixed-wing aviation aside from being really enthusiastic about it) and later space (where they contributed exactly nothing, consequential or not), there is no question at all that the US invented the event, developed the rules, discovered all the important technical aspects of it, and made it the most popular CL event. After which, the FAI simply absorbed it, ran it fairly well for a while, then started screwing it up and missing the point.
You had consecutive WC champions for whom you couldn't tell the difference between the round 8 and the square 8, individual judges giving their countrymen straight 10s to "get themselves tossed out high" and thus helping keep the next highest scores, judges videotaped intently studying the scoreboards in between rounds, then getting tossed in the middle of the competition. Those are just those situations we know about, how many went on without getting caught. Through the efforts of our FAI stunt colleagues, most of that has been taken care of.
But recently, they have repeatedly held far substandard events to the typical local contest, with fields we would have rejected at WAM contests, and described very nicely by long-time French stunt stalwart Serge Delabarde as "giving reason to the organizers who pocketed the money inscriptions and surrounded a potato field of a few panels to christen it "F2B Circle"". Australia was an exception, ask Kenny Stevens how he liked his FAI experience.
Also ask FAI notables about the problem with Australia - i.e. "it was too far away". Too far away from what, the world? Of course, they mean Europe. Golly gee whiz, I sure feel bad for them not being able to toss their RTF models in the back of a station wagon and drive half a day to a WC, what a hardship! What do you mean, you want us to not do a "pre-judging contest" AKA "World Cup" so that all the judges can judge the WC entrants, see how it comes out, and then determine what the "correct" outcome should be for the real thing?
I ask who is my voting representative is on the F2B rules committee - oops, nobody, because there is no such thing and no legitimate process to ensure that F2B and other rules are voted on by F2B participants, or are not "modified" from the original proposal with no input as a resort in Switzerland. We invented the event and have ~50% of the world's participants, but our CIAM rep has one vote just like Lower Slobbovia where one guy has a Flite Streak and the other likes reading model magazines. I can't even compete without risking my professional standing and retirement on a third-world p*ss test, and darned if I cannot recall having seen that proposal or provide any input to it. Sure there's a steering committee that carefully grows consensus and crafts proposals - that then get picked apart in secret by people I don't know and do not represent my position at all.
I think running stunt contests in a manner or at sites we would reject for a local contest shows the contempt and lack of focus on the bottom line the FAI has for *our invention*, stunt. There are certainly many qualified stunt judges in the world, but to reject the Head Judge at the greatest contest in the world, probably *because* he is the head judge at the greatest contest in the world, does not speak to a deep desire to maximize the quality of the contest. And of course they are counter-scheduling it against the greatest contest in the world, although this is hardly the first time that has happened.
Don't misconstrue this as being against or in any way denigrating of the foreign stunt pilots and judges themselves, I know and like many of them and respect their accomplishments. But the FAI as an administrator of Stunt contests has been a p*ss-poor operation, everybody who goes to it finds it an ordeal, completely unnecessarily so.
Bottom line is, I can rename the El Cerrito Flying Dons "Eat Chili and Fly Day" the "2018 Intergalactic Stunt Championship" and if I get enough quality participants, it's a better and more legitimate contest. We have a "World Series" baseball champion every year, it has no "international" teams (although many foreign players including some of the biggest stars), and we are entirely OK with that situation. We don't need the FAI to administer stunt contests.
Maybe when the EU has been overrun with bomb-throwing terrorists and omnicidal religious fanatics and renamed Northwest Pakistan, we can start over with a real international organization that actually responds to and represents international model fliers. Until then, I think I can find other things to do with my time than go to second-rate contests administered by wanna-be globalist imbeciles with axes to grind
Brett
-
I would ad a hearty AMEN!!! to Ted and Brett's last posts. Both are well written, well said, and spot on.
-
What Will said.
-
If there are no USA judges at the WC, and we win, in my opinion, it is better overall. There's no way anyone can suggest that the win came unfairly.
In my mind, that makes it even better.
It does seem a bit odd that the fai doesn't include the country that started stunt though. You'd almost think they would want one USA judge at every WC...but go figure.
I've flown at an fai WC, but not for control line, it was f3f, r/c sailplane slope racing. There were problems, but it all worked out in the end, i would say. Overall, a great experience for me. I won't go into the details of the problems.
R,
Chris
-
It is amazing to me the vast array of thought and opinion, on this site, that makes me stop and think....and occasionally (OK fairly often really ) learn stuff
In this case I have met a few combat guys who have traveled a lot for the USA teams and listened to their stories. They went to compete in some areas of the world I had been as a dependent or soldier so I could relate ..... very well to the stories of the hardships of just getting to some of the venues
I suppose, as is like me, I could write a 1000 more words about what I used to believe about things like NATO, the Olympic Committee, and the FAI.
However, just this year Doug Moon, Brett Buck, and a few others have forced me to understand, that my meager knowledge and assumptions are utterly false....or were formed from a lot of assumptions and mis-information. Despite my good reading and other research skills.
I wish I had $100M in the bank
The evil America First Sovereign Nation Patriot in me, would consider what Brett implied----- and I would seek a way to sponsor and host a true World Championship
Series...With OUR rules...including BOM and a prize so outrageous that many would be compelled to try
-
((Part deleted to here))
I think running stunt contests in a manner or at sites we would reject for a local contest shows the contempt and lack of focus on the bottom line the FAI has for *our invention*, stunt. There are certainly many qualified stunt judges in the world, but to reject the Head Judge at the greatest contest in the world, probably *because* he is the head judge at the greatest contest in the world, does not speak to a deep desire to maximize the quality of the contest. And of course they are counter-scheduling it against the greatest contest in the world, although this is hardly the first time that has happened.
Don't misconstrue this as being against or in any way denigrating of the foreign stunt pilots and judges themselves, I know and like many of them and respect their accomplishments. But the FAI as an administrator of Stunt contests has been a p*ss-poor operation, everybody who goes to it finds it an ordeal, completely unnecessarily so.
Bottom line is, I can rename the El Cerrito Flying Dons "Eat Chili and Fly Day" the "2018 Intergalactic Stunt Championship" and if I get enough quality participants, it's a better and more legitimate contest. We have a "World Series" baseball champion every year, it has no "international" teams (although many foreign players including some of the biggest stars), and we are entirely OK with that situation. We don't need the FAI to administer stunt contests.
Maybe when the EU has been overrun with bomb-throwing terrorists and omnicidal religious fanatics and renamed Northwest Pakistan, we can start over with a real international organization that actually responds to and represents international model fliers. Until then, I think I can find other things to do with my time than go to second-rate contests administered by wanna-be globalist imbeciles with axes to grind
Brett
Brett,
Thanks for telling it like it is, instead of the glassy eyed tripe we often get in the magazine reports.
I attended two WC events (not as a competitor but as spectator) in the early to late 1960's while serving in Europe in the US Army. Even then I was disappointed at the quality of the events compared to many "local" events that I grew up with in the US, Especially our National Championships.
It was obvious even then that the organizers (at least at those two events) did not place the same kind of importance and organizing skills that we enjoyed on most local contests here in the US. I had thought for a while that had probably changed but now I'm convinced that it is simply a cultural difference, and probably never will.
