SEN 3365

1. Why not RDT
2. About Reading your al-te-meter and the other one  too
3. Response to Editor’s Comment

 

Why not RDT

From: Roy E. Smith
I do find it worrisome that our friends ‘across the pond’ have chosen to use the acronym RCDT to denote radio activated de-thermalizers.  It implies Radio Control – which could be the first step in the regulating authorities classifying Free Flight under the same heading as Radio Control model aircraft – or Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) as Transport Canada likes to classify those machines.  Why not the simple RDT that has been adopted on this side of the pond – so as not to imply that there is any sort of ‘control’ over the aircraft???
I shall be intrigued to see the first scale Tiger Moth win the F1C event at the world championships.  Perhaps the great Roy Summersby, from ‘down-under’, could lead the way – he has demonstrated extraordinary skill in the Scale category as well as in F1C.
Roy E. Smith

About Reading your al-te-meter and the other one  too

From:Can Tezcan

I don’t agree with Allard how he explains the situation with altimeters.

According to the rule Sporting code F1.1.4
To make results comparable, each altimeter needs a zero reference (ground level).
This zero comes from the stable period before the flight:
* F1A (gliders): before the helper lets go.
* F1B (rubber): before the model leaves the hand.
* F1C (power): before the motor is started.
* The electronic altimeter must produce a graph (trace) that clearly shows at least 10 seconds of level line before launch.

This guarantees that “0 m” really is the ground baseline and   that the zero baseline was correctly captured.
Up to this point everything is correct and exactly as stated in the rule book. However, the book does not explicitly require that the measurement must be done by hand. If the software algorithm is advanced enough, which is the case in both Apps, it can correctly identify the 10-second ground level and produce an accurate measurement. For that reason, I don’t see any rule violation in the use of these altimeters, especially since both have been certified by Allard himself.

Schöne Grüße
Can Tezcan

Response to Editor’s Comment 

From: Chris Edge

Roger,

In SEN 3364 you specifically commented on my input :-

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 processes used to test the capabilities of the officals who run our contests , starting with eye sight of the time keepers ?

I totally agree ! We are supposed to be a serious sport but arguable aren’t consistent with THE most important part, that of timekeeping. I’ve been to many championships and the differences are striking. The best by far were in Mongolia where young people were trained over a few years, supplied with the right equipment, fed, likely paid (not sure on that) and transported too and from the site. Every morning of the World Champs there was a briefing by the CD and two timekeepers allocated to each pole. If there was any query of capability then that individual was removed –  there were sufficient spares on site to cover. How do I know all this ? Well I was also a ‘guest’ timekeeper in that group and honestly they were superb: able to use binoculars, willing to stand up to time, very accurate on engine runs and a great pleasure to work with. This is the standard that should be followed I’m sure you’ll agree. So why doesn’t it happen ? I’ll let you comment here.

Now back to automated timing. You know what I write is logical, sensible and an appropriate way forward so be positive and adopt it/modify as required and get in place ASAP if that’s the right way forward; I’m happy to be part of the process that does that. But to suggest we replace one thing that doesn’t work well with something else that may not either (until we test it for all eventualities) isn’t a viable argument.

EoB – the voice of logic ?

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