FAI Revised Definition of c/l
Peter G
Dear Friends
As recently announced by F2 Subcommittee President Bengt-Olof Samuelsson, work on the update of the FAI’s basic definition of Control Line Flight is about to begin. Here is the current 2011 rule in question:
Volume ABR 1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight
This is a flight during which the model aircraft is manoeuvred by control surfaces in attitude and altitude by the flier on the ground by means of one or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft. Devices in which the control wires or cables are held in the hand or connected to a central pivot may be used. No other means of controlling the model or the engine(s) may be employed during the take-off and flight except that exercised by the flier through the line or lines.
As changes of ABR 1.3.2 may affect F2B, I now consider it necessary to initiate an opinion research among the members of the F2B Working Group on if/or how the rule in question, which will be binding for all FAI c/l classes, shall be changed.
Considering today’s easy and in expensive availability of interference-free wireless systems as well as the safety benefit coming with the ability to control the power source, makes me think that the time has come to allow in-flight power control for all c/l model aircraft. Please note that I on purpose refer to control and not to shutdown alone. I do firmly believe that having access to a throttle will greatly increase the attractivity of both c/l flying ”just for fun”and of top notch competition.
Therefore, in order to trigger discussion, what do you think about a proposal like this:
Volume ABR 1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight
*A Spread Spectrum technology receiver that transmits information back to the pilot-operated transmitter, is not considered to be a “device for the transmission of information from the model aircraft to the competitor”, provided that the only information that is transmitted is for the safe operation of the model aircraft.
Please note that the part following the * was borrowed from the current F3A (RC Pattern) rule.
Kind regards, Peter Germann
Igor Burger
From: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter G
Sent: 30. apríla 2011 17:55
To: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: FAI Revised Definition of c/l
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F2B Group" group.
To post to this group, send an email to f2b-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to f2b-group+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/f2b-group?hl=en-GB.
Brett Buck
On Apr 30, 2011, at 8:54 AM, Peter G wrote:
>
>
> Therefore, in order to trigger discussion, what do you think about a
> proposal like this:
>
>
>
> *This is a flight during which the model aircraft is manoeuvred by
> surfaces in attitude and altitude by the flier on the ground by
> means of one
> or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model
> aircraft. Only devices in which the control wires or cables are held
> in the
> hand or connected to a central pivot may be used. No other means of
> controlling the model or the engine(s) may be employed during the
> take-off
> and flight except that exercised by the flier through the line or
> lines. For
> the sole purpose of power control by the pilot only, pilot-to-model*
> aircraft 2.4 Ghz Spread Spectrum radio control is permitted. *
Just from a rule-book-lawyer perspective, this is worded a little
oddly. It says it is solely through the lines in one sentence, then
provides an exception in the next. I presume that can be massaged to
be more elegantly worded if this comes to pass. I would also note that
spread-spectrum may or may not require the use of some sort of
frequency control system, and may or may not comply with any
particular country's equivalent of the FCC. The spread-spectrum
systems currently used in RC is far from a bulletproof system that is
free of interference concerns.
But on the larger perspective, I don't see the point of this. We
just got done going out of our way to ban electronically-interfaced
control that takes mechanical input through the lines (Kim Doherty's
fly-by-wire system and its potential offshoots) but now we want to
make radio control OK? Kim's system was banned based on its potential
for abuse, but the potential for abuse of an RC system (where you have
*no* idea what it is doing or who is doing it) is orders of magnitude
higher.
Probably makes little or no difference for stunt or combat but it
would certainly change TR - how many trophies have been lost that
could have been "saved" with a tiny tweak of the compression screw to
prevent a burn-down, or alternately, how many have been won by someone
making the right call? Moreover, since you have no way of preventing
downlink data (remember, you have the same mysterious black box with a
now-legal antenna protruding from it, you have no way of knowing what
it is doing or preventing it) you can have ground-loop control systems
that could be controlled by anyone, not just the pilot. Potentially,
someone not even present at the field. Same with speed, probably not
as important but it would certainly have the potential to "save"
flights that would otherwise be lost due to bad settings. How is this
better or how does it better exemplify what control-line should be
about than Kim's system?
Clearly, Kim's system is still a model controlled by lines (hence
the phrase control-line), and it is unceremoniously banned even though
most agree that the way it was implemented was fine, but the potential
for abuse was too high. This rule would permit models that are clearly
hybrids of CL and RC with unlimited abuse potential
I guess what I am struggling with is trying to determine the
underlying philosophy of our rules-making process. I can't see a
fundamental underlying principle that would ban Kim's system but
permit RC control. Where do we want to draw the line in defining a
control-line model? We seems to reacting to potential technical
developments on a "case-by-case" basis and rigging the rules
accordingly. I think that instead we need to have guiding principles
that can be applied to any technical development that might happen.
Brett
Brett Buck
On Apr 30, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Igor Burger wrote:
> I do not se reason to favor electric
> power train anymore, I see just opposite, many flyers tell me that
> if they
> had to go to electric (because it brings advantage), they will
> rather quit.
> I think we should do just opposite, and favor IC.
Why do we think it is appropriate, in the rules, to *favor
anything*? I think writing rules to favor or promote a particular
type of technology or approach is completely inappropriate for a rules
body.
Brett
Igor Burger
-----Original Message-----
From: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] On
Brett
--
Peter G
Thank you for your quick response, dear friends. Just a couple of comments on points brought up so far:
On IC / Electric throttle: As demonstrated sucessfully in F3A for many years, IC throttles can do the job quite well. Not as accurate and/or responsive as with electrics but nevertheless functionally enough to level the possibly slightly uneven playfield.
On flyers quitting due to electrics: When we discussed the legalising of electric motors something like 10 year ago, I’ve heard the same from at least one top flyer. He still competes today, very successfully. Using an IC motor, I should add.
On Kim’s system: While Kim’s device triggered the “fly-by-wire” discussion, it was so far not banned by FAI. Neither in ABR nor in F2B.
On “black box” flight control and telemetry: In F3A automatic manoeuvring and flight data feedback is illegal. By signing the official FAI Model Specification Certificate, both Competitors and NAC’s (!) confirm in writing to comply with the related rules. It is probably safe to assume that the vast majority of F3A competitors shy away from tampering with the Certificate and that the same will happen in F2
On 2.4 Ghz interference: Practical experience has shown that simultanous operation of in excess of 100 airplanes and/or helicopters is possible. The FAI therefore does no longer require transmitter impound for 2.4 Ghz systems.
On the rule making principle: Reacting to actual (not potential) developments on a per case basis seems to be an ongoing obligation me. After all, who would be in position to foresee future technical (and other, such as social) developments accurate enough to create an everlasting set of rules (or laws)?
Rgds Peter G
p.s. May I please encourage further group members to share their point of view on the current ABR 1.3.2. issue of definition of c/l?
Brett Buck
On May 1, 2011, at 4:09 AM, Peter G wrote:
>
> On the rule making principle: Reacting to actual (not potential)
> developments on a per case basis seems to be an ongoing obligation
> me. After all, who would be in position to foresee future technical
> (and other, such as social) developments accurate enough to create
> an everlasting set of rules (or laws)?
I would say we are veering far off merely reacting to developments
to actively (at least discussing) guiding the event towards certain
ends. The idea that we were intentionally *encouraging" electric
development, while about what I had expected, is, to me, entirely
inappropriate. Now at least Igor is suggesting (to me, unconvincingly)
that we should try to steer the rules towards back to conventional
engines. It is my considered opinion that we shouldn't be attempting
to steer anyone towards anything.
Simply allowing any onboard, self-contained engine, er,
powerplant control that is either automatic, or controlled by the
pilot through the lines, entirely accomplishes the desired purpose of
permitting electric or essentially anything else, without favoring
anything - which is why I suggested it ~15 years ago. Instead, we
permitted it for electric only, which clearly favors electric, and
went out of our way to ban it entirely for IC motors. That's the
difference between technology-agnostic rule-making versus trying to
drive the solution to a particular answer.
On the actual topic, I would strongly discourage the use of RC of
any kind in CL. After doing a bit of unscientific surveying, not a
single person that I talked to about it thought it was a good idea.
Largely because you have to draw the line you have to draw the line
somewhere, and *C*ontrolling through the *L*ines is where everyone
seem to think it should be drawn.
Brett
Igor Burger
should try to steer the rules towards back to conventional engines". I mean
that we should balance them to make them EQUAL in real life.
Actual rules makes electric little bit better in use, and as development
goes it will become even clearer. For example timers does not allow any
overruns, electric does not need starting etc. So IF we should do any
change, we should NOT make anything allowing easier life for electric, but
rather for IC. I mean for example last change allowing throttle control also
for IC engines like we spoke some weeks ago, or allowing electric starters
etc. Electric and IC are not equal, so one set rules "for all power trains"
can still favor one of them. For example allowing electric starters for all
will clearly make life easier only for IC a not for electric. :-)) We must
find good balance for both of them.
I hope now it is clearer what I mean. I just want to keep good balance
between all power trains. ... As I see exactly like you ... So ... I agree
:-)))
igor
-----Original Message-----
From: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Brett Buck
Sent: 2. mája 2011 1:32
To: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: FAI Revised Definition of c/l
Brett
--
Peter G
Brett: “Encouraging” electrics was done in order to reduce the risk of loosing fields due to noise, which remains to be a major problem for aeromodelling in general and for F2 in particular. The FAI will undoubtedly be forced to tighten the related rules for all categories. Electrics will help us keeping fields and remaining visible for the general public. I can therefore not see why this particular rule change should have been inappropriate. Instead, it was a pro-active reaction on a political development to come.
