Jump to content

F3F Rules


Pete Burgess
 Share

Recommended Posts

I looked at the proposed changes, and there seems little to be alarmed about, apart from the standard of the editing!

The main changes are to the rules about safety violations and about group scoring.

I) Safety Violations: 300 points for crossing the line; 300 for hitting anything that isn't human; 1000 for hitting humans. It is not clear whether these are cumulative or not. Suppose, for instance, that a plane crosses the safety line, hits a tent with one wing, and then swings around to hit a human. Is this 1000 points or 1600?

II) Group Scoring: The proposed new rules are:

               In the case of foreseeable unstable weather conditions the whole group must be divided into groups of equal size (+-one (1) competitor) with a minimum number of

               competitors in one group of ten (10) before the round starts. If the weather is stable during the whole round only one group is evaluated; if the competition must be

               interrupted more than thirty (30) minutes than the interrupted group must start from the beginning and the results are evaluated for each group (see paragraph 5.8.12)

It is fairly clear what this is supposed to mean, but it could be improved in several respects:

i) "In the case of foreseeable unstable weather conditions" could be replaced by "If the CD thinks the competition may be interrupted because of unsuitable weather conditions". ('Unstable' weather does not necessarily violate the rules regarding wind speed or direction; the proposed new rule does not say who it is that might foresee the weather conditions.)

ii) "the whole group" might be better described as "the field of competitors". Using 'group' to mean two different things isn't helpful.

iii) "the whole group must be divided into groups of equal size (+-one (1) competitor) with a minimum number of competitors in one group of ten (10) before the round starts." There are several rules in this one phrase - better to split them up into separate sentences: "a division of the field of competitors into smaller groups before the round starts. There should be no more than ten pilots in each group. The sizes of groups should differ by no more than one (1)."

iv) "If the weather is stable during the whole round only one group is evaluated; " Again, the stability of the weather is not the issue here. the important thing is whether of not the conditions violate the rules about strength and direction. Better would be: "If there are no interruptions during the whole round, the entire field of competitors should be evaluated as normal."

v) "if the competition must be interrupted more than thirty (30) minutes than the interrupted group must start from the beginning and the results are evaluated for each group (see paragraph 5.8.12)" This would surely only apply if it is a group other than the first that is interrupted. If the first group is interrupted, the round may be able to proceed as normal. I would replace this with: "If any group other than the first to fly is interrupted for more than thirty (30) minutes, the interrupted group must start from the beginning and the results will be evaluated for each group separately (see paragraph 5.8.12)"

The graphic has some editing problems, too: "adopted" ought to be "adapted"; "bountry" ought to be "boundary".

That's what I think, anyway!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So all this was shared weeks ago and those involved in f3f had a chance to review but little or no feedback.  GBSRA representive on the SFTC commitee has already fed back to the BMFA. 

BMFA needed info back a couple of weeks ago ready to travel to the meeting and vote based on this info. 

Biggest frustration was how slow this information came to us and limited time we had to respond to gather gbsra members views. Hopefully this gap has now been closed so everyone can polled in future.

thx

martin

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

isoaritfirst

John - you should study the proposed course layout. It puts pilots into the most dangerous area there is on the hill and calls it the safety zone, and it moves the safety line to the slope edge.

4 or 5 pilots at La Muela had safety penalties for wing tips crossing a safety line that had been badly placed and too easy to cross. Not what the sport is about. Also 300 points for such a small infringement would ruin a competition. I have previously flown a tip through a safety line at St Ferriol, due as I recall to the curve of the slope meaning a stright line between bases was outbourd of the edge at one point. The proposed layout has the effect of pushing the safety line forward where it will impact on racing with little advantage to safety.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pete Burgess

The bit that surprised me was the proposals for the landing area. All very well if you have a nice flat field behind you but try that on some of our hills!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Pete Burgess said:

The bit that surprised me was the proposals for the landing area. All very well if you have a nice flat field behind you but try that on some of our hills!

