Help with my Judges training program

[Keith Renecle]

Dear friends,

 

I am making much progress on my interactive judges training program. My new program works by using interactive video game type of 3-D graphics including voice tracks to explain everything. You may ask why not simply make a video program on a DVD? This is because the user cannot interact with a movie. Most of the lessons will include 3-D graphics that allow the user to interact with the sceneries. I will provide complete scripts for the voice tracks so that they can be translated into any language. Basic software will be provided on the master DVD to record the voice tracks, and I will include a tutorial on exactly how to do this. Any PC compatible headset (like Skype headsets) with a microphone can be used to make these recordings.

 

This all sounds very good, but now I am at an impasse once again. I need all to agree on certain important issues before I can continue. If we cannot agree on these very basic principles then there is certainly no point in going any further with this project. It is a huge amount of work, and I most certainly do not want to promote any idea's that could be misunderstood as my own personal idea's. Please read the paragraphs below carefully and then we can hopefully all engage in some constructive discussions on these issues.

 

C/L Stunt rules

 

Rules for flying C/L stunt, whether they be AMA or F2B, must inform both pilots and judges exactly what is required of them, and should be done in the simplest way possible. The manoeuvre diagrams and descriptions must agree with each other. It should be possible for someone who has never even seen a stunt competition to look at a manoeuvre diagram, and to understand exactly how the shape should be performed. How difficult can this be?? We have single axis (pitch) models that can only fly straight ahead, or turn up or down. Because these models are tethered to the pilot, all flight paths are circular. This limits our manoeuvres to basic two-dimensional shapes, when viewed by the pilot.

 

The rules must be technically perfect so that there is no need for anyone to try and make their own interpretation. Technically perfect does not mean that the rules need to be complicated. We have one size round loop that is applied to the inside, outside loops, and all of the figure eights. The straight line shapes, are the only shapes with a small amount of complexity. Right now, we are so close to having a good set of rules, that it is a shame that we have not taken the progress made at the 2007 workshop in Belgrade to the point where the necessary corrections have been put forward. I fully accept some of the responsibility for not pushing these points a little harder to the stunt community. After spending these last few years trying to develop my new program, I have much more knowledge and experience on the subject, so now is a good time to sort out these finer details. Here is my list of what needs to be clarified and/or changed in the F2B rules.

1. The definition of "horizontal & vertical."
2. The understanding of level flight at 45 degrees elevation angle, and the tops of the square manoeuvres.
3. The 4-Leaf clover.

1. Definition of horizontal & vertical

 

Our present rules state that horizontal is basically the level of the flying circle, and that vertical is perpendicular to the surface......even if the surface has a perceptible slope. I can remember that when this wording was added into the rules a few years ago, one of the committee members (Australian, I think) commented that it should not be necessary for our rules to define "horizontal" and "vertical" when there already technically accepted definitions. I can only agree with this sentiment.

 

I understand that pilots and judges need reference points, and some of the competition flying sites have a perceptible slope. There are simply too many optical illusions around most flying sites besides the actual flying surface to use the surface as a reference for horizontal. Pilots also cannot stand perpendicular to a sloping ground angle, and remember too that this angle will change relative to the position of the actual manoeuvres as the wind direction changes. The tops of the vertical manoeuvres have to placed directly vertical, and when the pilots and judges look upwards, they lose sight of the ground as a reference. Vertical in this case is directly above the pilot's head. You most certainly do not see buildings and poles etc. that are built perpendicular to a slope.

 

This point was illustrated very well at the last world champs in Landres on the grass stunt circle, that has a rather drastic slope. When we flew in the world cup the week-end before, the 8 markers were placed at a measured 1.5 metre height above the ground. I'm not sure who asked for this to be changed, but for the world champs, the markers on the low end of the circle were raised up to be in line with the higher markers. I have some video footage to show this, and you can see clearly how the pilots fly their models around like a gyroscope and do not follow the sloping surface.