Igor: “Electric starters for all” (not only for F2B as it is today). Do you suggest amending ABR 1.3.2 accordingly or shall this be left (as it is now) to the catergory rules?
All:
Please answer:
- Do you support the “no R/C of any kind” paradigm?
- Do you agree to allow automatic or through the lines power control for both, electric and IC motors?
pg
Igor Burger
From: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter G
Sent: 2. mája 2011 11:39
To: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: RE: FAI Revised Definition of c/l
Peter G
Igor, if we wish to eliminate the electric motor start advantage for all F2 categories, then we must amend “ABR 1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight” accordingly. Such as with, for example,: “The use of mechanical or electrical devices for starting engines is allowed”. This then includes Team-Race and Combat, of course. Here, we may want to consider, that electric flight tests in both, T/R and F2D are currently under way.
Should we find it more appropriate to address the motor start issue in the rules for sub-categories, such as F2B, no related change of ABR 1.3.2 is needed.
Thanks for your votes, well noted. Rgds PG
Pavel Macek
I think, that sufficient modification would be this text:
Volume ABR 1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight
This is a flight during which the model aircraft is manoeuvred by
control surfaces in attitude and altitude by the flier on the ground
by means of one or more inextensible wires or cables directly
connected to the model aircraft. Devices in which the control wires or
cables are held in the hand or connected to a central pivot may be
used. No other means of controlling the model or the engine(s) may be
employed during the take-off and flight except that exercised by the
specifically stated in the rules for the relevant class.
My insipration is Volume ABR 1.3.1 Category F1 - Free Flight "Radio
control functions are allowed only when specifically stated in the
rules for the relevant class."
Pavel M.
Brett Buck
On May 2, 2011, at 3:38 AM, Pavel Macek wrote:
> Hello everybody,
> I think, that sufficient modification would be this text:
>
> Volume ABR 1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight
> This is a flight during which the model aircraft is manoeuvred by
> control surfaces in attitude and altitude by the flier on the ground
> by means of one or more inextensible wires or cables directly
> connected to the model aircraft. Devices in which the control wires or
> cables are held in the hand or connected to a central pivot may be
> used. No other means of controlling the model or the engine(s) may be
> employed during the take-off and flight except that exercised by the
> flier through the line or lines, if are not allowed only when
> specifically stated in the rules for the relevant class.
That's excellent! Takes the problem from trying to solve it once
for every event and permits the individual event rules to accommodate
it to the degree necessary.
Brett
Brett Buck
On May 2, 2011, at 2:38 AM, Peter G wrote:
> Brett: “Encouraging” electrics was done in order to reduce the risk
> of loosing fields due to noise, which remains to be a major problem
> for aeromodelling in general and for F2 in particular. The FAI will
> undoubtedly be forced to tighten the related rules for all
> categories. Electrics will help us keeping fields and remaining
> visible for the general public. I can therefore not see why this
> particular rule change should have been inappropriate. Instead, it
> was a pro-active reaction on a political development to come.
>
Well, we will have to agree to disagree on that one. If you want
to put in a noise regulation, put in a noise regulation, no other
restrictions, and let people figure out how to meet it without forcing
them into a particular approach. Fewer rules is better.
That, again, would accomplish the same end, but be agnostic to
technology and permit people to develop the solution themselves -
which will be a lot more amenable than having the rules drive you to
something you may not need or want, and possibly preventing an
innovative solution that maybe *you and I* didn't think of.
I will table this argument for now but I would hope that we at
least consider it in future rule-making approach.
An old P-38 pilot said it the best = "Perfection is achieved, not when
there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take
away."
Brett
go_s...@comcast.net
Sorry for my late entry into this discussion. I have been away fro more than a week.
I do not want to see RC control of any portion of CL flight. I guess I am old and am set in my ways, but this is not an RC competition. I don't want the complications (it's already difficult enough as it is now) nor the potential for "teams" of people controlling the flight. It's simple...Turn it on, let it go, and do your best, without the assist of another control function.
Paul Walker
Pavel Macek
shut-off on demand:
Volume ABR 1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight
This is a flight during which the model aircraft is manoeuvred by
control surfaces in attitude and altitude by the flier on the ground
by means of one or more inextensible wires or cables directly
connected to the model aircraft. Devices in which the control wires or
cables are held in the hand or connected to a central pivot may be
used. No other means of controlling the model or the engine(s) may be
employed during the take-off and flight except that exercised by the
Peter G
Thank you for contributing, Paul.
Does „ …without the assist of another control function.” mean that you would prefer to eliminate (from ABR 1.3.2) the currently legal possibility to control power through the lines? Peter G.
aagewiberg
Dear All
I agree with Paul W. and with his reasons.
Our hobby and sport has developed for decades to reach a high level of perfection of engine run with IC engines with pipes, 2-4 break and 4 strokes. Top fliers perform extremely well with the current engine rules even in bad weather, so why make our sport partly radio controlled?
As Piet Hein said long tine ago. - “Technique is the art of using as little technique as necessary”.
Aage Wiberg
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] På vegne
af Peter G
Sendt: 30. april 2011 17:55
Til: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Emne: FAI Revised Definition of
c/l
--
go_s...@comcast.net
Peter,
Yes, if I was King, I would eliminate that option.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter G" <peterd...@bluewin.ch>
To: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Peter G
Peter G
ABR 1.3.2 shall be binding for all classes. Allowing deviations from ABR 1.3.2 in class rules is critical as it opens all kinds of options to circumnavigate the basic principles.
Considering the above and related to the issue of power control in the FAI definition of c/l, as per ABR Volume ABR 1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight, for all classes, is it correct to state that our group wishes to:
- Allow automatic and/or through the lines motor power control?
- Ban the use of wireless control for purposes other than permanently shutting down the power source for safety reasons?
If so, here is how the above could be adressed:
Volume ABR 1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight
…
No other means of controlling the model or the engine(s) may be employed during the take-off and flight except that exercised by the flier through the line or lines.
Power control of the engine(s) must be excersised by the flier trough the line or lines or may be automatic. The use of wireless control for the sole use of permanent shut-down of the engine(s) is allowed.
Please comment, as once we reach consensus on how to describe all F2 classes power control in ABR 1.3.2, I would like to initiate the discussion on how to define flight control in the same basic rule.
Rgds Peter G.
Peter G
To All:
This now adresses the issue of flight control where I believe to locate consensus inasmuch as most of the Group members do not wish to allow “black box” flight assist/command systems. Related to this, Bill Lee (in October 2010) suggested the following definition of c/l flight control:
…all aerodynamic control of the model is accomplished via mechanical connection to the pilot.
Following Bill’s suggestion, the definition of c/l flight control could look like this:
Volume ABR 1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight
a.) Control Line Circular Flight is a flight during which all aerodynamic control is accomplished via mechanical connection to the pilot by means of one or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft. No means of aerodynamic control of the model aircraft may be employed during the takeoff, flight and landing except that exercised manually by the pilot through the line or lines.
Please comment and note that in the final version of ABR 1.3.2, following sub-paragraph a.) above, there will be sub-paragraph b.) defining power control as discussed earlier within this thread.
Krgds. Peter G.
Igor Burger
Bill Lee
Aerodynamic control IS "pitchlig and lift, or altitude and attitude"� and nothing more.
On 05/23/2011 02:50 PM, Igor Burger wrote:
I feel that�this restriction�goes too far. We should limit it to primary function, or pitchlig and lift, or altitude and attitude, or controll surfaces, or so.�This wording can disable automatic or manual motor controlling as well as electric landing gears powered by timer and electromotor, because prop thrust and also landing gears drag�are "something aerodynamic".
Sent: 23. m�ja 2011 12:54
To All:
�
This now adresses the issue of flight control where I believe to locate consensus inasmuch as most of the Group members do not wish to allow �black box� flight assist/command systems. Related to this, Bill Lee (in October 2010) suggested the following definition of c/l flight control:
�
�all aerodynamic control of the model is accomplished via mechanical connection to the pilot.
�
Following Bill�s suggestion, the definition of c/l �flight control could look like this:
�
Volume ABR 1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight
�
a.) Control Line Circular Flight is a flight during which all aerodynamic control is accomplished via mechanical connection to the pilot by means of one or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft.�No means of aerodynamic control of the model aircraft may be employed during the takeoff, flight and landing except that exercised manually by the pilot through the line or lines.
�
Please comment and note that in the final version of ABR 1.3.2, following sub-paragraph a.) above, there will be sub-paragraph b.) defining power control as discussed earlier within this thread.
�
Krgds. �Peter G. --
Pavel Macek
According to me, the pilot shall be able to control the model aircraft
during the flight using lines/wires only. An automated control systems
will be allowed, when specifically stated in the rules for the
relevant class. The only exceptions allowed to this rule are genuine
and urgent safety matters and noise rulings, when specifically stated
On 23 kvě, 12:54, Peter G <peterdgerm...@bluewin.ch> wrote:
> To All:
>
> This now adresses the issue of flight control where I believe to locate
> consensus inasmuch as most of the Group members do not wish to allow “black
> box” flight assist/command systems. Related to this, Bill Lee (in October
> 2010) suggested the following definition of c/l flight control:
>
> …all aerodynamic control of the model is accomplished via mechanical
> connection to the pilot.