Randy Cuberly H^^
-
Wow Brett.....it would be hard to be much more bigoted! Go 'murica!
-
I guess you didn't actually read the post, Rich. Go you.
-
While I cannot attest to anything regarding the organization of any high level stunt competition, here or abroad, it is clear to me that Brett understands the political situation in Europe. Unfortunately following the overrunning of the continent by the bomb throwing zealots there will be no consideration given to allowing such events to take place anyway, so any discussion hoping for such an improvement is mute.
-
Wow Brett.....it would be hard to be much more bigoted! Go 'murica!
Wow Rich..... Your ability to argue with facts instead of insults is still non-existent.
Derek
-
Wow Brett.....it would be hard to be much more bigoted! Go 'murica!
Should've read the post before commenting on it.
-
Wow Brett.....it would be hard to be much more bigoted! Go 'murica!
I guess you didn't actually read the post, Rich. Go you.
I wonder if he read it too, Randy! Rich the name is "AMERICA"
Doug
-
Wow Rich..... Your ability to argue with facts instead of insults is still non-existent.
Derek
I met Rich at the 2001 NATs and it took me twenty seven seconds to know that I did not like him.
I cant say anything like that about anyone I have ever met.
Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team
-
The way a WC of any sort actually happens is that an organization like the NFFS, PAMPA, or large club submits a proposal (with budget) to their CIAM rep (and National Aero Club affiliate/AMA), and the FAI guys weigh this proposal against any other proposals, including site information, and a decision is made, using the data presented.
The FF WC in Mongolia was a big success, due to a rabid bunch of enthusiasts busting their butts. No idea where they got the $, but the government likely helped in some ways. We're not going to get any government help here. There was a FF WC in Hungary this past few weeks. A boost to the local economy, but our city, county, state and federal governments aren't impressed with our small numbers...maybe 200-300?
I've attended '79, '83, '93 and 2001 World FF Champs and I've seen SCAT and other California FF Clubs come together to run excellent contests. In '79, '93 and 2001, I was the Chief Retrieval Officer for the Australian team in California (I took my motorcycle down and fetched planes, mostly). I got invited to do the same in 2019, but have declined due to $ and old age. I'll be 74 if I make it that long. The Yamaha would still run well, but needs spokes tightened, new tubes, tires, sprockets, chain. It's a 1980 175MX and is a wonderful chase bike. My neck and backside hurt badly after two weeks of that. Maybe a better seat? Dan?
The '83 WC was in Goulburn, NSW, Australia, and it was quite well run, except for the Europeans insisting on it being in September, which is Spring down under. The wind and rain was memorable, but again, the Aussies put a team together to run the contest that was exceptional and they did a great job, with tabulation being done in a rental cube van on computers run by rented generators.
I heard later that they still owed about $800 and convinced some debtors to just write it off as a bad debt. Interestingly, the Israeli team was concerned about site security, so the organizers arranged for a single local gendarme to drive around the paddock once a day! It was so cute! No machine gun was present (as is common in Europe), and I don't recall seeing the officer exit the squad car.
F2B should be so lucky. Unfortunately, the rest of the World doesn't have nearly as much pavement as we do. What they do have is a fair supply of dedicated CL sites, most of which are too small, too old, and too inadequate for a really serious contest. Which the WC should always be. Plus, a lot of what makes them dedicated CL sites makes them horrible to fly in...fences and resulting turbulence. But the key thing is that somebody has to propose that their country & organization volunteer to host. Sometimes, there are very few proposals submitted. Is it about time it's in the USA again?
As for getting an American on the judging team, I wouldn't worry about that. We need to understand that the cost of bringing a judge from the USA to Europe would be too much for most organizers. Perhaps PAMPA could solicit donations to pay for travel costs? That might be a start. If we were to fund the travel expenses and make that offer to the WC organizers, I'd bet that a lot would be receptive. Not all, certainly, but a lot.
And for the different scoring system. The Canadians have their own rules for Stunt events published in their own rulebook. They're different than the USA and FAI rules, from what I've been told. But they never use them. All the B.C. and AB contests I've attended have used USA rules, but one year we did use 0-10 scoring, without the K-factors that FAI uses. Nobody found it particularly difficult to assign a score. The right guys won every time. It was just an experiment, but kinda entertaining. The problem with FAI scoring is the K-factors. They're BS. S?P Steve
-
Wow Brett.....it would be hard to be much more bigoted! Go 'murica!
Rich, Rich, Rich! Do you equate everything to Bigotry? I'm beginning to believe that most liberals simply don't have dictionary so they just make up definitions for words to suit their twisted morals. Disagree with a liberal and you are a BIGOT, and a Racist...I think they just think that means a conservative! LL~ LL~
That my friend is the true meaning of Bigotry.
Randy Cuberly
-
I met Rich at the 2001 NATs and it took me twenty seven seconds to know that I did not like him.
I cant say anything like that about anyone I have ever met.
Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team
Rich is pretty harmless. Mainly because nobody takes him seriously. He is a flaming liberal, self proclaimed "Antichrist of stunt", and one of the worst judges I have ever had the misfortune to fly in front of, but harmless nonetheless.
Derek
-
Rich is pretty harmless. Mainly because nobody takes him seriously. He is a flaming liberal, self proclaimed "Antichrist of stunt", and one of the worst judges I have ever had the misfortune to fly in front of, but harmless nonetheless.
Derek
Yeah, Basically I agree. I don't really dislike the guy. He does however clutter up my "facebook page" with all kinds of liberal crap!
It takes all kinds to make a world, and I do believe in tolerance for others beliefs...unless of course they believe in killing me or my friends. There I draw the line on tolerance. Rich certainly does not fall into that category! I think Rich is a GOOD GUY trying to figure out how to be one! Unfortunately He hasn't quite got the knack yet! LL~ LL~ H^^
Randy Cuberly
-
Rich helped me out of a bind. I said i would buy a kit from him, he shipped it immediately, and two days later, my wife of 17 years surprised me with a Pearl Harbor divorce attack while i was offshore working. It was brutally orchestrated.... and i found out after the fact that she'd opened 19 credit card accounts in her own name and racked up quite the community debt.
I explained to rich that it might be a week or two before i could send him a check (had to get a live paycheck and open an account that wasn't joint to pay him).
Rich was super cool about it. He knew how completely embarrassed i was, and he made sure i was given as much grace as anyone could get in that situation. He was very kind, and I'll not forget that.
R,
Chris
-
Rich is a good guy. Someone I like. Someone whose company I enjoy. Quick wit that can bight. People like that have great use and value. Especially when they don't suffer fools. Suffering fools. Suffering because of arrogant ignorant fools. Far as I can tell Rich was making an obvious point. Seventy countries who abide by an organization in setting rules for a sport should be given credit for thinking things through just like folks in the USA.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Rich is a good guy. Someone I like. Someone whose company I enjoy. Quick wit that can bight. People like that have great use and value. Especially when they don't suffer fools. Suffering fools. Suffering because of arrogant ignorant fools. Far as I can tell Rich was making an obvious point. Seventy countries who abide by an organization in setting rules for a sport should be given credit for thinking things through just like folks in the USA.