 

I would therefore like to suggest that we have over-complicated the rules and that we should revert back to the standard meaning of horizontal and vertical.

 

2. Flying parallel to the ground at 45 degrees

 

Flying at a constant elevation angle of any angle higher that the pilot's shoulder height, is not a spherical straight line. At 45 degrees, this is quite a curve in fact. It is exactly the same as a 90 degree arc loop if the pilot was lying flat on the ground and performing this loop directly above themselves. The square loops and square eights show that the tops must be flown at a constant elevation angle, or parallel to the ground. The manoeuvre drawings also illustrate this, but show them as straight lines that are the same as the bottom and the sides. Now, the bottom and sides are indeed "straight" lines in spherical terms, but the top is required by the rules to be a curve that follows the ground.

 

I would like to suggest that the rules state that the top must also be a "straight" line, and that we should forget about this line following the ground. The point to remember is that this line is never flown as this curved path anyway. Why not? Because it is just too short for any pilot to try and fly this curve. No present models come even close to flying the 1,5 metre (5 ft.) radius corners, and added to this, all pilots fly much wider squares than the required 45 degree arc for the width, so there is simply not enough space or time to fly this curved shape. ALL pilots turn the corners and simply lock the elevators to fly straight to the next corner. The time on the average for the tops of the squares that I have tracked, is around 0,3 seconds, so you can understand the difficulty involved.

 

If we decide to change the wording to straight line, then the drawings can be left as is. There will in fact be virtually no change to the way that pilots perform the square manoeuvres, and therefore the changes can be made as "clarifications" and not actual changes. The big difference that this will make, will be in training judges, especially new judges. There have been many objections about the way that soft corners have been given high scores at the last few world champs. The only way to improve judging is to improve the judges training. Judges need to be shown exactly how the shape of the squares should look from their perspective. The present shape of the straight sides and curved top, will never be seen as illustrated, even in my CL Sim. I therefore suggest that we make this simple change.

 

3. The 4-Leaf Clover

 

My favourite subject!! I have looked at this manoeuvre objectively for the last few years, and with my experience in generating 3-D objects on the PC, I can now state categorically that we only have two possible ways to perform the clover. The drawings and definitions for the clover have never been correct. From the original to the latest rules, there have been few if any, descriptions that make any technical sense. The rules describe a manoeuvre consisting of 4 loops arranged like two horizontal eights, one on top of the other. Any two loops are shown to be at a tangent to two others, and the flight path shows vertical and horizontal paths, the latter path must be flown as parallel to the ground (here we go again!). Judges have been taught through the years to look for the vertical and horizontal "cross" flight paths. Pilots ALL fly this path as two climbing paths that are not parallel to the ground.

 

The other source of major argument since the beginning of international competition, is the height of the entry point. It started out at 45 degrees, then went to 38 degrees, and now it is 42 degrees. If the horizontal flight path is to be flown as parallel to the ground, it can be done, but then there is no tangency between some of the loops as described. The other point is that for equal size loops the arc has to be approximately 40,5 degrees, and so does the entry point height.

 

The other option is to fly the clover with 42 degree arc loops and a "straight" line (great circle path) for the horizontal flight path. The entry point at the bottom of loop 1 is then back to the level of 38 degrees, but all the required tangencies as per the diagram work out perfectly. I believe that this is the most logical way out of the clover confusion. I would also like to suggest that the entry point be changed to a vertical climb from directly downwind, and the start to be the 9 o'clock point on loop 1. This will put an end to this ridiculous argument of the entry point angle and height. It will also save many models in strong wind where the turn into loop 1 often causes a lack of line tension. I fully understand that for all practical purposes these angles of  38 to 45 degrees, are almost like "splitting hairs." However, as with my reasoning for the squares above, the two shapes look very different, especially for the horizontal flight paths.

 

If it is necessary, I can provide a complete article on the clover including detailed drawings. Just let me know.