>
> Following Bill’s suggestion, the definition of c/l flight control could
> look like this:
>
>
> * *
>
> *a.) Control Line Circular Flight is a flight during which all aerodynamic
> one or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model
> aircraft. No means of aerodynamic control of the model aircraft may be
> employed during the takeoff, flight and landing except that exercised
>
> *Please comment* and note that in the final version of ABR 1.3.2, following
Peter G
Dear members of the F2B Working Group,
Based on comments received so far on discussions related to power and flight control, here is a draft version of how the F2B Working Group could bring forward a suggested future version of ABR 1.3.2 to the attention of the F2 Subcommittee:
(Reasons in italics for better understanding only, not to be incorporated in ABR 1.3.2)
----------
Volume ABR 1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight
a.) Control Line Circular Flight is a flight during which all aerodynamic control is accomplished via mechanical connection to the pilot by means of one or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft. No means of aerodynamic control of the model aircraft may be employed during the takeoff, flight and landing except that exercised manually by the pilot through the line or lines.
Reason: For the preservation of the ”fly by hand” principle:
b.) Power control of the engine(s) must be excersised by the pilot trough the line or lines or may be automatic. The use of wireless control for the sole use of permanent shut-down of the engine(s) by the pilot is allowed.
Reason: For to level the playfield for all power sources. Allows uniflow tanks, tuned pipes, mechanical and electronic shutoffs, mechanical and electrical power control through the lines, timers, electronic speed controllers/governors and such..
Added safety: Allows pilot operated wireless shut-down systems, too. (Such as the ones currently used in F2D):
c.) Declaring invalid ABR 1.3.2. within class rules is not permitted.
Reason: ABR 1.3.2 is the immovable constitution of FAI c/l. Therefore, the above sub-paragraph must be added.
d.) Amendments of ABR 1.3.2. may be made in the rules for specific classes. Such amendments must not violate sub-paragraphs a.), b) and/or c.)
Reason: Allowing future class rules adjustments while conserving the basic principle of Control Line Flight.
-----------
A note to the native english speakers: Please feel free to modify/polish the language, aiming at a very clear, contractual UK english.
Further proceedings:
- Reaching consensus on the future wording of ABR 1.3.2. within the Group until end of July 2011.
- To the F2 Subcommittee: Submitting what we will have found as being the Work Group’s suggestion on how to modify ABR 1.3.2. by end of August 2011.
Please comment and bear in mind that I can only submit findings in the name of the Group if a majority of the Group members instructs me to do so.
Thank you and kind regards, Peter Germann
Pavel Macek
Kim Doherty
Dear members,
Peter has posed the following definition:
“Volume ABR 1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight
a.) Control Line Circular Flight is a flight during which all aerodynamic control is accomplished via mechanical connection to the pilot by means of one or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft. No means of aerodynamic control of the model aircraft may be employed during the takeoff, flight and landing except that exercised manually by the pilot through the line or lines.
Reason: For the preservation of the ”fly by hand” principle:”
This definition could lead to the elimination of:
- static trim tabs
- out thrust
- down thrust
- offset rudder
The description of “aerodynamic control” is not required as it is implicit in the first sentence.
I would suggest the following edit:
Volume ABR 1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight
a.) Control Line Circular Flight is flight during which all control is accomplished via physical connection to the pilot through one or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft or automatically via preset, non in-flight-adjustable, predetermined (their function may not change during flight) onboard processes.
Reason: To preserve traditional control line model flight while embracing modern technology
I do not support the use of any form of radio control for any reason.
Warmest Regards,
Kim Doherty
Member F2B Working Group
Member F2 Sub Committee
Control Line Precision Aerobatics Chairman - Canada
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F2B Group" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/f2b-group/-/CEUoiGmdo54J.
Peter G
Dear members,
Thank you for your input.
Joan McIntyre has worked with me finalising this document. She is an internationally experienced F2B judge and has a background as a teacher of the English language.
I would ask that all members of the F2B Working Group forward a response (Agree/Disagree) to the proposed revised wording as soon as possible. It would be greatly appreciated if responses could reach me by 31st August at the latest.
--------------------------------------
Revision of definition of all classes c/l flight, as suggested by the F2B Working Group in August 2011.
1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight Delete all and replace by:
a.) Control Line Circular Flight is flight during which all control is accomplished via physical connection to the pilot through one or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft or via preset, onboard processes.
b.) For safety reasons, however, the pilot is permitted to use 2.4 Ghz wireless control, of the Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) and/or of the Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS) type, solely for the permanent shutdown of the engine(s).
c.) A safety strap connecting the competitor’s wrist to the control handle must be provided by the competitor and used during all flights. A pull test shall be applied separately to the safety strap when attached to the competitor’s wrist. This pull test will be applied according to each class specification concerning the lines’ pull test.
d.) The regulations for classes must be set forth in class rules. Such class rules must not contradict or invalidate ABR 1.3.2
e.) Control Line Circular Flight Classes are:
F2A - SPEED MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2B - AEROBATIC MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2C - TEAM RACING MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2D - COMBAT MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2E - COMBAT MODEL AIRCRAFT WITH COMPRESSION IGNITION ENGINES
F2F - DIESEL PROFILE RACING MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2G - ELECTRIC SPEED
--------------------------------------
Should this revised version be accepted by the majority of members of the F2B Working Group, it will be forwarded, as a matter of process, to the CIAM F2 Sub Committee for further consideration.
Peter Germann
Bill Lee
"A pull test shall be applied separately to the safety strap when attached to the competitor�s wrist."
We discussed this at the last World Champs and a couple of things were seen.
First, it is unsafe and unnecessary to test the strap when actually wrapped around a person's wrist. The potential for doing physical damage to the wrist is significant, particularly in those classes where the pull test is high.
Second, pull tests of the strap have predominantly been applied separately with the handle held by the competitor and the strap by the person doing the pull test. In Hungary, that was agreed to be the proper way to make this test.
A rule proposal was submitted to eliminate the words "when attached to the competitor's wrist" from the current rules. I don't know if that proposal passed (has ANYONE seen the Plenary minutes?), but if it did, we must not put it back with this proposed change.
Regards,
Bill Lee
On 07/18/2011 12:46 PM, Peter G wrote:
Dear members,
�
Thank you for your input.
�
Joan McIntyre has worked with me finalising this document. She is an internationally experienced F2B judge and has a background as a teacher of the English language.
�
I would ask that all members of the F2B Working Group forward a response (Agree/Disagree) to the proposed revised wording as soon as possible. It would be greatly appreciated if responses could reach me by 31st August at the latest.
--------------------------------------
�
Revision of definition of all classes c/l flight, as suggested by the F2B Working Group in August 2011.
�
Volume ABR 2011, page 67����1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight����� Delete all and replace by:
�
a.) Control Line Circular Flight is flight during which all control is accomplished via physical connection to the pilot through one or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft or via preset, onboard processes.
�
b.) For safety reasons, however, the pilot is permitted to use 2.4 Ghz wireless control, of the Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) and/or of the Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS) type, solely for the permanent shutdown of the engine(s).
�
c.) A safety strap connecting the competitor�s wrist to the control handle must be provided by the competitor and used during all flights. A pull test shall be applied separately to the safety strap when attached to the competitor�s wrist. This pull test will be applied according to each class specification concerning the lines� pull test.
�
d.) The regulations for classes must be set forth in class rules. Such class rules must not contradict or invalidate ABR 1.3.2
�
e.) Control Line Circular Flight Classes are:
F2A - SPEED MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2B - AEROBATIC MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2C - TEAM RACING MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2D - COMBAT MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2E - COMBAT MODEL AIRCRAFT WITH COMPRESSION IGNITION ENGINES
F2F - DIESEL PROFILE RACING MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2G - ELECTRIC SPEED
--------------------------------------
�
�Should this revised version be accepted by the majority of members of the F2B Working Group, it will be forwarded, as a matter of process, to the CIAM F2 Sub Committee for further consideration.
�
Peter Germann
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F2B Group" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/f2b-group/-/lNSgoHaUmOQJ.
Kim Doherty
Peter, All,
I apologize for not having responded earlier to:
b.) For safety reasons, however, the pilot is permitted to use 2.4 Ghz wireless control, of the Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) and/or of the Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS) type, solely for the permanent shutdown of the engine(s).
I conversation with Pat MacKenzie F2D pilot and Electrical Engineer, he suggested and I agree that the wording should reflect the approval of the country within which the event is being held. So editing the proposed 1.3.2 B would now read:
b.) For safety reasons, however, the pilot is permitted to use 2.4 Ghz wireless control, of a type approved for use within the country hosting the competition, solely for the permanent shutdown of the engine(s).
Again I apologize for the delay however this is simpler, will remain “Evergreen” and is technology agnostic.
Thanks,
Kim.
From: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter G
Sent: July-18-11 1:46 PM
To: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [?? Probable Spam] Re: FAI Revised Definition of c/l
Dear members,
--
go_s...@comcast.net
Peter,
I don't like the third OR in section a). I would suggest...
a.) Control Line Circular Flight is flight during which all control is accomplished via physical connection to the pilot through one or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft. The power system may be controlled by a preset, onboard processes.