Sent from my iePhone using Tapatalk
If 70 fools jumped off a cliff, and one guy said "that looks like a bad idea", you would follow the fools?
Derek
-
If one fool... aside from us competing with fortune cookie aphorisms, the FAI is taking a different look. Honest folks can differ. USA competitors always sound excited when going. Eager to complete.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If one fool... aside from us competing with fortune cookie aphorisms, the FAI is taking a different look. Honest folks can differ. USA competitors always sound excited when going. Eager to complete.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I considered it a great honor to represent the USA in 1996 and 2010. I thoroughly enjoyed both trips, and wouldn't trade the experience for anything in the world. That doesn't make Doug, Ted, and Brett's comments any less accurate.
Derek
-
Perhaps in Europe they felt it impossible to enforce BOM. Or there was a general tendency to blur the definition using prefab quality parts. We see that here in the USA. As for weighting the value of the maneuvers according to perceived difficulty- I believe gymnastics is scored that way. Honest differences of approach.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Perhaps in Europe they felt it impossible to enforce BOM. Or there was a general tendency to blur the definition using prefab quality parts. We see that here in the USA. As for weighting the value of the maneuvers according to perceived difficulty- I believe gymnastics is scored that way. Honest differences of approach.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When we ran the World Championships in the USA, both times we NEVER enforced the BOM, every single US FAi Team Trials , which we have every 2 years has NEVER enforced a BOM rule
Randy Smith
Chairman AMA F2B Team Selection Committee
-
When we ran the World Championships in the USA, both times we NEVER enforced the BOM, every single US FAi Team Trials , which we have every 2 years has NEVER enforced a BOM rule
Randy Smith
Chairman AMA F2B Team Selection Committee
There is no BOM in FAI to enforce!
-
Lots of interesting replies.
I too have represented the USA numerous times and also feel honored to do so. It is an experience not to forget.
It is interesting that there are usually 25 to 30 countries competing in the F2B world championships. It is just not possible to have a judge from every country at every championship. Further, if every country supplied a judge it would take 5 championships to get them all ONE chance to judge (30 ÷ 6= 5).
Further, there are other considerations, such as cost. In Bulgaria, all the judges were european except for Joan. I understand she was allowed to judge as she paid her way there! This cycle sounds much the same. €€€€ is driving this, not a desire to "exclude" some judges.
Will this make a difference? Don't think it will too much. The FAI judges have now locked in on corner radius, and judge tighter corners higher. With the K factor, if you don't do tight corners you have no chance. There are still bottoms, intersections, and then shapes. I believe that is the order of importance for scoring, and is what I tried my best to do in FAI.
So, I don't think this is a slap in the face to the US, nor will it matter too much to our success.
So, US pilots, forget about this and do YOUR job and fly the best you can! Make us proud....who ever will be on the US team!!!
-
There is no BOM in FAI to enforce!
Which was my point ! some seem to think we are trying to enforce , or impose a BOM on the FAI contests, we are not
Randy
-
I guess I didn't express myself well. I know there is no BOM at the World now. My thought was that there was a BOM stipulation at the World at one time that was subsequently abandoned. If there never was a BOM requirement at the World, I was mistaken.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I believe the BOM rule was eliminated from FAI rules in 1992. If that is true (somebody can correct me if not!), earlier World Championships would have required BOM.
-
I believe the BOM rule was eliminated from FAI rules in 1992. If that is true (somebody can correct me if not!), earlier World Championships would have required BOM.
I wonder if there was ever Pattern Points in FAI F2b contest ?
Randy
-
I believe the BOM rule was eliminated from FAI rules in 1992. If that is true (somebody can correct me if not!), earlier World Championships would have required BOM.
Never was a BOM in FAI as far as I know.
-
I wonder if there was ever Pattern Points in FAI F2b contest ?
Randy
I do not think there were ever Pattern Points in the FAI F2B rules. Also, I agree with Paul that I do not think there was ever a BOM rule in F2B.
Regarding Pattern Points, the penalty for not completing a maneuver in F2B is probably considered enough of a down grade that does not require the additional loss of any Pattern Points, if there were Pattern Points.
(This brings up the senseless double penalty in our AMA PA rules for a single mistake in a maneuver. An error in the maneuver requires the award of a minimum score - 10 points for the maneuver- and then loss of pattern points. And our AMA rules were "refined" over the years to insure - incorrectly in my opinion - that this double penalty would occur. AMA CLPA rules maintain pattern points and the potential loss thereof as a holdover from the early days of CL Stunt when completing the pattern was considered a real accomplishment. I apologize for deviating from the subject of this thread with this parenthetical insert.)
-
I believe the BOM rule was eliminated from FAI rules in 1992. If that is true (somebody can correct me if not!), earlier World Championships would have required BOM.
Hi Bill,
I do not think the FAI ever had a BOM for F2B. As early as the late 60's when I first got involved with FAI F2B matters, I do not remember that there was ever an F2B BOM.
At least, the FAI does have a BOM rule for all of the scale rules for which they have various categories. Their rule states, in part:
"Scale models must be constructed and finished solely by the competitor." Their rules go into a lot more detail, but that is the basic wording.
Keith
-
Regarding Pattern Points...
Pattern points serve to give tabulators exercise. Several times per contest I have to go out to the judges and ask why one judge awarded pattern points and the other didn't.
-
When I attended the WC as a spectator in the 1960's, as my memory serves, there was a BOM. I'm also fairly sure that at least the first time there was a concours and an award of appearance points. Not sure whether those points figured into the flight score or a separate award but do remember the judging and the discussion over the airplanes. There were of course some language barriers for me but most of the people I was with spoke English very well and I was fairly fluent in German and could get along in Italian. I don't remember the precise years (Heck, I can't remember what year it is now half of the time) but it had to be twice between 1962 and the end of 1967, because I went to Vietnam in January 1968, just in time for the TET Offensive!
Randy Cuberly
-
Never was a BOM in FAI as far as I know.
I do not think the FAI ever had a BOM for F2B. As early as the late 60's when I first got involved with FAI F2B matters, I do not remember that there was ever an F2B BOM.
... Also, I agree with Paul that I do not think there was ever a BOM rule in F2B.
I have spent some time researching this issue and the following is true:
There has been a BOM rule in the FAI rules seemingly forever, until changed between 2016 and 2017. The pertinent section is this, from several older documents:
1979 Sporting Code, what we call the ABR:
2.3.1 Competitor
The competitor named on the entry form must be the builder of the models entered.
Note that there is no provision for a discipline to vary from this rule as there is in the rules up through 2016, and the 1979 F2 rules do not specify that paragraph 2.3.1 does not apply for any of the four disciplines.
I do not have (or at least haven't found) an ABR and F2 rule-set for 1990 or there-abouts, but a report I wrote on the 1992 World Championships in Hradec-Kralov ssaid this:
"...This, coupled with the FAI's decision to eliminate the "builder of the model" rule resulted in many teams with..."
My conclusion is that the rules changed to no longer require the BOM in the F2 events (probably) occurred for the 1992 season.
For information, the 2016 ABR states the following:
B.3.1. Competitor
Unless stated otherwise, the competitor named on the entry form must be builder of the model aircraft entered.
and the F2 Sporting Code for each of the four disciplines states that B.3.1 is not in effect for that discipline. IOW, no BOM.