 

Please give these suggestions some careful thought. If we are to improve judging and also train new judges from scratch, then these changes will make my PC-based training program much more sensible and easier to follow. The rules will also finally be geometrically correct. We do have some really good judges right now, but there are not enough, and I sincerely believe that an interactive pc-based training program will make a valuable contribution.

 

One more valid point for thought, is that we should not underestimate just how good our top pilots can fly. They can really fly accurately, and there is so little difference between these pilots in our top level competitions, that our judges need better training to see these subtle differences. Pilots that feel that they will receive better scores for flying closer to the rules, for example sharper corners in the squares, will tend to fly the correct way of the rules.

 

Thank you for your time, in reading my long story. Now let's discuss this constructively together and come up with solutions.

 

Regards,

 

Keith Renecle

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[go_s...@comcast.net]

Keith,

 

I am leaving for our Nats in a few days. Lots of preparation work to still do.  I will get back to this after I return.

 

Paul Walker

[Keith Renecle]

Hi Paul,

 

Thanks for the reply. Are you flying in the Nats this time? Hopefully it's with the electric Impact this time. Good luck either way.

 

Regards,

 

Keith R

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.12.92/2203 - Release Date: 06/26/09 05:53:00

[Roger Ladds]

Hi Keith
I too am a little busy but will look at this tonight and get back to you.

Regards

Roger

========================================
Message Received: Jun 28 2009, 04:45 PM
From: "Keith Renecle"
To: "F2B group"
Cc:

[go_s...@comcast.net]

Keith,

 

No, I am the Event Director for stunt.  No flying. However, it's still fun!

 

Paul

[Joan McIntyre]

Dear Keith,

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU :)

You have made my day.

The issues you raise will certainly make a huge difference to the
understanding and training of judges, be they old or new. Horizontality and
verticality (or at least the way they are defined in the rules) have been
thorns in my side, and I for one, would be delighted to have this clarified.
The rules need to be simple enough to clearly understand without having to
resort to interpretation of the finer points. Yes, emphatically to point
no.1

I agree with changing the wording to "straight line" as you suggest. This
will certainly not, in my estimation, change the way pilots perform this
manoeuvre.

Next, the 4-leaf Clover.........This has certainly caused a lot of headaches
from a judging perspective with few judges agreeing on what is, or is not,
technically correct. I can see merit in entering the manoeuvre from a
vertical climb and thus clearly defining the vertical axis.

AS judges, we should be assessing each manoeuvre on how close it comes to
rule book perfection. Pilots may then feel confident that they will receive
higher scores for flying closer to the rules.

Keep up the good work. I look forward to seeing the interactive judging
program when it is ready. Thank you, again, Keith, for all your hard work
and dedication to our sport.

Best wishes,

Joan.

-----Original Message-----
From: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Keith Renecle
Sent: Monday, 29 June 2009 1:45 AM
To: F2B group
Subject: Help with my Judges training program

1. The definition of "horizontal & vertical."
2. The understanding of level flight at 45 degrees elevation angle, and

the tops of the square manoeuvres.

3. The 4-Leaf clover.

[Keith Renecle]

Hi Joan,

Thanks very much for the good feedback. I also agree that the pilots will
fly very much the way they do now, and I feel that the rules should follow
what is possible for the pilots and models to perform anyway. As you rightly
say, once pilots feel that thye are indeed being scored higher for patterns
closer to the rule shapes, we will see some changes, like smaller individual
loops and tighter corners in the squares etc.

From my tracking of many of the top pilots, I can say that the vertical
eight is the one manoeuvre that is performed closest to the rules when it
comes to the correct loops i.e. 45 degree arc. The individual loops are
mostly bigger. I think that this is due to the pilot's knowing that they
need to fit two loops in the space between level flight and vertical. Have a
look at this at the Euro champs and you'll see what I mean. Just by the way,
well done on being selected to judge there. You see, all the effort that you
put in in 2007 has paid off.