As mentioned earlier, I would not pull test the saftey thong while attached to an arm.
Paul Walker
From: "Peter G" <peterd...@bluewin.ch>
To: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Kim Doherty
Peter, Paul, All
The Peter’s proposed rule wording for 1.3.2 A, did not limit the purpose of the onboard preset processes and did not intend to address only the “power system”. I would not support this change in any way. We would in fact be back at square one.
Kim.
Brett Buck
On Jul 18, 2011, at 5:34 PM, go_s...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
> As mentioned earlier, I would not pull test the saftey thong while
> attached to an arm.
I also think this is a bad idea - the chance of hurting someone
is far too high. It's one thing if it causes some injury when the
handle is prematurely released, but doing it once per flight is
entirely unwarranted.
Brett
Pavel Macek
Peter G
You are right, Bill. The minutes of the 2011 CIAM Plenary Meeting say:
1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight USA
Amend the paragraph as follows:
A safety strap connecting the competitor’s wrist to the control handle must be provided by the competitor and used during all flights. A pull test shall be applied separately to the safety strap when attached to the competitor’s wrist. This pull test
will be applied according to each class specification concerning the lines’ pull test
Approved by the Plenary Meeting: For 28; Against 3; Abstentions 6. Effective 01/01/12.
Therefore, please consider this as being suggested:
c.) A safety strap connecting the competitor’s wrist to the control handle must be provided by the competitor and used during all flights. A pull test shall be applied separately to the safety strap. This pull test will be applied according to each class specification concerning the lines’ pull test
Do you agree to the proposal as modified accordingly? If so, please confirm.
Kind regards, Peter G.
Peter G
Thank you, Kim. Your point of making the rule technology agnostic is convincing to me and the requirement of the system being compatible to the regulations of the country of use is important, too.
I would like to propose the change of b.) as per yours and Pat MacKenzie’s suggestion:
b.) For safety reasons, however, the pilot is permitted to use 2.4 Ghz wireless control, of a type approved for use within the country hosting the competition, solely for the permanent shutdown of the engine(s).
Do you agree to the whole proposal as modified accordingly? If so, please confirm.
Kind regards, Peter G
Peter G
Kim, Paul, All
I do assume that Paul’s input may reflect concern regarding “black boxes” controlling elements other than power systems, If this is so, then others might have the same concern, too. May I therefore suggest that we now search for a wording of a.) which does not give reason for such concern while at the same time not preventing new technologies?.
Rgds, Peter G.
Peter G
Excellent idea, Pavel, I will do so when the Group will have reached consensus of the proposal as a whole.
Kind regards, Peter G.
Bill Lee
Bill
On 07/19/2011 04:34 AM, Peter G wrote:
You are right, Bill. The minutes of the 2011 CIAM Plenary Meeting say:
�
1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight USA
Amend the paragraph as follows:
A safety strap connecting the competitor�s wrist to the control handle must be provided by the competitor and used during all flights. A pull test shall be applied separately to the safety strap
when attached to the competitor�s wrist. This pull testwill be applied according to each class specification concerning the lines� pull test
�
Approved by the Plenary Meeting: For 28; Against 3; Abstentions 6. Effective 01/01/12.
�
Therefore, please consider this as being suggested:
�
c.) A safety strap connecting the competitor�s wrist to the control handle must be provided by the competitor and used during all flights. A pull test shall be applied separately to the safety strap. This pull test will be applied according to each class specification concerning the lines� pull test
�
Do you agree to the proposal as modified accordingly? If so, please confirm.
�
Kind regards, Peter G. --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F2B Group" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/f2b-group/-/4u-xq0sYpk4J.
Kim Doherty
Peter, All,
It has taken quite some time and effort to get to the point we were at just prior to Paul’s input. The discussion on “Black Boxes” etc. has been held. (do you really want to go back there??) To go back now and change the wording to something else endangers the work to date. “Preset Onboard Processes” are not under the control of the pilot or anyone external to the circle (i.e. via radio) and can only function as per the manner in which they were set prior to takeoff. Changing the wording now may bring an end to interesting and exciting technological development in our sport. I suggest leaving it as we had proposed prior to the additional input and simply revisiting the issue every few years to evaluate the state of the technology and what if any impact it may be having. No one (most of all me) wants black box controlled “Auto-flight or Auto-pattern”. We do however need to provide some room for those creating and developing new technologies to work in.
Regards,
Kim.
From: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter G
Sent: July-19-11 7:10 AM
To: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F2B Group" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/f2b-group/-/loLsD89uAE4J.
Peter G
Dear Friends, as we must find a solution being supported by the majority of the F2B working group members, please comment on these deletions from and additions to the current ABR 2011 version:
1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight
a.) This is a flight during which the model aircraft is manoeuvred by control surfaces in attitude and altitude by the flier on the ground by means of one or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft. Devices in which the control wires or cables are held in the hand or connected to a central pivot may be used. No other means of controlling the model or the engine(s) may be employed during the take-off and flight except that exercised by the flier through the line or lines. Control of the engine(s) of the model aircraft may be excersised by the flier through the line or lines or may function automatic.
Leading to:
1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight
a.) This is a flight during which the model aircraft is manoeuvred by the flier on the ground by means of one or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft. Control of the engine(s) of the model aircraft may be excersised by the flier through the line or lines or may function automatic.
Could this be a way to:
- Level the playfield for both, IC & Electric?
- Keep R/C flight control and auto-pilots out?
- Leave room for those developing new technologies?
Rgds, Peter G.
Kim Doherty
Peter, All,
I am not sure why motor control is looked at differently than the control of any other flight system. If we are to specify the manner in which the motor/engine can be controlled then we need to specify the manner in which each and every system can be controlled. Removing the phrase:
“or via preset, onboard processes.”
fundamentally changes the nature of the statement. The same text as above also covers the operation of the motor/engine for both IC and Electric models.
Note that “preset” processes are of no use in trying to fly an automatic pattern. To do so would require processes that could for instance change rates of gain dynamically to ensure no contact with the ground if the model were blown around (lower) than desired.
I respect Mr. Walker’s opinion (and those of his cohorts) and his accomplishments however his country does not support or embrace FAI rules for Control Line flight. I therefore challenge the relevance of his input when at best it affects just three people from his country once every two years. The decisions made here have no impact on modellers in the U.S.A. with the exception of the World Champs.
I too would very much like to find common ground on this issue. (and quickly) That is not, I believe, what Mr. Walker is seeking L
Again, I suggest that we go with the previous wording and agree to keep a careful watch on what develops. Why do we have to make such punitive, iron-clad rules before anything has been developed? I am sure Mr. Walker is not worried that someone could deny an American a W/C’s title just via this rule change. J
Regards,
Kim.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F2B Group" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/f2b-group/-/7IXO2jp66hAJ.
go_s...@comcast.net
All,
This has gotten totally out of control for no reason. Here is my objection: It's a matter of grammar! Too many "or's" in the statement. Using "or" is dangerous. It means that portions of the statement can be ignored, and only certain portions used. Section a) could be interpreted as follows: ( Control Line Circular Flight is flight during which all control is accomplished via preset, onboard processes. ) using only the last "or" as meaning that there be no physical connection between the pilot and the aircraft. I don't think that was the intent. The physical connection still needs to be there.
My error for putting the "engine control" in there.
Is the last section (preset, onboard processes) meant to be for the internal control of the aircraft?
Paul Walker
a.) Control Line Circular Flight is flight during which all control is accomplished via physical connection to the pilot through one or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft or via preset, onboard processes.
Kim Doherty
Paul, All
Would you accept an “and optionally” in place of the second “or” ?
a.) Control Line Circular Flight is flight during which all control is accomplished via physical connection to the pilot through one or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft and optionally via preset, onboard processes.
Paul Asked: Is the last section (preset, onboard processes) meant to be for the internal control of the aircraft?
Yes, including the motor.
Regards,
Kim.
From: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of go_s...@comcast.net
Sent: July-19-11 4:28 PM
To: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [?? Probable Spam] Re: FAI Revised Definition of c/l
All,
This has gotten totally out of control for no reason. Here is my objection: It's a matter of grammar! Too many "or's" in the statement. Using "or" is dangerous. It means that portions of the statement can be ignored, and only certain portions used. Section a) could be interpreted as follows: ( Control Line Circular Flight is flight during which all control is accomplished via preset, onboard processes. ) using only the last "or" as meaning that there be no physical connection between the pilot and the aircraft. I don't think that was the intent. The physical connection still needs to be there.
My error for putting the "engine control" in there.
Is the last section (preset, onboard processes) meant to be for the internal control of the aircraft?
Paul Walker
a.) Control Line Circular Flight is flight during which all control is accomplished via physical connection to the pilot through one or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft or via preset, onboard processes.
go_s...@comcast.net
All,
The words need to be very clear that the model is restrained and controlled by the wires connecting it to the pilot. A modification that would do that would be:
a.) Control Line Circular Flight is flight during which all control is accomplished via physical connection to the pilot through one or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft .
Then a new b) to cover the internal connections:
b.) The internal connection in the model may be traditional mechanical connections, or via preset, onboard processes. This also includes the control of the powerplant.
The old b) would become c).
This clears up the fact that the model is restrained by the flying lines and defines the acceptable control connections inside the plane, clearly.
