National Free Flight Society

SEN 2446

  1. Follow the Sporting Code
  2. Constructive Ideas Welcome
  3. We compete measuring pure flying time of our models

Follow the Sporting Code
From: Sergey Makarov

Dear SCAT,

I absolutely agree with Pierre. This discussion touch not only DT flyoff, but also others changes organizers do. There is just one thing that do aeromodelling as a sport – the sporting code. Sometimes organizers have his own special motivation, some sportsmen win, some drop, some agree, some against… There is one way to have and keep fair play in our sport – follow the sporting code!

Thermals, Sergey

Constructive Ideas Welcome
From: Ian Kaynes

I agree that a formal DT flyoff is not within the CIAM rules. But the high performance of models means that decisions are difficult to reach with a regular flyoff in the constraints of an open international event. An early morning flyoff the day following the last event is often not an option – requiring an extra day for competitors, organisers, timekeepers and permission to use the field. An alternative would be to have an early morning extra-long first round flight – but that would be as unpopular as the supermax scheme of a few years ago (knowing the likely “final result” before flying the rounds…)

Allard suggests that competitors could agree to an early DT as a gentleman’s agreement without supervision. I know exactly where that would go with some displays of reduced gentlemanliness.  The Salisbury Plain version was very little different but monitored. The decision of what to do was by a clear majority at a meeting of flyoff competitors. All DTed by the agreed time as monitored by the timekeepers and the flight duration was timed in the normal way.

There is one class which has a  solution to the long flyoff problem – F1Q has energy cut from 3 Joules in the rounds to 2 Joules in the flyoff. However, in the other event at Salonta on the weekend in question, the Salonta Cup, some competitors said they were not prepared for changing to 2 Joules and the organisers flew the event – against the rules – to 3 Joules energy. This resulted in a long flight and difficult retrieve for the Israeli models.

It is a real problem to determine the winners of a competition within the usual one-day flying period. However, if some short cut to a final result is put in the code then there is a high risk that organisers will take it as an easy option when its use is not essential.. Constructive ideas are very welcome.

Ian Kaynes

We compete measuring pure flying time of our models
From:Pierre Chaussebourg

1-The Président I mentioned was Sandy Pimenoff Président of CIAM!

2-For me, DT fly-off is like running a 100m backward, starting from the arrival line to the starting blocks: it has nothing to do with sprint. DT fly-off has nothing to do with Free flight

3-Most of the model flyers mostly free flight flyers have never read the sporting code. They believe they know the rules but they even don’t know where and how to find them

4-The rule makers: any flyer with an FAI licence is a rule maker. He has the right to make proposals for changing the rules through his NAC

5-Any FAI flyer if not satisfied has the right and the duty to make protests first to the Jury of the competition then to the World cup jury.
Any other comment is just bla-bla-bla !

6-I know and I understand that any contest need one winner: This is the aim of any compétition. We need to determine FF winners through the existing rules not according to « competitors or organisers or CDs agreements
Make proposals for new fly off rules. Look at other classes like F1E : it may give new ideas like adding ballast to models or reducing line length or rubber motor weight.

7-Free Flight is like Athletics : we compete measuring pure flying time of our models: best model with best flyer with best flying conditions