SEN 3364

1. RCDT in FF Scale
2. Progress Towards Automated Timing

 

 RCDT in FF Scale

Roger,
Ahh, that old conspiracy, used to deflect to the ‘dead cat’ once again.
Look, duration FF over here (like what we do) is administered by the Free Flight Technical Committee (FFTC) of the British Model Flying Association (BMFA). Scale flying is administered (wait for it !) by the Scale Technical Committee of the BMFA which operates independently of the FFTC. So when the rule for RCDT was proposed by the FFTC the Scale guys were told about it and it confirmed that it would not apply to them. As far as I know the Scale TC have no intention to introduce a RCDT rule.

However, your NZ scale friend should know that due to former duration FF bods moving to FF scale, the performance of such models and thermal seeking has increased leaps and bounds and I read* that models are being equipped with trackers and DT’s and thence likely RCDT to avoid loss. A rumour exists that these models are now so good that they can max as per their duration brothers and it is only a matter of time before a FF Scale model wins Combined Rubber (think sort of AMA Rubber) at our Nationals.

*I got this from Grok so it must be correct, obviously.

EoB – mostly VLoS this morning but SEE has her hands on The Button just in case

Editors comment
I must say that I am shocked  that one section of BMFA have placed special safety related constraints on a class of Free Flight aircraft e.g. RDT while another section of that Illustrious organization has not required it on what is materially the same type of aircraft in perhaps disregard of the safety of the general public

  Progress Towards Automated Timing

From: Chris Edge

Roger,

I’m pleased Allard clarified the use of automated timing for FAI contest in SEN 3363 as not being legal: basically you need to present continuous data. This of course may explain the limited number of flights recorded at the World Champs in the miniNeuron database as simply the competitor couldn’t present such data as an alternative time.

Editor’s comment ; CHE – you and I are both geographically challenged (i.e. not living between the Greenwich meridian and 30 degrees E = not being able to drive to FF contest of importance)  – you being way past the edge of Beyond and me spending more time across the ditch or on the other side of the 405 BUT I suspect should have we been able to observe the processes at most of the important  recent Cat 1 and Cat 2 events  (those between 0 and 30 E degrees of longitude) we would have seen a significant number of people using their certified altimeter effectively in the spirit of getting a sporting result but perhaps no sporting code handy.. The main reason people do not put their flight times in About time system is that it could be to their disadvantage when their timer mis times in their favor – which happens more frequently than it should , but that’s free flight .

I had raised the issue of automated times being used at Champs elsewhere and, given it had been previously suggested that they were legal, I had raised some questions of how such processed information has been tested and how the apps were QA’d and updated for use. To move forward with the idea of automated timing, such questions should be aired and so with a change of tense I would like to offer them here for discussion; it is probably worth referring back to Frederiks comments in SEN 3362 as well.

Comment :- If the ‘automated’ flight log could be used for alternative timing then an algorithm will calculates the launch and landing points and presents the time. Frederik says that this filters ” the oscillation and it detects well the landing time”; I assume this oscillation can lead to some variation in the flight time as discussed in the SEN3362 depending if you use the continuous mode or the automated one. To move forward therefore we need to know :-

Would the algorithm that determines the launch and landing times be mandated as identical between any certified altimeters and would it therefore be available to anyone who wishes to certify another altimeter ?
How would the algorithm(s) be tested and who defines if any changes are accurate ?
How would any changes to the app be certified through CIAM as these could clearly involve changes to the algorithm and associated flight time ? And associated, will only the latest certified app be allowed in the automated calculation of flight time and how would this be checked ?
Given that the same data (raw or processed) can give different values and that these differences can lead to a competitor proceeding to the next stage of a contest or not, which value would the Contest Director use when the altimeter data is mandated ?
What are these ‘oscillations’ that are seen on landing data ? Could the algorithm actually be ‘fooled’ by extreme cases of these or has testing covered all cases ?

Note that I’m not going to back to the issue of if all launches/landings can be determined because we all know they can’t using height data alone; that’s another subject entirely.

To my (small) mind it’s obvious that a common output data format should be defined for automated timing and the CD be issued with a CIAM approved unit equipped with a tested and QA’d app that reads the file and calculates the flight time accordingly. This would the correct professional approach.

EoB – currently at 750 feet and not moving

 Further comment from editor. When you question the validity of the processes to certify equipment. I think we should start with the validity of the provesses used to test the capabilities of the officals who run our contests , starting with eye sight of the time keepers ?

SEN Status

Our new web site is online with archives of SEN going back to 1997 plus many items about FAI Free Flight. It can be found at http://www.faifreeflight.org

Existing SEN subscribers can update their preferences by following the update your preferences link at the bottom of this page.

New users can sign up at  this link http://eepurl.com/crOnvj
or at the SEN website

 
…………..
Roger Morrell