Paul Walker
Pavel Macek
b) For safety reasons, however, the pilot is permitted to use wireless control, of the globally unlicensed 2.4 GHz short-range radio frequency band, solely for the permanent shutdown of the engine(s).
Peter G
Dear Pavel
I do not really know whether the 2.4 Ghz band actually is and will remain unlicensed globally. The b.) version now suggested not only covers the use of the frequency band but it also makes sure that the actual devices (and their technical specifications, such as power output, for example) are approved by the country of use. I believe that this offers excellent protection from potentially dangerous interference.
b.) For safety reasons, however, the pilot is permitted to use 2.4 Ghz wireless control, of a type approved for use within the country hosting the competition, solely for the permanent shutdown of the engine(s).
Kind regards, Peter G.
Keith Renecle
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F2B Group" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/f2b-group/-/9EaB0pbtoUMJ.
Igor Burger
To: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: FAI Revised Definition of c/l
Peter G
Perhaps those F2B flyers eager to contribute to the Group’s effort could have have a beer together and discuss matters? I look forward to hear from when you are back from Poland and please rest assured that no decisions on how to proceed will be taken before end of August.
Just a quick remark re. igor’s remark No.2:
The suggested paragraph b.) is part of ABR for all classes and may not be totally fit for other classe (as are all ABR 1.3.2.paragraphs). It is important to understand that ABR 1.3.2 will, once the F2B group submits it to the F2 Subcommittee, undergo critical examination by Speed, T/R and Combat experts before eventually being adopted by the Subcommittee for to be presented to the CIAM Plenary Meeting. This examination by other class specialists will lead to further modifications of ABR 1.3.2 and/or to related regulations in class rules.
As Igor’s very valid concern is related to F2B only, it should (or must) be taken care of in the class F2B rules.
Kind regards, Peter G.
Peter G
Dear members,
Following your much appreciated inputs on the draft version distributed earlier on July 18, here is a version adjusted accordingly.
Please remember that the paragraph suggested below will be part of ABR for all C/L classes. It is important to understand that it will, once the F2B group submits it to the F2 Subcommittee, undergo critical examination by Speed, T/R and Combat experts before eventually being adopted by the F2 Subcommittee for to be presented to the CIAM Plenary Meeting. This examination by other class specialists may lead to further modifications of ABR 1.3.2 and/or to related regulations in class rules.
----------------- Draft ---------------------
Volume ABR 2011, page 67
1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight Delete all and replace by:
a.) Control Line Circular Flight is flight during which all control is accomplished via physical connection to the pilot through one or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft.
b.) The internal connection in the model may be traditional mechanical connections, or via preset, onboard processes. This also includes the control of the powerplant.
c.) For safety reasons the pilot is permitted to use 2.4 Ghz wireless remote control systems of the Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) and/or of the Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS) type, for the permanent shutdown of the engine(s). The use of shutdown systems for the purpose of influencing a judged flight manoeuvre is not permitted.
d.) A safety strap connecting the competitor’s wrist to the control handle must be provided by the competitor and used during all flights. A pull test shall be applied separately to the safety strap. This pull test will be applied according to each class specification concerning the lines’ pull test
e.) The regulations for classes must be set forth in class rules. Such class rules must not contradict or invalidate ABR 1.3.2
e.) Control Line Circular Flight Classes are:
F2A - SPEED MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2B - AEROBATIC MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2C - TEAM RACING MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2D - COMBAT MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2E - COMBAT MODEL AIRCRAFT WITH COMPRESSION IGNITION ENGINES
F2F - DIESEL PROFILE RACING MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2G - ELECTRIC SPEED
---------------- End of Draft ----------------------
Further proceedings.
- Consultation with F2B Working Group: until October 31st
- Final form distributed to Group: November 6
- F2B Working Group Proposal submitted to F2 Subcommittee: November 13 2011
Thank you and best regards, Peter Germann
Paul Walker
I agree with what is proposed. In paragraph C, last sentence, do you mean for purposes (of engine speed regulation) to influence the judges?
Paul Walker
Peter G <peterd...@bluewin.ch> wrote:
>
>
>Dear members,
>
>
>
>Following your much appreciated inputs on the draft version distributed
>earlier on July 18, here is a version adjusted accordingly.
>
>
>
>Please remember that the paragraph suggested below will be part of ABR *for
>all C/L classes*. It is important to understand that it will, once the F2B
>group submits it to the F2 Subcommittee, *undergo critical examination by
>Speed, T/R and Combat experts before eventually being adopted by the F2
>Subcommittee for to be presented to the CIAM Plenary Meeting*. This
>examination by other class specialists may lead to further modifications of
>ABR 1.3.2 and/or to related regulations in class rules.
>
>* *
>
>----------------- Draft ---------------------
>
>*Volume ABR 2011, page 67 *
>
>
>
>1.3.2 *Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight *Delete all and
>replace by:**
>
>* *
>*Further proceedings*.
>
>
>
> - Consultation with F2B Working Group: until October 31st
>
>
>
> - Final form distributed to Group: November 6
>
>
>
> - F2B Working Group Proposal submitted to F2 Subcommittee: November 13
> 2011
>
>
>
>
>Thank you and best regards, Peter Germann
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F2B Group" group.
>To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/f2b-group/-/k04GMqI_kQgJ.
Bill Lee
First: item d. is far too restrictive and places limits that we really don't want to impose. It precludes future development unnecessarily. There are several parts of 1.3.2, and I believe the intent of item d. really is only for items a. through c. Item d. should either be removed or stated properly for its true intent
Second, item e. (the FIRST item e. :-) ) is out of place in this section. The section is intended to define a CL model, the various disciplines within Control Line, and how a Control Line model is controlled. The wrist strap is superfluous to that purpose. Item e. should become a separate section and not part of 1.3.2
Bill
On 10/02/2011 05:34 AM, Peter G wrote:
Dear members,
�
Following your much appreciated inputs on the draft version distributed earlier on July 18, here is a version adjusted accordingly.
�
Please remember that the paragraph suggested below will be part of ABR for all C/L classes. It is important to understand that it will, once the F2B group submits it to the F2 Subcommittee, undergo critical examination by Speed, T/R and Combat experts before eventually being adopted by the F2 Subcommittee for to be presented to the CIAM Plenary Meeting. This examination by other class specialists may lead to further modifications of ABR 1.3.2 and/or to related regulations in class rules.
�
----------------- Draft ---------------------
Volume ABR 2011, page 67��
�
1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight���� Delete all and replace by:
�
a.) Control Line Circular Flight is flight during which all control is accomplished via physical connection to the pilot through one or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft.
�
b.) The internal connection in the model may be traditional mechanical connections, or via preset, onboard processes. This also includes the control of the powerplant.
�
c.) For safety reasons the pilot is permitted to use 2.4 Ghz wireless remote control systems of the Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) and/or of the Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS) type, for the permanent shutdown of the engine(s). The use of shutdown systems for the purpose of influencing a judged flight manoeuvre is not permitted.
�
d.) A safety strap connecting the competitor�s wrist to the control handle must be provided by the competitor and used during all flights. A pull test shall be applied separately to the safety strap. This pull test will be applied according to each class specification concerning the lines� pull test
�
e.) The regulations for classes must be set forth in class rules. Such class rules must not contradict or invalidate ABR 1.3.2
�
e.) Control Line Circular Flight Classes are:
F2A - SPEED MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2B - AEROBATIC MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2C - TEAM RACING MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2D - COMBAT MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2E - COMBAT MODEL AIRCRAFT WITH COMPRESSION IGNITION ENGINES
F2F - DIESEL PROFILE RACING MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2G - ELECTRIC SPEED
---------------- End of Draft ----------------------
�
Further proceedings.
�
- Consultation with F2B Working Group:� until October 31st
�
- Final form distributed to Group:� November 6
�
- F2B Working Group Proposal submitted to F2 Subcommittee: November 13 2011
�
�
Thank you and best regards, Peter Germann --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F2B Group" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/f2b-group/-/k04GMqI_kQgJ.
Brett Buck
On Oct 3, 2011, at 9:24 AM, Paul Walker wrote:
> Peter,
> I agree with what is proposed. In paragraph C, last sentence, do you
> mean for purposes (of engine speed regulation) to influence the
> judges?
>>
>>
>>
>> c.) For safety reasons the pilot is permitted to use 2.4 Ghz
>> wireless remote
>> control systems of the Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) and/
>> or of the Frequency
>> Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS) type, for the permanent shutdown of
>> the
>> engine(s). The use of shutdown systems for the purpose of
>> influencing a
>> judged flight manoeuvre is not permitted.
I think a much better wording would be something along the lines of:
"The use of shutdown systems for the purpose of altering the model
performance is not permitted"
Th
Peter G
Thank you, Bill
Item c (2.4 Ghz shutdown)
This is a critical issue as being able to shut down a power source anytime is safety relevant for all c/l classes.(see: F2D) Listing the current technology has been done to reduce the risk of shut down being triggered by others then the pilot. If a future technology becomes available, ABR can be adjusted, based on safety, anytime.
I agree on your point re the safety strap. However, as it has been put into ABR 1.3.2 by the S/C, I would like to let the S/C decide where it belongs.
Kind regards, Peter
Peter G
Thank you Brett and Paul
I believe that “...for the permanent shutdown of the engine(s).” outrules engine speed regulation. (Despite it might be useful having it in e-stunt…)
The intent of the last sentence in c.) is to keep F2B pilots from using the shutdown device to control the point of beging of the power-off landing approach. Does Brett’s suggested wording cover this? Shall we perhaps, rather than in ABR, put this in the F2B class ules?