The 2017 ABR (no longer called "the ABR") states:
C.5.1.2 Builder of the model
It is not necessary for the competitor to build his model unless the requirement to do so is specifically
stated in the rules for a particular class.
and the four disciplines have been changed accordingly.
As you can see, history says that there has been an FAI BOM rule and that it applied to all four disciplines, at least until the early 90's. I suspect the change at that time was to admit that many, many competitors did NOT build their own models, and rather than create a large amount of angst, the FAI simply did away with the BOM rule. I also believe that for F2B this was not a concern since at that time, and for many years after, there were no commercially available models of the caliber needed. But such was not the case in the other disciplines.
-
Never was a BOM in FAI as far as I know.
Hi Paul
I didn't think so. I have never heard of one in my time paying attention, BUT I do not go back that far when it was started so, Maybe someone who does will chime in who knows, maybe , way back there was a BOM and points for the airplane finish
Randy
-
As you can see, history says that there has been an FAI BOM rule and that it applied to all four disciplines, at least until the early 90's. I suspect the change at that time was to admit that many, many competitors did NOT build their own models, and rather than create a large amount of angst, the FAI simply did away with the BOM rule. I also believe that for F2B this was not a concern since at that time, and for many years after, there were no commercially available models of the caliber needed. But such was not the case in the other disciplines.
[/quote]
As a reader of almost all model magazines, my memory is that there was a BOM rule and the elimination of it started with the free flight classes, especially the power classes, when things started to get real high tech with all the different folding props, bunting maneuvers, and other adjustments that required a lot of special equipment and models built to take advantage of them. Pretty much what Bill quoted above, but I couldn't quote exact dates, just "back in the day."
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
Here is my hypothesis, based on no data, on why the FAI did away with builder-of-the-model rules. Long ago, if I remember correctly, all international control line events required competitors to build their own models. Back then there also existed a peculiar institution called the Soviet Union. Model aviation was a big deal in the Soviet Union, with state sponsorship and professional modelers. I spoke to one young modeler who was deciding whether to become an engineer or a stunt coach-- equally viable professions in the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union went out of business, a couple of things happened to competition modeling there. Each former-USSR constituent country could then send its own team to world and European championships, and the professional modelers became unemployed in the market economy. The European modeling community then had two components: Western Europe, where people had plenty of money, but no time to build airplanes, and Eastern Europe, where people had the technical skills to build airplanes, but no money. The solution was to have the Eastern Europeans build the airplanes for everybody, and then everybody would have airplanes and be able to afford to go to contests.
-
Hi Paul
I didn't think so. I have never heard of one in my time paying attention, BUT I do not go back that far when it was started so, Maybe someone who does will chime in who knows, maybe , way back there was a BOM and points for the airplane finish
Randy
Randy, see my post right above yours.
Bill
-
Randy, see my post right above yours.
Bill
I did
Thanks Bill :-)
-
There MAY have been there, but nodody abided by it. Many times at a WC, someone would loose a plane and then fly someone elses plane. Happened frequently.
In terms of US pilots, it happened in 2014 with Kenny Stevens. He ended up flying a Kaz plane.
It also happened in Australia in 2016.
Bill showed the rule was "modified" in 2017. I guess nobody cared about following those rules.
-
Volume F2 Control Line Model Aircraft 2016 Edition
4.2.2.f Rule B.3.1.a) of Section 4B of Volume ABR does not apply to class F2B.
-
My first contest under FAI rules was back in the late 60's in a State Championship which I happened to win. I used a model I bought some time earlier. Later I was a judge in the 73/74 Christmas period Nationals. In all that time there was never a BOM rule and certainly never a beauty pageant either.
-
My first contest under FAI rules was back in the late 60's in a State Championship which I happened to win. I used a model I bought some time earlier. Later I was a judge in the 73/74 Christmas period Nationals. In all that time there was never a BOM rule and certainly never a beauty pageant either.
Well, perhaps not in the late 60's but there definitely was in the early and middle 60's.
I saw it happen! Was anyone else at the early middle 60's WC's. I was stationed in Europe at that time until late 1967 and traveled throughout all of the Nato countries for communication center business and other situational things and saw and heard BOM rules discussed etc. They were used! I do suspect that they weren't very well enforced and a lot of "cheating went on". They finally just gave up and ignored the situation. Sort'a like my posts on this thread!
Randy Cuberly!!!!
-
They finally just gave up and ignored the situation. Sort'a like my posts on this thread!
Randy Cuberly!!!!
Randy,
I pay attention to your posts. I care about you.
Keith
-
There MAY have been there, but nodody abided by it. Many times at a WC, someone would loose a plane and then fly someone elses plane. Happened frequently.
In terms of US pilots, it happened in 2014 with Kenny Stevens. He ended up flying a Kaz plane.
It also happened in Australia in 2016.
Bill showed the rule was "modified" in 2017. I guess nobody cared about following those rules.
Paul, I suspect you have identified exactly what the situation was back in the 80's and earlier: there WAS a BOM rule then, and nobody paid any attention to it.
As I said, as far as I can tell without actual FAI documents (ABR and F2 Sporting code) from the period, the BOM for F2 was done away with in 1991 or 1992. The events with Kenny and others since then are completely within the rules that were in effect at the time.
As for the 2017 changes: it was simply a re-wording of the way the rule was written and no real change to the rules.
Bottom line: BOM WAS an FAI rule for F2 until about 1992. The fact that it was ignored before doesn't alter the fact that it was there.
-
... They finally just gave up and ignored the situation. Sort'a like my posts on this thread!
Randy Cuberly!!!!
I share your pain, Randy.
-
Volume F2 Control Line Model Aircraft 2016 Edition
4.2.2.f Rule B.3.1.a) of Section 4B of Volume ABR does not apply to class F2B.
Yes!
From my earlier post:
For information, the 2016 ABR states the following:
Quote
B.3.1. Competitor
Unless stated otherwise, the competitor named on the entry form must be builder of the model aircraft entered.
and the F2 Sporting Code for each of the four disciplines states that B.3.1 is not in effect for that discipline. IOW, no BOM.
Keep in mind, too, that the 2017 versions are worded differently, but still no BOM for F2.
-
It's probably good that the FAI did away with the BOM. They haven't grasped the concept of cutting grass for a European Championship, so enforcing a BOM would be a bit of a stretch.
Derek
-
Am I reading correctly that they have flown World Championship events of grass circles?
-
Am I reading correctly that they have flown World Championship events of grass circles?
Most of them..
Derek
-
Most of them..
Derek
I would ask if you're joking....... but, .....
Amazing that a WC event gets flown off grass.
-
Most of them..
Derek
Well, kinda.......
Previous to 2006, F2B was all flown on a single circle and I am not aware of any grass circles for official flying. Yes, a grass practice circle possible. Of course, we tried to get the FAI to allow the 2-circle format in Muncie in 2004, but even though the rules were changing to allow it later, we had to follow the existing rules then.
In 2006 in Spain, there was one paved circle and a grass circle in a local football stadium. (Please correct me if I'm incorrect.)
Not sure what they did in 2008 in France although I suspect the same: one paved, one grass.
