FIA ruling on reflights

[paul garnett]

Following the recent Eurotour at the HoH and several forced reflights due to the new ruling by the FIA, and several peopIe missing out on good flights, I figured that as it's been discussed on a other social media platform, this would be a better place for such a discussion.

From what I understand from the last competition at the HoH is that if the wind drops below the legal limit or shifts more than 45deg you are given a reflight  and it's not of your chosing, this means that if you have a monster thermal and are breaking the world record it would be treated the same way as if the model is sinking to the bottom of the hill..pros and cons!! 

Discuss

 

[Sloper]

would help if the wind was measured at the right point in the first place, and not on the edge

[Les]

I still think it should up to the pilot if he wants to take the reflight.

If your in a good thermal why be given the disappointment of having to land .

Stupid rule.

 

[Martin_N]

I know I'm not competing anymore so probably don't have  right to comment, this decision should remain with the pilot.

A good thermal can pull the wind in any direction and also lower the wind speed, doesn't mean it will result in a bad time. If the pilot is informed before the flight, they clearly state what they want to do

If reflight is awarded after the flight, they should not be told the time until they have confirmed what they want to do.

[SilentPilot]

That's what I thought at first, Les.

Reflights should be optional. Then when I thought about it I think I know why it's compulsory. 

Noone is going to bin a big flight due to thermal assistance, but probably all will want to refly one where the wind dies. 

I guess not having the choice is a way of leveling the playing field. It should reduce lucky wins and score more on skill.

 

That's coming from me who needs all the luck I can get just to get anywhere near competitive 

[Brett82]

The problem I see is it doesn't actually level the playing field at all. Most thermals don't reduce the wind to below the limit right in the exact location where the measuring device is located. Its all a matter of where the exact location of the thermal is in relation to the course. 

There were plenty of occasions where the average flight per round was mid to late 40's, some even 50's, then suddenly someone would step up and get a massive thermal where it remained legal, the 32.xx and 33.xx on Sunday show this. 

Then there were a number of occasions where a thermal would hit, the pilot would be on for a PB, but a re-flight would be called because the measuring device showed the average had dropped below legal. I don't see how that's levelling the field when the other pilots rounds counted but theirs didn't just because the thermal hit at the exact wrong place so the wind at the point where the measuring device was located had dropped.

I agree we need to stick to the rules to keep it consistent. I just think it should be pushed back to the FAI to challenge the rule because if they say its to give consistency then we can clearly show from the results on the weekend this is not always the case. it may work at some locations, but certainly not all. 

[Les]

16 minutes ago, Brett82 said:

The problem I see is it doesn't actually level the playing field at all. Most thermals don't reduce the wind to below the limit right in the exact location where the measuring device is located. Its all a matter of where the exact location of the thermal is in relation to the course. 

There were plenty of occasions where the average flight per round was mid to late 40's, some even 50's, then suddenly someone would step up and get a massive thermal where it remained legal, the 32.xx and 33.xx on Sunday show this. 

Then there were a number of occasions where a thermal would hit, the pilot would be on for a PB, but a re-flight would be called because the measuring device showed the average had dropped below legal. I don't see how that's levelling the field when the other pilots rounds counted but theirs didn't just because the thermal hit at the exact wrong place so the wind at the point where the measuring device was located had dropped.

I agree we need to stick to the rules to keep it consistent. I just think it should be pushed back to the FAI to challenge the rule because if they say its to give consistency then we can clearly show from the results on the weekend this is not always the case. it may work at some locations, but certainly not all. 

But the wind wasn't getting sucked away Sunday probably because there was a lot more of it also completely different type of slope.

[Brett82]

7 minutes ago, Les said:

But the wind wasn't getting sucked away Sunday probably because there was a lot more of it also completely different type of slope.

Thats what I mean Les, it may level the playing field in some locations but not all. Its not a consistent fix to an issue which is why I feel that they should never have changed it from the pilot is offered a re-flight.

Or to have a choice for the CD can make the decision at the start of the comp and say if it will be offered or if it will be mandatory. Ive heard that some slopes in Spain it works really well and does level the playing field, so why not have it as a CD decision that once made, is how it is implemented for the whole comp, . 

[paul garnett]

Some good discussion going on keep it up guys.

I can see why it would work and gives a standard to work too, I do feel that it could be manipulated to work in your favour, especially if you just happened to stand in front of the wind meter on your run!! 

F3F is a fickle sport, we all want that big air but rarely get it, but we put ourselves against the elements and use our skill to pilot the weapon chosen around the course as fast as we can.

In F1 for example , would a driver get another go to get on the podium if he was behind a slower driver? No,so maybe the only answer is NO reflight option, with the only option being if there is a course failure..bit harsh but you play the hand your dealt, and I have had my fair share of bad hands! therefore it would take the pressure off the CD to make that decision.

Then maybe take out your fastest and slowest time to give you an average time, fastest time could be counted for PB and WR though..

Thoughts?