Rgds, Peter
Bill Lee
Bill
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F2B Group" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/f2b-group/-/hJrtCYR3MHgJ.
Peter G
The reason for:
“e.) The regulations for classes must be set forth in class rules. Such class rules must not contradict or invalidate ABR 1.3.2” is: If we accept ABR 1.3.2 as being the common base for all c/l classes then we may want to make sure it is not overruled in class rules. As it possibly was when unspecified types of r/c shutdowns for F2D have been legalized…
Kim Doherty
Peter,
I thank you for your efforts on these matters and am in agreement with the intent of the draft.
I am in complete agreement with the inclusion of the use of wrist straps in all events regardless of the operational changes these may require. Better to wear a wrist strap than to have no event at all J.
I would also like to propose a refinement to 1.3.2 (b)” The internal connection in the model may be traditional mechanical connections, or via preset, onboard processes. This also includes the control of the powerplant.”
I propose the following to simplify the wording:
b) Powerplant and Primary Flight Control shall be via mechanical and/or preset, onboard processes.
I would further propose to simplify 1.3.2 (c) “For safety reasons the pilot is permitted to use 2.4 Ghz wireless remote control systems of the Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) and/or of the Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS) type, for the permanent shutdown of the engine(s). The use of shutdown systems for the purpose of influencing a judged flight manoeuvre is not permitted.”
I would propose that we link the permitted technology to that which has been granted approval for F3A ( FAI R/C Precision Aerobatics ) competition. I do not see any competitive advantage over the systems currently allowed for electric or fuelled aircraft with respect to shutting the engine down at a precise point.
I propose the following wording:
c.) For safety reasons the pilot is permitted to use any 2.4 GHz wireless remote control system approved for use under FAI F3A Precision Aerobatic rules for the permanent shutdown of the engine(s).
Regards,
Kim Doherty,
From: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter G
Sent: October-02-11 6:35 AM
To: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F2B Group" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/f2b-group/-/k04GMqI_kQgJ.
Peter G
Thank you, Kim
Here are my comments:
Safety strap
As I mentioned in my earlier answer to Bill, I suggest that for the time being we leave it in our draft for ABR 1.3.2 when submitting it as a whole to the F2 Subcommittee for further processing. The F2 S/C may then decide to leave it in or to put it elsewhere.
Controls
The draft says: b.) The internal connection in the model may be traditional mechanical connections, or via preset, onboard processes. This also includes the control of the powerplant.
You suggest: b) Powerplant and Primary Flight Control shall be via mechanical and/or preset, onboard processes.
I tend to agree and I suggest taking care of the “This also includes the control of the powerplant” issue in the F2B class rules, once when a revised ABR 1.3.2 will be approved by the Plenary.
2.4 Ghz
I find it difficult to use the F3A rule as a model, as the only relevant paragraphs I’ve found in the 2011 FAI Sporting Code referring to r/c systems are:
ABR 4B
B.11.2 There is no requirement to impound spread spectrum transmitters.
A Spread Spectrum technology receiver that transmits information back to the pilot-operated transmitter, is not considered to be a “device for the transmission of information from the model aircraft to the competitor”, provided that the only information that is transmitted is for the safe operation of the model aircraft.
F3A Rule
Radio equipment shall be of the open loop type (ie no electronic feedback from the model aircraft to the ground). Auto-pilot control utilising inertia, gravity or any type of terrestrial reference is prohibited. Automatic control sequencing (pre-programming) or automatic control timing devices are prohibited.
Example: Permitted:
1. Control rate devices that are manually switched by the pilot.
2. Any type of button or lever, switch, or dial control that is initiated or activated and terminated by the competitor.
3. Manually operated switches or programmable options to couple and mix control functions.
Not permitted:
1. Snap roll buttons with automatic timing mode.
2. Pre-programming devices to automatically perform a series of commands.
3. Auto-pilots or gyros for automatic wing levelling or other stabilisation of the model aircraft.
4. Propeller pitch change with automatic timing mode.
5. Any type of voice recognition system.
6. Conditions, switches, throttle curves, or any other mechanical or electronic device that will prevent or limit maximum power or rpm of the propulsion device during the sound/noise test.
7. Any type of learning function involving manoeuvre to manoeuvre or flight to flight analysis.
Kim, unless there are other FAI rules I have not found, I do not believe that we should cross-reference in ABR 1.3.2. to the above text in italics. Furthermore, if we ask for FAI F3A specifications (IF there are any) we would exclude other perfectly suitable 2.4 Ghz devices such as car systems and/or freeflight r/c de-thermalizers.
What we might consider instead is using the term “Spread Spectrum technology” term, too, leaving out the DSSS and FHSS part. What do you think about this:
c.) For safety reasons the pilot is permitted to use a 2.4 Ghz wireless remote Spread Spectrum technology control system for the permanent shutdown of the engine(s).
Or, even simpler:
c.) For the permanent shutdown of the engine(s), the pilot is permitted to use a 2.4 Ghz Spread Spectrum technology wireless remote control system.
Kind regards, Peter Germann
Kim Doherty
Peter,
You are correct that there is no “absolute” definition of allowable radio equipment in F3A.
After a long discussion with Pat MacKenzie we have come to the following wording with respect to the use of 2.4 GHz in “C”
“(C) For permanent shutdown of the engine(s), it is permitted to use 2.4 GHz Spread Spectrum technology legal for use in the country of competition. The competitor will determine the suitability for use of the chosen system.
Reasons:
Any system “legal for use in the country of competition” will meet all technical specifications with respect to interference. Some countries do have different flavours of Spread Spectrum (Japan, France??) so it would be important to do some research before you show up with your new system. Competitors using commercially available systems (including car key FOBs) should not have any issues with “one off” homemade systems. Competitors using non commercial homemade systems may be exposed to interference. No impound of transmitting devices is required.
We also determined that as a general rule the pilot is not usually in the best position to activate the shutdown function. For reasons of safety we suggest that anyone nominated by the pilot be able to shut the model down.
Warmest regards,
Kim Doherty
From: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter G
Sent: October-05-11 11:44 AM
To: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: RE: FAI Revised Definition of c/l
Thank you, Kim
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F2B Group" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/f2b-group/-/Kk5dBy7ebb8J.
Peter G
Thank you Kim for your, and Pat’s, valuable inputs, I do appreciate your contribution to our common cause very much.
I believe to remember that you have brought up the”country of competition“ point earlier. Sorry for overlooking it… I agree to your version and will include it as suggested in the next version of ABR 1.3.2:
c.) For permanent shutdown of the engine(s), it is permitted to use 2.4 GHz Spread Spectrum technology legal for use in the country of competition. The competitor will determine the suitability for use of the chosen system.
As far as allowing someone other than the pilot activating the shutoff this, while undoubtedly being of great value for safety, has earlier been seriously questioned by the racing community. In order to reach consensus on ABR 1.3.2 as soon as practicable, I would like to let the class specialists decide on this while adjusting their rules to the to be revised ABR.
Kind regards, Peter Germann
Bill Lee
On 10/06/2011 03:39 AM, Peter G wrote:
....�
As far as allowing someone other than the pilot activating the shutoff this, while undoubtedly being of great value for safety, has earlier been seriously questioned by the racing community. In order to reach consensus on ABR 1.3.2 as soon as practicable, I would like to let the class specialists decide on this while adjusting their rules to the to be revised ABR.
�
Peter, this statement is in conflict with the last paragraph of your proposed rule:
e.) The regulations for classes must be set forth in class rules. Such class rules must not contradict or invalidate ABR 1.3.2
Bill
Roger Ladds
Sorry for the late input here but with reference to (c) regarding "the permamanent shutdown of the engine(s)" we seem to have lost "for safety reasons" I have read the previous e-mails but cannot see why? As this only the General Rules for Circular Flight! are we going to qualify what constitutes a permanent shutdown in the F2B rules at a later date? [not alter but qualify]
My concern here is with regard to the Landing Manoeuvre 4.2.15.17 - (a) Start of manouevre and a comment by I think, Igor about the pilot choosing where he stops the engine in relation to the conditions prevailing at the time of the landing! so as to gain an advantage with this manoeuvre! One possible way to eliminate any advantage with the current rule is to consider adopting the AMA Landing Rule 13.15 which then removes the need for the (engine) propellor to have ceased rotating.
Or have I missed something??
Regards
Roger ladds
Kind regards, Peter Germann
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F2B Group" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/f2b-group/-/Tx18GABIMQ4J.
To post to this group, send an email to f2b-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to f2b-group+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/f2b-group?hl=en-GB.
--
Roger Ladds
Peter G
Thanks for joining in, Roger.
I have removed the “safety” from c) as safety is not the only reason for shutting down the motor. All c/l classes could benefit from the pilot being able to stop the engine.
I do understand “permanent shutdown” in the ABR as “power completely off, no restart during flight” and what must be defined later in the F2B class rule is how to avoid the use of shutoff to position the begin of the power-off landing approach (Igor’s concern)
Adopting the AMA Landing rule might in fact make sense. However, if we would engage ourselfs in discussing this at this point in time and here I fear that this would substantially delay the time required tor reach consensus on ABR 1.3.2. The rotating propeller issue has been taken care of in the current version of the F2B rule.