Now, 2010 was a mess with two unfinished grass circles.
In 2012 we were in Bulgaria where they had a brand new flying site, but only one paved F2B circle, the second grass, and that being totally unfinished with a very bad surface. I'm sure DavidF can tell some horror stories about that!
And then 2014: another disaster with mowed pasture off the edge of the airport for the two circles.
2016 in Perth was beautiful with two new asphalt circles specially prepared for F2B.
The bottom line (again) is that there are few places in Europe which have an existing site with sufficient paved circles, and the new sites, while perhaps someday, as well. Of course, we would like better, a "Muncie everywhere", but that will not happen. The only saving comment is "All of the competitors face the same situation."
The question that has been raised: do we accept a site that is not Muncie-quality or do we cancel a World Championships otherwise?
-
I always struck me that the FAI's elimination of the BOM coincided with the end of The Cold War, thereby enabling Eastern Bloc manufacturers to sell their products worldwide.
While eliminating local craftsmanship, it has provided everybody with the same world-class equipment, subject only to final adjustment. We have more flyers now than we had under the build-and-fly regime.
With reorganization of the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Germany, we now have 25 nations in the place of 5. This further diluted any influence the USA might have had left us with choice of taking the FAI's policy or leaving it. Based on F2 participation, a goodly number of Americans have decided to go along with the system.
-
Well, kinda.......
Previous to 2006, F2B was all flown on a single circle and I am not aware of any grass circles for official flying. Yes, a grass practice circle possible. Of course, we tried to get the FAI to allow the 2-circle format in Muncie in 2004, but even though the rules were changing to allow it later, we had to follow the existing rules then.
In 2006 in Spain, there was one paved circle and a grass circle in a local football stadium. (Please correct me if I'm incorrect.)
Not sure what they did in 2008 in France although I suspect the same: one paved, one grass.
Now, 2010 was a mess with two unfinished grass circles.
In 2012 we were in Bulgaria where they had a brand new flying site, but only one paved F2B circle, the second grass, and that being totally unfinished with a very bad surface. I'm sure DavidF can tell some horror stories about that!
And then 2014: another disaster with mowed pasture off the edge of the airport for the two circles.
2016 in Perth was beautiful with two new asphalt circles specially prepared for F2B.
The bottom line (again) is that there are few places in Europe which have an existing site with sufficient paved circles, and the new sites, while perhaps someday, as well. Of course, we would like better, a "Muncie everywhere", but that will not happen. The only saving comment is "All of the competitors face the same situation."
The question that has been raised: do we accept a site that is not Muncie-quality or do we cancel a World Championships otherwise?
1996 was on an asphalt runway, and was a good contest from what I remember.
I don't think we should call off world champs because the places might not be as nice as Muncie, but I do think that countries that put in bids, should at least make sure they can provide an adequate site. The site in Hungary could be nice, it's an open field with lots of room. They should start cutting the grass, weekly, a month before a competition. A few shovels of dirt, in some of the holes wouldn't hurt either. It wouldn't cost much, but someone would have to be willing to do the work.
Derek
-
1996 was on an asphalt runway, and was a good contest from what I remember.
I don't think we should call off world champs because the places might not be as nice as Muncie, but I do think that countries that put in bids, should at least make sure they can provide an adequate site. The site in Hungary could be nice, it's an open field with lots of room. They should start cutting the grass, weekly, a month before a competition. A few shovels of dirt, in some of the holes wouldn't hurt either. It wouldn't cost much, but someone would have to be willing to do the work.
Derek
Perhaps they have, Derek, that's where the Eurochamps are being held right now. We can hope ......
-
Perhaps they have, Derek, that's where the Eurochamps are being held right now. We can hope ......
Maybe you haven't seen... It was my reason for the grass cutting comments.
There are many unhappy contestants at the European Championship. The conditions are much worse than when we were there.
Derek
-
Perhaps they have, Derek, that's where the Eurochamps are being held right now. We can hope ......
Check out their posts on facebook. They are flying off a "pasture". Their words, not mine. No thought appears to be given to F2B needs.
-
Check out their posts on facebook. They are flying off a "pasture". Their words, not mine. No thought appears to be given to F2B needs.
Unfortunately, you are correct it seems. :(
-
(Clip)
In 2006 in Spain, there was one paved circle and a grass circle in a local football stadium. (Please correct me if I'm incorrect.)
(Clip)
And then 2014: another disaster with mowed pasture off the edge of the airport for the two circles.
(Clip)
For the record, I can add a bit of detail to the two championships Bill mentioned above.
2006 in Spain. The Championships were held at a permanent site operated by a local model group. Single paved circles were available for Speed, Stunt and Speed. The stunt circle had a fence next to a good portion of the outside of the circle such that there was not enough room for judges to stand if the wind was in the wrong direction. For qualifying rounds, a soccer field was used that needed to be mowed at least twice a day (it wasn't). The grass may have been great to play soccer but landing became a problem for many competitors, particularly since the judges did not take into consideration (as they were supposed to do) conditions affecting the landing that were beyond the pilot's control. This did not impact any of our team members from qualifying for the Finals, but in at least one case, it could have been a factor.
Poland in 2014 is a different story altogether. As Bill mentioned, the two circles used for the qualifying rounds, and one of these became the one used for the finals, and another to be used for practice were mowed just before the beginning of the World Cup which just preceded the World Championships. I have not written of this before out of courtesy to the host country. But those circles were carved from a large coarse weed and a sort of grassy area next to an active runway that would be an insult to a cow pasture. The poor surface was a direct cause for Kenny Stevens crashing his model on a practice flight just before the competition was to start.
Keith
-
For the record, I can add a bit of detail to the two championships Bill mentioned above...
I am no longer interested in trying to resolve these problems out of extreme frustration, but a few points.
Some of the "traveling NATs" sites were less than ideal in the AMA, as well, for mostly the same reason - it's very difficult to find hosts that have all the ideal conditions, even for the 4 events in FAI, much less the 50+events for the NATs. Additionally, most people in the US don't realize that on an international level, there is more interest in TR than there is in stunt, and many of the organizers have very elaborate TR circles at these sites. We care about the stunt site because we are stunt fliers and because it is the dominant event here and only a few have ever even seen FAI TR, but it's not the same everywhere.
TR also fits the incredibly delusional/insane vision that a few hold of "Model Airplanes in the Olympics" much better than stunt. If that gets in the Olympics, I will lobby for Wii Bowling or Gran Turismo simulation racing, too, because it makes about as much sense and has an equal chance of actually happening.
Additionally, there is at least some idea (relayed to me by one of our European stunt friends who wishes to remain anonymous) that the 2-circle format makes no sense and they want to make it look as bad as possible, both because we (USA) largely championed it, it costs more since you have to have many more judges, and because the obvious solution (only hold WC where they have enough space to have two paved circles and some practice) eliminates many of the potential European hosts. So you would end up going to far off distant regions like Australia and even worse, the USA, on a regular basis. Again, I think Perth is closer to the center of the Earth than is Landres, but they can't toss their airplanes in the back of the car and drive to it in a day. Note that even the 2-circle format is a severe compromise for the number of competitors, and it runs about like our Team Trials qualifying.