[Sloper]

3 minutes ago, paul garnett said:

 

I can see why it would work and gives a standard to work too, I do feel that it could be manipulated to work in your favour, especially if you just happened to stand in front of the wind meter on your run!! 

 

Dont forget the wind meter is supposed to be 2 metres up, so you'd have to be taller than even you!

[f3fisa]

9 minutes ago, paul garnett said:

 

Then maybe take out your fastest and slowest time to give you an average time, fastest time could be counted for PB and WR though..

 

Trouble is, on Sunday several of us got a thermal in  consecutive rounds at the end..

I still think the luck element is useful in maintaining the interest in F3f. If you ruled out the thermal luck element, the same few people would always win and the comp would  have fewer entrants and then cease to exist as in Slope Aerobatics.  Of course it works both ways as some pilots do not enter if they think there will be to much luck involved.

I know that the point of the comp is for the best pilot to win, but should you penalize the less able pilot who happens to get a bit of luck.

The more rules you introduce, the more rules are open to interpretation.

David.

[Gromit]

So, do these new rules now apply to our BMFA league events & winter lg comps, or just for international / Eurotour events ? 

 

  Stu. 

[mark_r]

I've been out of f3f for a couple of years, but presumably we still have F3F representation such that we can review and comment on proposed rules? It would be helpful to know what was the intended purpose, and what was the feedback (internationally). 

There is no escaping the luck element in f3f  - a big thermal is obvious to all, but moderate changes in air influence the run  and result in the same way every round. How many times have we flown comps with wind speed changes between (for example) 4ms and 7ms? 7ms could either be infill or good lift, either of which change the conditions for the pilot.

If the intent was to even out the effect of air changes, it is just tinkering with one special case. The comp over the weekend was not determined by a single thermal but was certainly influenced by continuing  air changes without huge wind speed changes. 

Best bet is to accept the luck and fly as many rounds as possible, especially with a big entry. (Or all fly at the same time!)

[SilentPilot]

There is also the possibility that sink preceding a booming thermal can cause the wind to drop for one person then the next one comes along and has a cracking flight in the lift! 

[mtreble]

2 hours ago, Gromit said:

So, do these new rules now apply to our BMFA league events & winter lg comps, or just for international / Eurotour events ? 

 

  Stu. 

This is an FAI rule Stu. I believe we have the choice to override it if we wish, especially for domestic competitions.

The rule was applied in Spain earlier this year, but not in Norway.

I made a decision to enforce this rule before the UK League started, so it will continue for the remainder of the year. Maybe we can have a discussion about it at the GBSRA AGM, and decide as a group if we wish to continue to enforce it or drop it for our domestic competitions next year.

Winter Leagues and other competitions are run entirely at the organiser's discretion.

As it is an FAI rule I think that we should enforce it at FAI competitions. I also think that it is a good idea to keep the rules the same across the board otherwise it can get confusing especially as FAI competitions form part of our BMFA League.

[Skip]

It would seem to me that the aim of the new rule regarding thermal lottery is aimed at getting rid of the very fast and very slow time. Hence averaging out rounds a little. This is obviously only aimed at low wind competitions, which seems silly as thermals have an equal effect on windy comps too.

Unfortunately in a sport that requires wind and relies on weather input, the best pilot is not always guaranteed to win. No two flights are ever equal.

But saying that, the better pilots always win! Not necessarily the one who thinks he is the best, but the one who flew his conditions the best.

You need an element of luck to win and not having any flights in good/reasonable air will not result in a win, but surely it wasn't meant to be your day! 

It is definitely a shame that we saw a good run being cancelled by thermal influence. That could be .... disheartening...

 

 

[Les]

I had one flight one the Saturday that  was looking like a 39xx to then be told I have to have a reflight,then get thrown into crap sink to do a 71xx I think.

How dose even the level playing field? 

Dave had the same on Friday. 

Crazy stupid rule.

[Phil.Taylor]

My 2p

Its a rule - same for everyone - rules are rules.

Backdrop - Ive done the blast round in a thermal - then to be offered a reflight cos of low wind - and a subsequent argument about cant tell me the score until I accept a reflight - which was never in any rules. 

Seems like the pilot should be offered the reflight rather than enforced - but rules are rules - same for everyone - at least you know what you are getting - or not. 

Worst of all - had this twice - stooging around in 3.1m/s for the whole flight of 75-85 secs - but it was legal...

Maybe - just maybe - go in a different direction & increase the min windspeed to 5m/s ?  - its supposed to be a slope soaring race?

Phil.

[Rick NL]

The windmeter on Saturday was certainly placed at the wrong spot to get a fair reading.

Apart from the fact that is was placed too low, it was placed too far back from the edge, whith anything that resembled a thermal the airflow separates from the edge and 2 or 3 meters back fom the edge there is almost no wind, with the consequence of a forced reflight in a perfect flying condition.

May be the rule is good, but the implementation has to be done with more care and knowledge.

On the Sundaty the meter was placed quite OK.!

 

[Andy_B]

Maybe we should just fly at coastal sites where there is less thermal influence and the airflow is more consistent .I flew in very consistent air all day Sunday consistently awful