Kind regards, Peter Germann
Peter G
I can understand your point, Bill.
My problem is that without the sentence in question we leave doors open for class rule changes rending useless the ABR rule (“the constitution of c/l”)
What could we do to avoid this? Is this a solution:
e.) The regulations for classes must be set forth in class rules. Except for reasons of safety, class rules must not contradict or invalidate ABR 1.3.2
rgds, Peter Germann
Bill Lee
Bill
On 10/06/2011 10:00 AM, Peter G wrote:
I can understand your point, Bill.
�
My problem is that without the sentence in question we leave doors open for class rule changes rending useless the ABR rule (�the constitution of c/l�)
�
What could we do to avoid this? Is this a solution:
�
e.) The regulations for classes must be set forth in class rules. Except for reasons of safety, class rules must not contradict or invalidate ABR 1.3.2
�
rgds, Peter Germann
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F2B Group" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/f2b-group/-/GvYouY3eycwJ.
Roger Ladds
Thank you, it was the " define later" I was looking for!
Regards
Roger
Kind regards, Peter Germann
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F2B Group" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/f2b-group/-/YAMxoGkNqhoJ.
To post to this group, send an email to f2b-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to f2b-group+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/f2b-group?hl=en-GB.
--
Roger Ladds
Peter G
Dear Friends
As per October 31 2011 all inputs have been considered and we now have reached the version below. Without your further comment, I will, on behalf of the F2B Working Group, forward this version by the date of November 7 2011 to the Chairman of the FAI F2 Subcommittee for further proceedings.
----------------- Suggested Revision of the Definition of Control Line Flight ---------------------
Volume ABR 2011, page 67
1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight Delete all and replace by:
a.) Control Line Circular Flight is flight during which all control is accomplished via physical connection to the pilot through one or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft.
b) Powerplant and Primary Flight Control shall be via mechanical and/or preset, onboard processes.
c.) For permanent shutdown of the engine(s), it is permitted to use 2.4 GHz Spread Spectrum technology legal for use in the country of competition. The competitor will determine the suitability for use of the chosen system.
d.) A safety strap connecting the competitor’s wrist to the control handle must be provided by the competitor and used during all flights. A pull test shall be applied separately to the safety strap. This pull test will be applied according to each class specification concerning the lines’ pull test
e.) The regulations for classes must be set forth in class rules. Except for reasons of safety, class rules must not contradict or invalidate ABR 1.3.2
f.) Control Line Circular Flight Classes are:
F2A - SPEED MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2B - AEROBATIC MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2C - TEAM RACING MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2D - COMBAT MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2E - COMBAT MODEL AIRCRAFT WITH COMPRESSION IGNITION ENGINES
F2F - DIESEL PROFILE RACING MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2G - ELECTRIC SPEED
Pavel Macek
Kind regards, Peter Germann--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F2B Group" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/f2b-group/-/BnjCvoVU85UJ.
Joan McIntyre
Dear friends,
I would like to personally express my thanks Peter for all his hard work and for the input received by members.
Kind regards,
Joan McIntyre.
From: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Pavel Macek
Sent: Thursday, 3 November 2011
6:28 AM
To: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Peter G
Dear Bengt-Olof, dear members of the F2 Subcommittee
Following technical innovations and in an attempt to adjust the definition of c/l in the ABR section of the Sporting Code, the members of the F2B working group have undertaken considerable efforts when searching for an updated version of article 1.3.2 of the ABR volume. From February 2009 until October 31 2011, as previously reported to the F2 S/C, numerous stunt flyers and judges from many countries have posted hundreds of contributing inputs on the Group’s forum page: http://groups.google.com/group/f2b-group?hl=en-GB
Covering aspects of:
- Conservation of manual flight
- Openness for new technologies
- Consideration of electric power and its control
- Added safety
The Group has meanwhile reached consensus on how to define c/l in future and now presents the attached result of its efforts to the F2 Subcommittee.
Acting as member of the F2 Subcommittee and as SUI CIAM Delegate, I hereby submit the above suggestions on how to revise ABR 1.3.2 to your kind attention.
On behalf of the F2B working group, I invite the F2 Subcommittee to examine the suggestions in detail and to undertake efforts towards the issuing of a related rule change proposal in the name of the F2 S/C within an appropriate period of time. I am of course at your entire disposal for any questions you may have.
Thank you for considering this submission, I look forward to receive your acknowledgement of receipt and your report on how you will proceed in which amount of time.
Respectfully yours, Peter Germann
Peter G
6.11.2011 Spain:
Dear Peter, dear members of the F2 Subcommittee,
Spain votes for the proposal as it is fairly clear for everybody and give chance for future changes.
Regards, Yolanda
7.11.2011 United Kindom:
Dear Peter
Thank you and the F2B working group for producing these proposals, they appear to be very sound and I agree that they should be proposed to Plenary.
Best regards, Peter
to be updated....
Peter G
Peter G
Dear Friends
following the publishing of the Agenda for the 2012 CIAM Plenary Meeting on April 20/21 concern has been expressed that subparagraph b) of the suggested revision of ABR 1.3.2 might collide with the function of ESC’s governing RPM and might open doors for a gyro assisted elevator control system, too.
The paragraph in question is: “Powerplant and Primary Flight Control shall be via mechanical and/or preset, onboard processes.”
Please comment.
Thank you, Peter Germann
Igor Burger
From: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter G
Sent: 16. marca 2012 15:59
Brett Buck
On Mar 16, 2012, at 9:10 AM, Igor Burger wrote:
> Hello Peter, thank you for opening this point, I know it is too late. The word collision is good, because this wording takes two different things together with not so clear interpretation.
>
> All our power trains have some kind of feedback regulation. Also traditional pipe and fuel pressure regulated but especially electric which has specifically implemented and "presetable" feedback loop. Means "something" measures some value (RPM or SPEED or gravity) and AUTOMATICALLY regulates incoming power. I do not know if settings for such regulation can be called "preset". May be yes.
> But if so, the same rule we can apply to "primary function" measuring something (distance from ground, pitching rate) which then on that base assists pilots inputs. That is the reason why I think we must separate definition for controlling of power train, and pitching to two different groups with different allowed and disallowed properties. We simply need to allow something else for power train and something else for control in altitude.
Agreed, permit any self-contained control system for the propulsion (all forms!), and separate it from the pitch control.
I don't think there is a consensus on forbidding all forms of feedback of the flight controls. I know that no one cares very much what I think, but I personally see no problem with gyroscopic stabilization, even in pitch. What we all have a problem with is automation of the maneuvering. It's the same problem we discussed in the late 90s - how do you tell the difference when you see a black box with wires coming out of it? That's the reasoning behind the "mechanical connection" idea came about. I am sad to say that I haven't seen any better answer since.
Brett
Peter G
In order to separate power management from flight control I would like your opinion on the following modification of the current proposal:
Please comment
rgds, Peter Germann
Roger Ladds
I agree with Peter's modification to the current proposal, this clearly separates the two conditions for control allowing the Power Train Control and Flight Path Control to be treated as separate entities!
Also like Brett I have concerns about the "black box" as it is difficult to determine it's purpose without subjecting it to some sort of "electronic test", it would seem that the days are gone where 'trust' was taken as a solution to these situations and only a simple rule was required to control the problem!
Rgds
Roger ladds
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F2B Group" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/f2b-group/-/_fukBQFdP50J.
To post to this group, send an email to f2b-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to f2b-group+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/f2b-group?hl=en-GB.
--
Roger Ladds
Brett Buck
On Mar 19, 2012, at 4:13 AM, Roger Ladds wrote:
> Also like Brett I have concerns about the "black box" as it is difficult to determine it's purpose without subjecting it to some sort of "electronic test", it would seem that the days are gone where 'trust' was taken as a solution to these situations and only a simple rule was required to control the problem!
Actually, I have no problem trusting people to comply with the rules. And frankly, it's a model airplane contest, not brain surgery, so the stakes are negligible. In our National rules, I am perfectly satisfied that if we state our BOM issue clearly, that people will comply with it. I see no reason to think that the rest of the world is any different. And if someone doesn't, that's their problem, not mine.
The problem is *mostly* that we haven't actually clearly atated what we want to allow and what we to prevent. Most of the efforts to this point have been to try to indirectly prevent autonomous/programmed maneuvering. I am not sure we are all agreed what it is we are trying to accomplish.
It's I think the programmed maneuvering is clearly not OK for all of us. It is far from clear that we all want to prevent automatic stabilization systems. Maybe we ought to make sure we are all driving to the same goal before trying to figure out how to state it. Then figure out how to enforce it.
Brett
aagewiberg
I hope we can all agree that we under no circumstances can accept any sort
of "black boxes", gyros or other electronics to stabilize or control our
models' flight. We must agree that the only way to control model flight must
be the good old fashioned method that has worked for many decades.
Any such devices would be like Tour De France bicycle riders using Epo to
win the races. It is totally antagonistic to the whole idea of our
sport/hobby.
Aage
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] På vegne
af Brett Buck
Sendt: 19. marts 2012 17:44
Til: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Emne: Re: FAI Revised Definition of c/l
Brett
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"F2B Group" group.