My suggested compromise was to *take the required contest format out of the rule book*, which permits the *format* to be adjusted to suit the available facilities/budget, etc. That certainly doesn't meet the needs of the bureaucrats for hard and fast rules, and reduces the needs for the existence of bureaucrats at all. Someone might lose face if say, we hold a 4-circle qualifying in Muncie with everybody done by 2 in the afternoon, and then a 1-circle trudge to oblivion in, say, Landres.
The FAI stunt fliers (i.e. the people we know and have heard of) know most of this, and are just as frustrated by this situation as anyone else, and if they were running the show, this would not be a problem. But they aren't running it.
Of course, no one sets out to screw up, and I am sure that to first approximation, they try to do the best they can, but at the end, it hasn't been working out.
Brett
-
I would ask if you're joking....... but, .....
Amazing that a WC event gets flown off grass.
A lot of people back East are surprised by that, but in California, we fly most of our contests, even the big ones, off of grass. The Golden State meet was held on various football*, soccer, and baseball fields around Fresno/Clovis and Gilroy. Only recently has it moved to the EXCEPTIONAL site at Madera (which would be a DANDY place for a TT, too). But the grass is usually well-groomed and in some cases (like the original Clovis High School site) was a like a golf green. The 600x600 pad at Muncie, when it has been prepared correctly as it has been in recent years), would probably be preferable to me to the L-Pad because if nothing else, it's a lot cooler.
But as Keith notes, if you don't prepare it (and in many cases, also prevent the competitors from going out and buying a mower to mow it themselves), it can be a real tough go. Kenny wrecked his airplane at least partly because of it, and despite people having cautioned him about it before they left. It's a darn shame and I know that many stunt fliers from around the world have been frustrated by this situation time after time.
Brett
-
(Clip)
Additionally, there is at least some idea ... that the 2-circle format makes no sense ... it costs more since you have to have many more judges,
Brett
Just a note here about the number of judges. The single circle format for the World Championships used 5 judges. The two circle format now used for the World Championships requires 6 judges - 3 judges per qualifying circle, then all 6 judges for the finals.
The problem with the two circle format chosen by the powers still requires up to 3 days with 40 to 50 flights per day (50 flights per day is the maximum allowed) for all of the judges during the qualification rounds. Actually, there is little or no relief or reduced workload for the judges going to the two circle format now used for the World Championships. So, instead of 5 judges suffering through the qualification rounds, we have 6 judges doing so. The only "improvement" by going to the two circle format is that each competitor gets 4 flights, using the best flight from each of the qualifying circles to get into the top 15 finals. Before, a competitor had 2 flights during the qualification round, using the single best flight to get into the top 15 finals.
Also, keep in mind, the format used for the World Championships is different than other FAI F2B contests where single circle format is specified per the FAI rules.
Keith
-
The problem with the two circle format chosen by the powers still requires up to 3 days with 40 to 50 flights per day (50 flights per day is the maximum allowed) for all of the judges during the qualification rounds. Actually, there is little or no relief or reduced workload for the judges going to the two circle format now used for the World Championships. So, instead of 5 judges suffering through the qualification rounds, we have 6 judges doing so.
and
The only "improvement" by going to the two circle format is that each competitor gets 4 flights, using the best flight from each of the qualifying circles to get into the top 15 finals.
No, that is not the only improvement. The more important improvement is that the rounds are shorter, so even though the overall loading on the judges is the same, the time spent in each round from beginning to end is shorter, and thus less effected by any ballooning, weather changes, etc.
The flaw with the single-circle format was illustrated in droves by the 2004 WC in Muncie. Ted flew #1 on Tuesday morning, and that same round, was compared with the same absolute score from nearly *36 hours* later, late Wednesday afternoon. The weather wasn't the same and the judges had had two full days to ballon. It was even better illustrated by the second round, when after almost 4 full days, suddenly on Friday afternoon, the wind dropped from very difficult at the beginning of the round on Thursday morning, to nearly ideal starting around noon on Friday. So anyone who flew Friday afternoon got whatever ballooning you get after nearly 4 days of standing in the sun, PLUS, ideal conditions. Yuri Yatsenko flew his second round flight on Thursday morning in the worst of the air, that was compared to someone in the Friday afternoon with ideal conditions, and of course, he didn't make it. Most of the qualifiers flew on Friday, might as well have not bothered with the other rounds. So in some ways, at least a few positions in the finals was decided at random.
If you want to argue that 2 isn't enough, then I would agree, and you would get a tremendously bigger advantage using 3 (ideal since there are 3 team members) or 4 (so you could run it like the NATs), and keep the round length shorter. 2 was a grudging compromise between the ridiculous "everybody on one" and the proper "as many as you want, but at least 2" that I proposed. Divide the groups just like at the NATS, make it "n" independent contests, just like the NATs, then run the finals like they have always done (like our Top 5 day except with 15 pilots).
A far better solution would be to limit the rounds and the comparison of one flight to another to about 4 hours, which if you allocate 10 minutes slots, is groups of 24, then divide it into however many qualifying groups it takes, typically, 4. Then run it exactly like the NATs qualifying.
Brett
-
(Clip)
No, that is not the only improvement. The more important improvement is that the rounds are shorter, so even though the overall loading on the judges is the same, the time spent in each round from beginning to end is shorter, and thus less effected by any ballooning, weather changes, etc.
(Clip)
Brett
Brett, I am not arguing with you, but when I said the only improvement in going to a 2 circle format is that pilots get four qualifying flights is better than two qualifying flights is basically what you said without going through all of the "what ifs" and examples of bad air/good air, ballooning judges, impact of drawing rotations, load on judges, etc, etc. Multiple rounds and multiple circles and more of them indeed start to minimize the vagaries of any system we can devise as far as getting the best and fairest selection of pilots to move into a finals process, whatever format that finals series has.
In my opinion, the goal of any CL Stunt Championship series (National and International) is to fairly determine the best pilot and a fair and as accurate as possible ranking of all the other pilots. Taking care of the judges so they are not required to judge 40 to 50 flights a day for several days is part of that equation.
Keith
-
Brett, I am not arguing with you, but when I said the only improvement in going to a 2 circle format is that pilots get four qualifying flights is better than two qualifying flights is basically what you said without going through all of the "what ifs" and examples of bad air/good air, ballooning judges, impact of drawing rotations, load on judges, etc, etc.
Well, exactly, if you ignore those things, you just get more chances and its not much of an improvement.
But those things you ignore and call "what ifs" appeared to have time and time again been a very strong driving force in the results with the one-circle format and needed to be addressed in some way.
I will also grant that this system still asks for/demands borderline abusive work loads for the judges. I would suggest it's better than running from dawn to dusk for two straight days with them trying to tell themselves "don't balloon" every 8 minutes, but it's certainly not ideal.
I proposed that you could kill two birds with one stone by cancelling the "World Cup" event preceding every recent WC. This contest, which permits the WC competitors and judges alike to participate, amounts to a pre-judging contest since it's patently impossible for the judges to not know who did what - and of course, decide where they might have made a "mistake", to be "corrected" during the WC, consciously or not.