The other issue that I will explain with animations, is why the loops and
round horizontal eights are wider than the squares and square eights. I have
been testing the "building blocks" of my program here on new judges, and
I've had to modify things many times, but now it is all finally coming
together. As I've said before, my enthusiasm is greater than my programming
ability. Anyway, I'll keep plodding on with plenty of help from everyone.

Regards,

Keith

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.12.94/2207 - Release Date: 06/28/09
17:54:00

[Keith Renecle]

Hi Paul,

 

Well that's a great sacrifice, but I know full well that your efforts are appreciated, and you also have a really good team of helpers to work with. From all of us here in Darkest Africa, please wish everyone a wonderful Nats.

 

Regards,

 

Keith

[Peter G]

Dear Keith, dear friends

I am very happy and pleased to learn that your highly committed, and
very much appreciated work has meanwhile reached a stage where the
current rule may need to be modified in order to meet the requirements
of 3-D geometry and/or in order to adjust what was found to be
impractical during the last years of use of the Sporting Code.

In order to so in a proper and efficient way it is important to
understand and follow the rule change procedures defined by the
Sporting Code. Therefore and before commenting on suggested changes
(have no fear, I will...) I would first like to remind all of you of
the rules of the game as follows:

Entitled to submit rule change proposals are:

• The FAI /CIAM board
• NAC’s National Air sport Control Organisations or Aero Clubs
• Subcommittees (in our case the F2 subcommittee)

Proposals must be made in proper form, accurately documenting the
existing rule, the suggested change and the reason for change.

Proposals must be submitted to the FAI in Switzerland by November 15th
2009 latest.

Proposals are examined for being formally correct by the CIAM Bureau
and are inspected by the Subcommittee before being put on the Agenda
of the Plenary Meeting following.

Considering the 2 years rule freeze in force, changes can next be
agreed at the Plenary Meeting of 2010 for application from 1st January
2011;

What does this mean for us now?

• Being a sub-organisation of the F2 Subcommittee we are supposed to
accurately work out each and every rule change proposal and to submit
those, as a recommendation and in the requested format, to the F2
Subcommittee well before the 15th of November 2009.

• The Subcommittee decides whether to accept, modify or decline the
recommendations of the F2B working group.

• Rule change proposals accepted by the F2 Subcommittee will then be
put on the Agenda of the 2010 Plenary Meeting as change recommended by
the Subcommittee. Typically, the Plenary Meeting follows Subcommittee
recommendations by accepting the related proposals.

Therefore, what we must do from now on until approx. mid of October
2009 is to define very accurately every change requested and to
suggest in detail every modification of the code, based on the current
2009 version.

I will be happy to coordinate and comment such work and to make sure
formal requirements are met.

Please allow me to conclude the above a bit formalistic explanations
with an invitation to all of you to contribute to the making of a
better set of rules. At the end of this project, some when in October,
I wish to address the Subcommittee with a bundle of well based
proposals and I cannot do so with only a few of the F2B Working Group
members having actually contributed.