Brett Buck
On Mar 19, 2012, at 10:45 AM, aagewiberg wrote:
> Hello All
>
> I hope we can all agree that we under no circumstances can accept any sort
> of "black boxes", gyros or other electronics to stabilize or control our
> models' flight. We must agree that the only way to control model flight must
> be the good old fashioned method that has worked for many decades.
Well, we all DON'T agree. And once you allowed (or, went out of your way to encourage) a "black box" for electric control, it's now just a matter of where you stop.
I make a distinction between gyro stabilization and autonomous/programmed maneuvering that may not be entirely clear. The first is still dependent entirely on the pilot for the resulting flight path. The second ensures that perfect flight path is maintained automatically.
Brett
aagewiberg
have gyros to ensure perfectly straight path? Or do you mean we are out of
control of what the "black boxes" really do in the models once they are
allowed inboard?
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] På vegne
af Brett Buck
Sendt: 20. marts 2012 04:03
Til: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Emne: Re: SV: FAI Revised Definition of c/l
Brett
--
Pavel Macek
have gyros to ensure perfectly straight path" is detail rule that may have a diferent impact to each class.
Igor Burger
Pavel Macek
Igor Burger
From: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Pavel Macek
Sent: 20. marca 2012 9:11
Keith Renecle
From: Peter GSent: Monday, March 19, 2012 12:27 PMSubject: Re: FAI Revised Definition of c/l
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F2B Group" group.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/f2b-group/-/_fukBQFdP50J.
Brett Buck
On Mar 19, 2012, at 11:12 PM, aagewiberg wrote:
> Maybe my English is too poor in this case. Do you mean it is all right to
> have gyros to ensure perfectly straight path? Or do you mean we are out of
> control of what the "black boxes" really do in the models once they are
> allowed inboard?
Well, I am pretty sure your English is a lot better than my, uh, any other language! I am from Kentucky, and an engineer, so even English is a struggle for me.
I think we may indeed not be communicating correctly. I will try to make a clearer distinction when I get a chance.
Brett
Joan McIntyre
Hi Peter,
I think that most agree that the definition of Control Line flight needs to be written simply. I think that Keith has expressed this succinctly.
I am happy with this.
Joan Mc.
aagewiberg
Thanks for your compliment to my English. I'm from Denmark with a population
less than half of New York's. My English comes from high school level and my
native language sounds like trying to talk with a big potato in my mouth -
to your ears.
We have in Denmark a famous (in DK) humorist and drawer Storm P. He made
tens of thousands of drawings with a small text.
He made a drawing of an old distracted professor at his podium and the text
was:
"Language was originally developed to improve understanding between human
beings. Nowadays it seams that language has developed into creating
misunderstandings between people."
Aage :-)
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] På vegne
af Brett Buck
Sendt: 20. marts 2012 22:36
Til: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Emne: Re: SV: SV: FAI Revised Definition of c/l
Brett
--
aagewiberg
Hi
I agree with Keith and Joan.
Maybe it could be written: …” wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft’s flying surfaces.” - to make it even clearer.
As to Keith’s remarks about the future I hope that such development will never happen in my lifetime. If not I think I will concentrate my hobby hours on my classic cars. And be happy driving my old vehicles without ESP, ABS, Xenon, Traction Control, Airbags and whatever that are put in new cars to make them drive so that also fools can control them without getting in trouble.
Aage
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] På vegne af Joan McIntyre
Sendt: 21. marts 2012 01:31
Til: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Emne: RE: FAI Revised Definition of
c/l
Pavel Macek
Hi all and sorry for my error.
I am agree with text, but in my opinion systematic inclusion of changes that should be (my changes are red):
Volume ABR, Section 4B:
B.19.4. Required
Add a new paragraph at the end of item c) as follows:
c) For all control line classes a safety strap (as sketched below) connecting the competitor’s wrist to the control handle must be provided by the competitor and used during all flights. A pull test shall be applied separately to the safety strap. This pull test will be applied according to each class specification concerning the lines’ pull test.
Volume ABR, Section 4C:
1.3.2 Category F2 - Control Line Circular Flight
Amend the paragraph as follows:
This is a flight during which the model aircraft is manoeuvred by control surfaces in attitude and altitude by the flier on the ground by means of one or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft. Devices in which the control wires or cables are held in the hand or connected to a central pivot may be used. No other means of controlling the model or the engine(s) may be employed during the take-off and flight except that exercised by the flier through the line or lines.
A safety strap connecting the competitor’s wrist to the control handle must be provided by the competitor and used during all flights. A pull test shall be applied separately to the safety strap. This pull test will be applied according to each class specification concerning the lines’ pull test.
Control Line Circular Flight is flight during which at least flight path control is accomplished via physical connection to the pilot through two or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft’s flying surfaces.
The regulations for classes must be set forth in class rules. Except for reasons of safety, class rules must not contradict or invalidate ABR 1.3.2.
Class: F2A - SPEED MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2B - AEROBATIC MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2C - TEAM RACING MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2D - COMBAT MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2E - COMBAT MODEL AIRCRAFT WITH COMPRESSION IGNITION ENGINES
F2F - DIESEL PROFILE TEAM RACING MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2G - ELECTRIC SPEED
Section 4C Volume F2 – Control Line:
4.2.2. Characteristics of an Aerobatic Model Aircraft
Replace the paragraph f) and g) of 4.2.2. as follows:
f) Automatic flight path control and/or automatic manoeuvering is not allowed.
g) Power plant control may be accomplished by the pilot via the wires or cables or by an onboard self‑containded, automatic process.
4.4.2. Definition of a Combat Model Aircraft
Add a new paragraph at the end of item c) as follows:
c) For permanent shutdown of the engine(s), it is permitted to use 2.4 GHz Spread Spectrum technology legal for use in the country of competition. The competitor will determine the suitability for use of the chosen system. Any such device or system must:
1) be operated only by the pilot, and
2) not affect any other model.
Regards
Pavel
Roger Ladds
This is a classic example of why these topics need group discussion to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution, it is fortunate for us English speaking members that the working languge of the FAI is English, but this shows even English can be a problem for those who speak it as a first language!!
I agree with Joan that Keith has managed to simply cover the requirements of this topic in his reply, KISS is the way forward.
Brett, I do not have a problem with your English even though your from Kentucky, we engineers have a common tonque.
Rgds
Roger
Roger Ladds
Brett Buck
On Mar 21, 2012, at 2:15 AM, Roger Ladds wrote:
> Brett, I do not have a problem with your English even though your from Kentucky, we engineers have a common tonque.
I speak nerd fluently.
Brett
Peter G
Dear Pavel and friends,
In order to strictly limit our modifications of the already published definitions on “clarification” level, and thus substantially increasing chances of acceptance within the F2 Subcommittee, I would like to postpone your topics “at least flight path control” and “two or more” as well as “for all control line classes” to a future cycle of changes.
Adding up what has been said here in the last couple of days, I plan to go ahead with submitting the following version of ABR 1.3.2 to the F2 SC.
-------
Dear Bengt-Olof, dear members of the F2 Subcommittee
Following the recent publishing of item 12 of the 2012 Agenda, the members of the F2B Working Group have found it necessary to add minor clarifications to ABR 1.3.2 Defintion of c/l. Please consider the following as the F2B Group’s suggestion on how to adjust the article in question accordingly:
a) 1.3.2. Category F2 – Control Line Circular Flight F2 Sub-committee
Delete all and replace by:
a) Control Line Circular Flight is flight during which all control is accomplished via physical connection to the pilot through one or more inextensible wires or cables directly connected to the model aircraft. Automatic flight path control and/or automatic manoeuvering are not allowed.
b) Power plant and Primary Flight Control shall be via mechanical and/or preset, onboard processes.
b) Power train control may be accomplished by the pilot via the wires or cables or by an onboard self-contained, automatic process.
c.) For permanent shutdown of the engine(s), any device or system is permitted including the use of 2.4 GHz Spread Spectrum technology legal for use in the country of competition. The competitor will determine the suitability for use of the chosen system. Any such device or system must 1) be operated only by the pilot and 2) must not affect any other model.
d.) A safety strap connecting the competitor’s wrist to the control handle must be provided by the competitor and used during all flights. A pull test shall be applied separately to the safety strap. This pull test will be applied according to each class specification concerning the lines’ pull test
e.) The regulations for classes must be set forth in class rules. Except for reasons of safety, class rules must not contradict or invalidate ABR 1.3.2
f.) Control Line Circular Flight Classes are:
F2A - SPEED MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2B - AEROBATIC MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2C - TEAM RACING MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2D - COMBAT MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2E - COMBAT MODEL AIRCRAFT WITH COMPRESSION IGNITION ENGINES
F2F - DIESEL PROFILE RACING MODEL AIRCRAFT
F2G - ELECTRIC SPEED
Hand and safety strap figure to be inserted here
Thank you and kind regards,
Peter Germann
F2B Working Group Coordinator
-------
Please remember, that the above will be valid for all classes.Once in force our next task will be the related adjustment of the F2B class rules.
Thank you for your cooperation, I will keep you informed about the outcome of the April 20/21 CIAM Plenary Meeting in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Peter Germann
M.A. Oller
----- Mensaje original -----De: Joan McIntyrePara: f2b-...@googlegroups.comEnviado: miércoles, 21 de marzo de 2012 1:30Asunto: RE: FAI Revised Definition of c/l
Pavel Macek
Dne středa, 21. března 2012 12:58:28 UTC+1 Peter G napsal(a):