What you could do, instead, is get rid of the Pre-judging contest, er, "World Cup", and extend stunt qualifying over the time now available. Everyone is there anyway (because it is quite obvious that if you don't enter the World Cup, might as well not go to the WC, either), so make it count for something. That way, you do 4 hour rounds with 4 or more groups, not even bother with trying to get both groups on the same day since you are only flying against the others in your group per standard Nationals procedures. Everybody gets a good night's sleep, no one is driven to exhaustion, problem solved.
I proposed this several times, but all I heard was crickets the first time, and people sending me messages about how fun World Cups are for everyone the second time. No doubt this is true, but I again thought the purpose was to crown the world champion, not have fun-flies.
Multiple rounds and multiple circles and more of them indeed start to minimize the vagaries of any system we can devise as far as getting the best and fairest selection of pilots to move into a finals process, whatever format that finals series has.
Certainly agreed there, and I argued long and hard to at least permit if not require MORE than two circles, and various international experts had a hissy fit over it. The compromise was two, which is better than one, but not nearly as good as four. I suggested all the superior methods and no one was willing to go along. If I was the Dictator of the World, it would be fixed, but people made a good-faith effort and this is what we wound up with.
Recall that these are the same people who wanted to run without K-factors as "an experiment" despite the 50+ years of experience and them not having been present in the rules that they ripped off from the AMA in the first place. And then considered such an "experiment" too risky to actually try!
If you want to try again, I will certainly back you up, but no one is listening, for whatever reason. Try to fix the other issues, too, specifically the K-factors (which are taking the random luck weather and judging variations and multiplying them by 18), and the 1/2 point problem, too. We haven't had any luck with that in the past, but maybe it will be different. I can think of another solution, and one that I have some control over - go to the NATs instead.
In my opinion, the goal of any CL Stunt Championship series (National and International) is to fairly determine the best pilot and a fair and as accurate as possible ranking of all the other pilots. Taking care of the judges so they are not required to judge 40 to 50 flights a day for several days is part of that equation.
Absolutely. This brings us full circle to why Derek was so frustrated, and I have had my fill, too.
Forget for a second where it is, or what the stakes might be.
If you want the best, fairest, and most accurate results, you need the best judges. You need to put them, and the competitors, in the best and most fair conditions that can be devised.
There are a lot of very good judges around the world and it makes sense to use those best judges for your world championship.
If you want to put those judges in the best position to be fair and not demand unreasonable work and consistency, you need a multi-round format, on the order of 4 groups for the number of entrants they usually get. The purpose would be to hold the round length to than 4 hours or less, and not compare one group's scores directly to another to accommodate the high judge/low judge effect, which I contend is otherwise unfixable (and is not really a defect).
If you want the scores to be as consistent as possible, you need to have sufficient resolution in the scoring system to remove the effects of quantization errors.
If you want the competitors to get the best shake, you put them on the best possible fields and in the best possible format to show their skills and not get burned inordinately by random effects like weather that you cannot otherwise control.
At the US Nationals, we have ALL of these items addressed in some way, because everyone else from about 1949 on has had exactly the same goals you expressed above.
At the WC, we routinely have very substandard contest formats (although improved from previous examples), driving judges into abusive conditions with unreasonable expectations of consistency. The same format issues maximize the chance of the pilots being disadvantaged by the random weather variations. The scoring system is heavily quantized, then multiplies any quantization error by large gains (up to 18x) massively increasing the system "noise".
There are frequently ridiculous facilities in which world-class modelers with decades of experience end up damaging their airplane trying to fly in conditions we wouldn't accept at a Class C local contest. We have people with nearly no experience in running big-time stunt contests advocating for poor scoring systems and ridiculous format limitations, primarily because they want to hold their supposedly world-class event in a cow pasture, (or as Serge put it "a potato field"). We have contest organizers that won't properly prepare the sites, and go out of their way to prevent anyone else from fixing it, too.
We have people complaining about the really good WC sites because they are somehow "too far away" from the "world" they are supposed to be representing. We have very sharp international stunt fliers (Serge Delabarde, Peter Germann, Andy Sweetland, and many others) and organizers who recognize and try to fix these issues, to be systemically thwarted by meddling one-world bureaucrats and self-important out-of-touch graybeard committees who decide everything behind closed doors with no recourse for correcting their mistakes.
And now, we have the host country deciding NOT to include some of the best and most experienced judges, for no adequately explained reason.
So, there appears to be NO attempt to create the most objective and fair contest; in fact, it appear to be some sort of "compromise" half-assed system that doesn't consider getting the right answer as the highest priority.
That's why everybody is pissed off, and not asking or rejecting someone of Mark Overmeier's stature is just the last straw. They aren't even trying to put on the best contest, or get the most accurate results.
Brett
-
Well, exactly, if you ignore those things, you just get more chances and its not much of an improvement.
But those things you ignore and call "what ifs" appeared to have time and time again been a very strong driving force in the results with the one-circle format and needed to be addressed in some way.
I will also grant that this system still asks for/demands borderline abusive work loads for the judges. I would suggest it's better than running from dawn to dusk for two straight days with them trying to tell themselves "don't balloon" every 8 minutes, but it's certainly not ideal.
I proposed that you could kill two birds with one stone by cancelling the "World Cup" event preceding every recent WC. This contest, which permits the WC competitors and judges alike to participate, amounts to a pre-judging contest since it's patently impossible for the judges to not know who did what - and of course, decide where they might have made a "mistake", to be "corrected" during the WC, consciously or not.
What you could do, instead, is get rid of the Pre-judging contest, er, "World Cup", and extend stunt qualifying over the time now available. Everyone is there anyway (because it is quite obvious that if you don't enter the World Cup, might as well not go to the WC, either), so make it count for something. That way, you do 4 hour rounds with 4 or more groups, not even bother with trying to get both groups on the same day since you are only flying against the others in your group per standard Nationals procedures. Everybody gets a good night's sleep, no one is driven to exhaustion, problem solved.
I proposed this several times, but all I heard was crickets the first time, and people sending me messages about how fun World Cups are for everyone the second time. No doubt this is true, but I again thought the purpose was to crown the world champion, not have fun-flies.
Certainly agreed there, and I argued long and hard to at least permit if not require MORE than two circles, and various international experts had a hissy fit over it. The compromise was two, which is better than one, but not nearly as good as four. I suggested all the superior methods and no one was willing to go along. If I was the Dictator of the World, it would be fixed, but people made a good-faith effort and this is what we wound up with.
Recall that these are the same people who wanted to run without K-factors as "an experiment" despite the 50+ years of experience and them not having been present in the rules that they ripped off from the AMA in the first place. And then considered such an "experiment" too risky to actually try!
If you want to try again, I will certainly back you up, but no one is listening, for whatever reason. Try to fix the other issues, too, specifically the K-factors (which are taking the random luck weather and judging variations and multiplying them by 18), and the 1/2 point problem, too. We haven't had any luck with that in the past, but maybe it will be different. I can think of another solution, and one that I have some control over - go to the NATs instead.
Absolutely. This brings us full circle to why Derek was so frustrated, and I have had my fill, too.
Forget for a second where it is, or what the stakes might be.
If you want the best, fairest, and most accurate results, you need the best judges. You need to put them, and the competitors, in the best and most fair conditions that can be devised.