Pete, therefore some of the rules potentially limit the slopes we use for racing which I not good when consider how difficult it already is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pete Burgess
2 minutes ago, Martin_N said:

Pete, therefore some of the rules potentially limit the slopes we use for racing which I not good when consider how difficult it already is.

That was my thought as well.

Sorry to bring this up at this late stage but I only saw it because Pierre R sent a message to Tim Cone on Yahoo Groups. Yes we should have got more involved before now but there it is. Just mandate our man to vote against (most of the other bits are sensible but the area layout is not)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Already done Pete :) with sensible answers.  Thankfully we have presence on SFTC to have a say now, one of the main reasons for setting up the GBSRA association in the first place.  Up until then we had NO input and you have to go back many years the last time we did. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The diagram seems to me indicative rather than mandatory. The safety line is separate from the slope edge, and although the diagram shows the safety line in front of the A frames, I don't think there is any written rule that says it has to be so. It quite clearly states that 'other' landing areas may be dependent on local conditions. I agree with Mike that having the safety line coincident with the slope edge (which is the way it was done when I flew at Gijon (Asturias)) is not desirable and just leads to a lot of violations for no real reason. If I was going to be more critical of the proposals, I would ask if it makes sense to have penalties dependent on what you wind up hitting. Once a pilot has crossed the line and start hitting things, I suspect in most cases they have little control over what happens next.

The most objectionable thing about these proposals is the way they are sprung on us with very little time for a proper discussion, and there seems also to be no room for amendments to be proposed. If it is a question of 'yes' or 'no', then I would go for 'no', although I think the rules (particularly over group scoring) could do with the kind of clarification that is intended (but not achieved) here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This from Pierre Rondel/Outcome of CIAM:

F3F rule changes update after the plenary meeting last friday and saturday:

- All small wording changes have been adopted.
- The controversal section 5.8.10 (300 pts penalty, not cumulative) has been postponed & sent back to the RC soaring sub commitee for further discussion. It has therefore not been presented to the plenary meeting for the vote by all nations.
- Section 5.8.17 (slope layout) is adopted but amended to become "recommended".

I assume this also means the 1000 pt penalty for hitting someone is also up for further discussion

Simon

Edited by simon_t
add note on 1000 pt penalty
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2016 at 16:42, oipigface said:

Suppose, for instance, that a plane crosses the safety line, hits a tent with one wing, and then swings around to hit a human. Is this 1000 points or 1600?

Anyone who pulls that one off deserves a bonus... 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a more serious note, the course layout doesn't indicate any minimum separation between the slope edge and the safety plane. Some minimum separation guidelines would be helpful IMO. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

isoaritfirst
1 hour ago, rc-soar said:

On a more serious note, the course layout doesn't indicate any minimum separation between the slope edge and the safety plane. Some minimum separation guidelines would be helpful IMO. 

Straight line through the bases crossed the slope edge on one of the slopes at La Muela this year. 

I was pretty grumpy when on my first flight I was asked to launch into what was obviously dead air.

-  A refly was called before the 30 second climb out was completed.  Repairs are under way.Very luck to not lose the model.

Some time later we moved slope and started again, and;

 I had a cut, then a penalty for flying along the curve of the ridge. 

I was pretty rubish - but rules can make a comp better or worse - if they are not applied well.

 

During a discussion - it was mentioned that many countries are now hosting F3f events and some have insufficent experience to apply rules appropriatly. so they need clear defined distances etc or problems may occure.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem to me that the safety line should be placed in accord with two criteria: i) safety (!); ii) not interfering with pilots' exploitation of the slope. It seems that Mike's la Muela experience violated the first of these, as (I think) did my experience a couple of years ago at Gijon. In respect of criterion i), the placement of the pits is also important, but current rules (Simon will tell me if I'm wrong) say nothing about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.