Kind regards,

Peter Germann, F2B Working Group Coordinator

Keith Renecle wrote:
> Dear friends,
>
> I am making much progress on my interactive judges training program. My new program works by using interactive video game type of 3-D graphics including voice tracks to explain everything. You may ask why not simply make a video program on a DVD? This is because the user cannot interact with a movie. Most of the lessons will include 3-D graphics that allow the user to interact with the sceneries. I will provide complete scripts for the voice tracks so that they can be translated into any language. Basic software will be provided on the master DVD to record the voice tracks, and I will include a tutorial on exactly how to do this. Any PC compatible headset (like Skype headsets) with a microphone can be used to make these recordings.
>
> This all sounds very good, but now I am at an impasse once again. I need all to agree on certain important issues before I can continue. If we cannot agree on these very basic principles then there is certainly no point in going any further with this project. It is a huge amount of work, and I most certainly do not want to promote any idea's that could be misunderstood as my own personal idea's. Please read the paragraphs below carefully and then we can hopefully all engage in some constructive discussions on these issues.
>
> C/L Stunt rules
>
> Rules for flying C/L stunt, whether they be AMA or F2B, must inform both pilots and judges exactly what is required of them, and should be done in the simplest way possible. The manoeuvre diagrams and descriptions must agree with each other. It should be possible for someone who has never even seen a stunt competition to look at a manoeuvre diagram, and to understand exactly how the shape should be performed. How difficult can this be?? We have single axis (pitch) models that can only fly straight ahead, or turn up or down. Because these models are tethered to the pilot, all flight paths are circular. This limits our manoeuvres to basic two-dimensional shapes, when viewed by the pilot.
>
> The rules must be technically perfect so that there is no need for anyone to try and make their own interpretation. Technically perfect does not mean that the rules need to be complicated. We have one size round loop that is applied to the inside, outside loops, and all of the figure eights. The straight line shapes, are the only shapes with a small amount of complexity. Right now, we are so close to having a good set of rules, that it is a shame that we have not taken the progress made at the 2007 workshop in Belgrade to the point where the necessary corrections have been put forward. I fully accept some of the responsibility for not pushing these points a little harder to the stunt community. After spending these last few years trying to develop my new program, I have much more knowledge and experience on the subject, so now is a good time to sort out these finer details. Here is my list of what needs to be clarified and/or changed in the F2B rules.

> 1.. The definition of "horizontal & vertical."
> 2.. The understanding of level flight at 45 degrees elevation angle, and the tops of the square manoeuvres.
> 3.. The 4-Leaf clover.

[Keith Renecle]

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the information. I have actually spoken to CIAM President Bob
Skinner, who recommended exactly what you have said below. What I really
need now is for each country's representative to discuss the advantages of
such a standardized pc-based training system. To improve judges training, we
need to provide a system that shows exactly how the manoeuvre shape is
supposed to look from any point of view. This is not difficult for me to do
right now, but I need rules that are geometrically correct.

The square shapes as they are in the rules now, are indeed geometrically
correct, but no pilot or model can actually fly the correct shape as
described with the "curve" of flying parallel to the ground at the top. One
simple change that states that the tops should be a straight line, will
correct this, and the shape will be the one that is "more or less" flown by
the pilots. I say "more or less" because the 1,5 metre radius corners cannot
be flown with our present heavy models and flight speeds. I have suggested 3
metre radius corners before, but there seems to be a lot of emotional
opposition to that proposal, although it looks just as sharp......even on
drawings! let's leave that one foe a future time.

I have been told many times that our sport is not an exact science, it is an
art form. While I would agree that watching a well-performed pattern is
certainly like a really good work of art, the rules themselves must be an
exact science. Our sport is about a perfect set of manoeuvres that imperfect
human pilots are trying to fly, and be judged by imperfect human judges.
This is our challenge, ladies and gentleman! We design models to get closer
to that illusive perfect flying performance. Pilots practice incredible
amounts of time to get closer to that illusive perfect pattern. So what I
really trying hard to do is to find a better way to train judges to see a
few more finer points of our stunt pattern that will certainly improve
things a step further, and at the same time, make it more interesting for
judges to learn these principles.

What will happen initially, is that the high scores that we see now, will
drop down a bit, but soon the pilots will adapt as they begin to see that
the judges are indeed given better scores for patterns that are flown closer
to the rules. It will never be perfect, I know, but it will be another good
step forward as we have been doing since the working group was started.

The real problem manoeuvre at this time is the 4-Leaf Clover. As described
in our rules and diagram, it cannot be drawn or "flown" (animated) even on a
computer. How do we expect our pilots to fly such a shape, or our judges to
judge this?? It is so easy to correct, but there are two basic options, with
a third option of a change in the entry point that is far more sensible. I
have shown these options in many of my articles and workshops, but maybe it
will be better for me to do another article with drawings, and traced flight
paths etc. to explain this in one single document. If this is the case I am
willing to do this, and put it on a website for download. Please let me
know. Thanks.