There are a lot of very good judges around the world and it makes sense to use those best judges for your world championship.
If you want to put those judges in the best position to be fair and not demand unreasonable work and consistency, you need a multi-round format, on the order of 4 groups for the number of entrants they usually get. The purpose would be to hold the round length to than 4 hours or less, and not compare one group's scores directly to another to accommodate the high judge/low judge effect, which I contend is otherwise unfixable (and is not really a defect).
If you want the scores to be as consistent as possible, you need to have sufficient resolution in the scoring system to remove the effects of quantization errors.
If you want the competitors to get the best shake, you put them on the best possible fields and in the best possible format to show their skills and not get burned inordinately by random effects like weather that you cannot otherwise control.
At the US Nationals, we have ALL of these items addressed in some way, because everyone else from about 1949 on has had exactly the same goals you expressed above.
At the WC, we routinely have very substandard contest formats (although improved from previous examples), driving judges into abusive conditions with unreasonable expectations of consistency. The same format issues maximize the chance of the pilots being disadvantaged by the random weather variations. The scoring system is heavily quantized, then multiplies any quantization error by large gains (up to 18x) massively increasing the system "noise".
There are frequently ridiculous facilities in which world-class modelers with decades of experience end up damaging their airplane trying to fly in conditions we wouldn't accept at a Class C local contest. We have people with nearly no experience in running big-time stunt contests advocating for poor scoring systems and ridiculous format limitations, primarily because they want to hold their supposedly world-class event in a cow pasture, (or as Serge put it "a potato field"). We have contest organizers that won't properly prepare the sites, and go out of their way to prevent anyone else from fixing it, too.
We have people complaining about the really good WC sites because they are somehow "too far away" from the "world" they are supposed to be representing. We have very sharp international stunt fliers (Serge Delabarde, Peter Germann, Andy Sweetland, and many others) and organizers who recognize and try to fix these issues, to be systemically thwarted by meddling one-world bureaucrats and self-important out-of-touch graybeard committees who decide everything behind closed doors with no recourse for correcting their mistakes.
And now, we have the host country deciding NOT to include some of the best and most experienced judges, for no adequately explained reason.
So, there appears to be NO attempt to create the most objective and fair contest; in fact, it appear to be some sort of "compromise" half-assed system that doesn't consider getting the right answer as the highest priority.
That's why everybody is pissed off, and not asking or rejecting someone of Mark Overmeier's stature is just the last straw. They aren't even trying to put on the best contest, or get the most accurate results.
Brett
Absolutely correct!
As a top five pilot, I almost feel that it is my duty to represent the US in world events. Paul and David have certainly put in their fair share of time and money, and both of them have been rewarded for their efforts. They are done now, and I can't say I blame them. So here is my dilemma; do I try out for the team, travel to another European Championship where the favorite has been previously selected, risk my airplane (that I have years of building and trimming invested) for a shot at 5th to 20th place, or do I try to win the most prestigious trophy on the planet? That would be the Walker Cup for those of you in Rio Linda.
I do wish some of those top guys in Europe would skip the WC, and bring a BOM legal plane to Muncie....
Derek
-
Well, exactly, if you ignore those things, you just get more chances and its not much of an improvement.
But those things you ignore and call "what ifs" appeared to have time and time again been a very strong driving force in the results with the one-circle format and needed to be addressed in some way.
(Clip)
... and the 1/2 point problem, too.
(Clip)
Brett
Brett,
Again, I am not trying to argue here. But I am not ignoring the many factors as you accuse by using the "what ifs" term being discussed here. What I am saying is that when I mention using multiple circle format that it starts to minimize the many "what ifs" being discussed here, and not ignoring them. We are saying the same thing, I just combine it all with using the probably over simplification term of "what ifs".
I am not sure what you mean by the "1/2 point problem". The FAI F2B scoring system has always been based on a 1 to 10 point spread. Some time ago, the scoring was done in 1 point increments. Then, the system was revised to use scoring in 1/2 point increments which was a significant improvement from that used previously as far as giving the judges a more refined tool to score a maneuver. Then, when the major rewrite of the F2B rules was incorporated several years ago, scoring with 0.1 point increments was incorporated and is a far better system for the judges to use.
Something has been mentioned in this thread about not using high and low scores. Sometime, either just before the 2 circle format was adopted in the FAI rules for World Championship competition or at the time the 2 circle format was adopted, a study was made at the request of a member of the CIAM to analyze the concept of eliminating the high and low judges' scores in the tabulation process. The study included the results from several world championships. I do not have the details, but basically, the analysis showed that using or not using the high and low scores for each flight really did not change the outcome of the overall placing of the individual pilots. The top fliers' placings remained essentially the same in both systems. In some cases, there might be some changes in the lower place, like who was 4th and who was 5th, but in all cases, the champion remained the same. Anyway, all judges' scores now are used to determine the average score for each individual flight.
And let's not get into the matter of using or not using K-factors for the F2B event. However, I will comment that the suggestion that other judged activities, like diving and gymnastics, effectively use K-factors and can be a definite/important factor in the outcome of those competitions. This argument does not apply to F2B as K-factors in those other activities apply to optional tricks available to the competitor with the attendant risks involved with the more difficult tricks. When all competitors perform the same schedule, the K-factors being used in F2B places an undue and unwarranted premium on certain maneuvers.
Keith
-
Again, I am not trying to argue here. But I am not ignoring the many factors as you accuse by using the "what ifs" term being discussed here. What I am saying is that when I mention using multiple circle format that it starts to minimize the many "what ifs" being discussed here, and not ignoring them. We are saying the same thing, I just combine it all with using the probably over simplification term of "what ifs".
Then I am not sure what point you *are* trying to make, because I have carefully read your "corrections" to my posts and I can't figure out what you are getting at. I know you have a point, you always do (and it's usually valid). Maybe it doesn't make any difference...
If your point is that for a WC event (or really, any contest with ~100 entrants), you should run a multi-circle format with about 25 per circle, then we are in perfect agreement. If your point is that the 2-circle format is not as good, also agreed, and that's a point I tried to make over and over again when this debate was going in the early-mid 00s. We have long since agreed that the former 100-people-on-one-circle was utterly laughable, ridiculous even.
I also agree that the judge workload is not much if any better with a two-circle format, another point I made at the time (to no effect, of course). What *is* an improvement is that the effect on the results of the judge exhaustion and other random factors like weather IS improved by doing it this way. Not as much as it should/could be with a proper format, but better than the old way.
If your point is that we shouldn't accept these sorts of compromises for a contest someone chooses to call a "World Championship" (nor the other ones like flying in cow pastures), I think you have validated the entire thread, because certainly I think that and Derek seems to think that. It's time to either fix it or move on. Based on what I have seen, there is *no* fixing it within the FAI system, it's not possible. This despite everyone involved in international stunt more-or-less agreeing on where the problems lie and what most of the solutions are. I have been working (starting as your behest, as I recall) for more than 20 years, we know what to do, and yet no one seems able to move forward.
This last is the end of the road for me. I have better things to do with my time than to try to solve something in a system that ignores the best evidence and best practices due to unknown entrenched interests or bureaucratic inertia, or simple lack of focus on improvement or optimization.
Brett