2011 F2B wording errors

[Pavel Macek]

Dear members,

I have identified some wording errors. These errors are discussed during the European Championship in Poland with Joan, Masimo and Stefan.

1. Rule 4.2.15.14. c) The overhead and dive 2nd turn, wingover, and 3rd turn segment is:

"The length of the overhead segment, including its 2 turns, should be slightly more than ⅛ of a lap. This segment should be followed by a sharp outside turn through approx. 120 degrees into an inverted dive, which is maintained on a flight path angled at approx. 30 degrees to the base."

and should properly be:

"The length of the overhead segment, including its 2 turns, should be slightly more than ⅛ of a lap. This segment should be followed by a sharp outside turn through approx. 120 degrees into an inverted dive, which is maintained on a flight path angled at approx. 30 degrees past the right angle (relative to the base)."

According to SC Vol. ABR page 5 is:

"The use of “shall” and “must” implies that the aspect concerned is mandatory. The use of “should” implies a non-mandatory recommendation; “may” implies what is permitted or what might happen, and “will” indicates what is going to happen. Words of masculine gender should be taken as including the feminine gender unless the context indicates otherwise. Italics are used for explanatory notes."

than:

2. rule 4.2.15.14. e) The fourth turn and bottom level flight segment is:

"At the completion of the dive segment, the model aircraft should turn sharply into normal upright level flight at the height of the base (+/- 30 cm). The bottom segment shall be flown along the base maintaining the established height. The length of this segment, including 2 turns, should be slightly more than ⅛ of a lap."

and should properly be:

"At the completion of the dive segment, the model aircraft should turn sharply into normal upright level flight at the height of the base (+/- 30 cm). The bottom segment should be flown along the base maintaining the established height. The length of this segment, including 2 turns, should be slightly more than ⅛ of a lap."

3. rule 4.2.15.15. Manoeuvre size is:

"The top of loops shall be directly over the centre of the circle and lowest points of both loops must being tangential to the 45 degree parallel."

and should properly be:

"The top of loops should be directly over the centre of the circle and lowest points of both loops should be tangential to the 45 degree parallel."

What is your opinion on these issues?

Regards,

Pavel Macek

[Peter Germann]

Thank you, Pavel

 

I have no objections, other than that the wording must be examined by Jo Halman for clarity and language. Once found to be ok, I do suggest incorporating the clarifictions as suggested into the next version of the Code.

 

Kind regards,

 

Peter Germann

F2B Working Group Coordinator

---

--
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/-/gh2IcPfJoDEJ.
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.

[Peter G]

Here is Peter Halmans point of view re  "should" and "shall":

 

Dear Peter

I am not sure that it is wise to change "shall" to "should" in 4.2.15.14. e and 4.2.15.15. because "should" is only a recommendation, therefore if the pilot does not conform he cannot be marked down.

 

I think that the clarifications will in any case have to go to Plenary.

 

Best regards, Peter

[Pavel Macek]

Thank You Peter.

 

Statistic of using the wording “shall“ or “must“ and “should“ in the description of manoeuvres:

 

rule	“shall” or “must”	“should”
4.2.15.	0 / 1	0
4.2.15.1.	0	0
4.2.15.2.	4 / 0	0
4.2.15.3.	0 / 1	7
4.2.15.4.	0	11
4.2.15.5.	0	7
4.2.15.6.	0	2
4.2.15.7.	0	7
4.2.15.8.	0	8
4.2.15.9.	0	9
4.2.15.10.	0	10
4.2.15.11.	0	16
4.2.15.12.	0	21
4.2.15.13.	0	16
4.2.15.14.	1 / 0	12
4.2.15.15.	1 / 1	13
4.2.15.16.	0	16
4.2.15.17.	2 / 0	3
total	8 / 3	158

 

Wording “should“ is normally used for flight path description.

Wording “shall“ or “must“ is used for rule, where no other alternatives allowed, for example:

4.2.15.2. … 10 points shall be awarded if the above 1 minute condition is fulfilled, …

4.2.15.2. … mark 0 (zero) shall be given if no hand signal is given …

4.2.15.3. a) … The model aircraft must take off from the ground.

4.2.15.17. b) … a “2 point” or a “3 point” touch down shall be judged as equally correct.

Using of this wording in this cases is OK in my opinion.

 

But rule:

4.2.15.14. e) … The bottom segment shall be flown along the base maintaining the established height. …

is for me the same case using of wording as rule:

4.2.15.10. d) … The aircraft should then turn sharply into upright level flight along the base (+/- 30 cm).

or rule:

4.2.15.12. e) … and this section should be flown along the base (+/- 30 cm). …

This rule is description of ideally flight path, but deviation from this rule is not awarded a mark 0 (zero) or anulation of flight or disqualification of competitor.

 

Manoeuvre size description (rule 4.2.15.15.) is the same definition as a part of the flight path.

 

It si my view on this issue.

 

Regards Pavel

[Peter Germann]

Thank you very much, Jo. There are, of course, no objections from my side and I suggest incorporating the language improvements as is.

 

Kind regards, Peter Germann

---

Von: Jo Halman [mailto:jo.h...@ntlworld.com]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 27. November 2011 18:48
An: Peter Germann; f2b-...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Subcommittee F2
Betreff: Re: AW: 2011 F2B wording errors

 

Dear Peter et al

 

Inexcusable delay in my response.  The green text is good English and clear.

 

Best regards, Jo

CIAM Technical Secretary

 

From: Peter Germann

Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 3:51 PM

To: f2b-...@googlegroups.com

Cc: Subcommittee F2 ; Jo Halman

Subject: AW: 2011 F2B wording errors