Regards,

Keith R

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter G" <peterd...@bluewin.ch>
To: "F2B Group" <f2b-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: Help with my Judges training program

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Peter G]

F2B Rule Changes for 2011; Deadline November 15th 2009

Following up on Keith Renecle’s post entitled: „Help with my Judges
training program“ from June 30 2009 and considering the very liitle
time available to come up with formally correct F2B Group suggestions
to the F2 Subcommittee I now recommend to start the discussion of
potentially required rule changes in the same order: as the issues
have been brought up by Keith:

1. The definition of "horizontal & vertical."

2. The understanding of level flight at 45 degrees elevation angle,

and the tops of the square manoeuvres.

3.The 4-Leaf clover.

In order to efficiently structure the hopefully vivid discussion I
will open separate threads for each of the issues in the above
sequence.

Peter Germann

[Massimo Semoli]

Dear Peter, Keith and all,
I was tasked by the Italian NAC and Aeromodelling Federation to prepare the
training course for F2B judges that will take place at the end of November
2009. Considering my engagement for the December CIAM Bureau meeting, my
challenge is to prepare a presentation and relevant material by the end of
October. I don't know if I will be able to meet the date, I will try.
Anyway, I have to consider the current sporting rules, but Keith, I need
your material since extremely useful for describing and explaining the
judges perspective view of the maneuvers.

Here below my proposal of a roadmap for judges training and any suggestion
is welcomed.
We need to work on the judging training and we have to recruit as many as
possible judges. It is useless to speak about rules precision and
perspective understanding, if the judges don't evaluate the maneuvers with a
systematic and reliable method. And we have too small number of judges. We
need more for choosing the most prepared ones.

My main goal during the last year with the Italian judges was to fight
against the "impression" and "emotion". I think they are the main reason of
unpredictable and unreliable way of judging. The main mitigation for
"impression" is to use always the deduction system but with a proper
evaluation of the weight of the errors for each maneuver (for example a
proper evaluation of the 45 degrees and of the corners). The main mitigation
for "emotion" is to remain cold and to avoid to deduct more scores than
required only because, for example, a top flyer made only one error even if
minor.
That require proper trained judges since the concentration should remain
constant and high for all the flights of the day. "impression" and
"comparison" require less concentration but the results are not fair for the
flyers.
I would like to highlight this issues in my presentation at the judge
training course.

Best Regards
Massimo Semoli


ROADMAP FOR F2B JUDGE TRAINING COURSE

IN THE CLASSROOM:
a) path and evaluation of the preparation and experience of judges.
From the regional events, to the national events, international events and
continental championships.
b) explanation of the current rules
c) specific hints relevant to the judging evaluation (deduction system,
weight of errors for each maneuver, common errors, expected quality of each
maneuver, judge impression, judge emotion, pilot body position, etc.)
d) error representations (a common language). We need a feedback from
the judges during the evaluation of the test flights. It will be based on
the presentation I did at Belgrade 2007.
e) judges perspective view of the maneuvers using the Keith's material
f) sequence and description of the test flights that will be executed
on the flying circle.
g) after the test flight evaluations, discussion about the results
obtained.

ON FLYING CIRCLE:
a) check of the evaluation aids: flying circle markers, walky talky, 45
degrees ruler, plumb line, etc.
b) first test flights with all the judges behind the judge master
discussing and explaining together the flights. Repetition and correction of
the required maneuvers talking with the pilot via walky talky devices.
c) examples of the practical use of the common error representation
c) dedicated test flights with specific maneuver execution for
understanding: leveled flight, inverted flight, 45 degrees flight, use of 45
degrees horizontal markers, use of pilot and his arm positions, etc.
d) normal flight executions where each judge evaluates the flights and
identifies the errors using the common error representation. Join discussion
at the end of each flight.
e) Evaluation of the judge perspective for specific maneuvers.





-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: f2b-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:f2b-...@googlegroups.com] Per conto
di Keith Renecle
Inviato: mercoledì 1 luglio 2009 7.45
A: f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Oggetto: Re: Help with my Judges training program

[Keith Renecle]

Hi Massimo,

Thanks so much for taking this step forward. It is very encouraging, because
I feel very much the same way as you about this judging story. To start off,
we need to state exactly what we are trying to do in judging c/l stunt. In
very simple terms we are trying to judge how close each competing pilot is
flying to our rules. I like your point about fighting "emotion"
and "impression" because we really have to become like a computer and try
hard to be totally objective. This is not easy for us humans to do, because
we are indeed emotional beings.

Here is a statement of fact from what I have observed after many years in
this business.

"It is much easier to train new judges than to try to improve seasoned
judges
with bad habits!"

I am not saying this to offend anyone, because I believe that we do indeed
have some really good experienced judges. We just do not have enough, so we
need to have a training program whereby new judges can be taught correctly
from the start. This is a wonderful opportunity that we have right now, so
we must do this properly. Our stunt models fly around in circles and can
only fly straight ahead or turn either way, so this is fairly easy to
explain once these principles are clearly understood. This is where my
interactive training and animated graphics work very well. It is still a
necessity to identify people to train as judges that have a good eye for
shapes and seeing things in perspective. Just like pilots, you will always
get some with this ability, and some that will never get the idea. This is
why I like your idea about getting feedback in practical training sessions
at the flying field.

So right now to make sure that we can do all of these nice things, we need
to sort out the basic principles that I have requested. I think that we are
all in agreement on the vertical and horizontal clarification, so the next
point is the straight line definition which is very close to the truth
already, but then we have added that the tops of all of the square
manoeuvres are to be flown as "parallel to the ground." If we change this to
a "straight line path that peaks at 45 degrees" in each of the square loop
and square eight definitions, then it will work out properly.

In the actual definition, we can simply add that this flight path is in fact
a great circle path, or a path with no change in direction or heading. We
already state that in all triangular and square manoeuvres these lines
should appear as straight lines to the pilot, but then we mess it all up by
stating that the tops of the squares must be flown parallel to the ground.
Parallel to the ground is a curved flight path from any perspective, even
the pilot's. This is also where the problem comes in with the clover by the
way. The horizontal flight path in the drawing shows a straight line, but
the description says to fly parallel to the ground. In the squares this line
cannot be flown because, as I explained, there is simply not enough time
between the corners. In the clover however, it can indeed be flown parallel
to the ground, but then the drawing is incorrect. This is why I keep
asking.......which clover do we want??

I must stress once again, that all of this will not immediately effect the
way that the pilots fly these manoeuvres, so there is no need for any pilots
to get "emotional" about us making silly changes once again. The pilots
already fly the squares with 4 straight lines, and almost every pilot also
flies the horizontal path of the clover by locking the elevator and heading
"straight" to the next loop. I have traced so many of the best pilots, so I
know this for a fact. What these changes will do, is to make judges more
aware of these finer points, and thereby make them see more finer details.
This is exactly what we are trying to achieve, isn't it?

So to summarize what I have said, the square story is a simple matter of
clarification, the clover is another matter because we need to make a
positive change to the rules to fix this manoeuvre that has never been
defined correctly. I have a copy of the 1963 Model Airplane News where
Charles Mackey showed with his wire-frame shadow projection system that the
clover is all wrong, so this is nothing new that I have cooked up. After 40
years or so, I really believe that it is now time to fix this once and for
all. There only two basic options for the clover, but this needs each
country to decide on which rule change they would prefer. As I said, I am
willing to do another article on the clover if this is what is needed from
me. I would like to make my training simulation to be 100% accurate. Thanks,
and as Peter asks, could we get some more input from all of the
representatives?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.10/2230 - Release Date: 07/10/09
17:57:00

[Keith Renecle]

Hi All,

 

I have written a short article on what I've said in my last e-mail. There are number of photo's and drawings as well. I hope that this helps to understand what I am stating. It is in pdf format for those of you that use other operating systems like Mac and Linux etc.

 

Regards,

 

Keith R