Home › Forums › Free Flight › Everything Else › Proposed Concurrent AMA Flyoffs
- This topic has 67 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 2 months ago by JLorbiecki.
01/14/2009 at 3:44 am #41046
AMA’s contest format is simple: fly the three “regular” flights, and proceed to the flyoffs if you are maxed out, period. NFFS follows the same format.
Fliers arrive at the field at different times, fly one event until they drop, at which point they proceed to the next event or exhaust their model boxes. One flier could be making his first A-gas flight, and the flier next to him is making his 9th B-gas flight. By three or four in the afternoon, the fliers who have podium positions in their respective events congregate for the award ceremony. On Sunday, many request their awards earlier to head home early. In short, this is an atomic contest format with a common award ceremony.
This is to propose an alternative, within each of the current event specific rules (motor runs, max times etc.). It is suggested that all regular flights be completed by a set time, say 12 or 1 PM. The cutoff time could be published in advance and modified (pushed back) to accommodate the number of fliers and the field conditions. After 12 or 1 PM, the fliers who are maxed out will proceed to a series of flyoffs from a designated flight line perpendicular to the wind. The flights will have to be made within a 10-minute window. This window is copied from FAI, allowing one to start a stubborn engine or blow a rubber motor or two. Following FAI, rubber motors will have to be wound within the 10-minute window.
For example, if three fliers are maxed out in A-gas, they will fly head-to-head in the first flyoff and this will be repeated until there is a winner. The fact they are flying together allows the CD to modify the flyoff maxes if needed. So, in windy conditions, the maxes could be curtailed. (One should also differentiate between Saturday and Sunday. At least on Saturday, if flyoffs are not completed by the award ceremony, they could be continued in the evening). In events with excess performance, like B-electric at the moment, the CD could also reduce the motor runs as well. And if it’s very calm, the CD in a large flying site could announce a flight to the ground to end the contest.
It is quite likely that a number of fliers would be maxed in two or more events. For the sake of simplicity, suppose a number fliers are maxed out in both A and B-gas. The CD can announce the A-gas flyoff first; and when the fliers have returned, then fly the B-gas flyoff. Furthermore, the CD can, to save time, hold concurrent flyoffs in different events, grouping gas events, rubber events and glider events on Sundays.
The common flyoffs allow one to fly head-to-head against other fliers and winning an event will be done against real opponents. Flyoffs are also a spectacle and will attract many of the people on the field. In short, this brings back a competition atmosphere currently laking in AMA events.
Speaking to fliers about this proposal seems to always bring up satisfying flyoff memories. It could be a simultaneous flyoff at a recent Nats, or the old Canadian fly-to-the-ground at Camp Borden.01/14/2009 at 7:04 am #46872
No.01/14/2009 at 8:48 am #46873LAITHE MARRA SRParticipant
Here’s an idea, how about NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 👿 Thank’s Dan.01/14/2009 at 3:13 pm #46874DENNIS KARGOLParticipant
No also!!!01/14/2009 at 3:27 pm #46875
In effect you’re proposing flyoffs in rounds, dependent upon all concerned retrieving and being back in time for the next . .and only the FAI flyers like rounds ….. Not for me.
I spent well over 30 years with the one-shot time to the ground flyoff in England (where it’s still the dominant method) and, later, more years in Canada when numbers were greater and anything other than FAI was still being flown. I prefer it to continual or progressive maximums.01/14/2009 at 8:30 pm #46876Ed HardinParticipant
Add my NO to the list
Ed01/15/2009 at 2:45 am #46877
Holding concurrent flyoffs actually reintroduces the CD as an active player (scheduling the flyoffs and their max times and possibly curtailing motor runs). Currently, maxes are fixed in advance, which means that curtailing the max due to bad weather is not fair to the fliers who have flown. In fact, I’ve been told by a well known AMA personality that AMA contests run themselves. Yes, and they are rigid as well.
Concurrent flyoff might be a bit of a nuisance but they do not impede attempts to set records. One can fly the three “regular” flights as part of the contest and then proceed to break the record in question. These flights are unofficial from the CDs point of view as they are flown before the official flyoffs. The record breaker can then rejoin the flying and participate in the flyoffs. And if he wins without dropping, continue the record breaking marathon.
Another objection could be logistics. Under the current rules, if one plans to fly four events, each event can be flown sequentially to completion. The model can then be safely stored back in the box or the back of the van. Under concurrent flyoffs, however, if three of the events are contested, and the flier is clean in two events (as well as others) then he/she has to wait until the official flyoffs to complete the two events.
As to Jim’s point. Note that I’m only suggesting concurrent flyoffs not rounds of concurrent flyoffs. The intent is to allow enough time for all contestants to retrieve their models before starting the next flyoff – if another one is needed. Remember, our numbers are very low and that this is a flexible framework not a stray jacket.
If we look back into the mists of history, we will find that the AMA rules evolved in a period with very few events (Probably 1/2A, A, B and C) and an abundance of contestants. Stories of hundred or more fliers at theNats held in the late 40s and early 50s explain why these rules were simple to administer. The massive participation definitely left a lasting impression on on those who participated.
Perhaps the closest sport to AMA flying is golf, where players try and beat their own handicaps. Golf, by nature, can’t accommodate more than four players on a green. So to raise interest in televised tournaments, the best players play last, which means that the spectators on the 16th, 17th and 18th holes as well as the TV audience get a chance to observe winning or loosing shots towards the very end of the tournament. And then, if there is a tie, the two players go head-to-head in a tie breaker. The organizers definitely make every effort to make the game more exciting. I also think that the top players enjoy playing againsts each other.
Fast forward. We now have the opposite situation – a myriad of AMA and NFFS events flown by a small number of contestants. Except in a handful of large meets, AMA contests lack excitement and suspense, which is why we should reevaluate AMA contest rules.
Obviously, there should be a consensus at least to experiment. May be fliers will really like a different format.01/15/2009 at 3:15 am #46878Dean McGinnesParticipant
No thank you. FAI in rounds is boring enough without inflicting it on the rest of us.
I would fly Coupe if it were not in rounds. Same reason I avoid ALL FAI events.01/15/2009 at 3:25 am #46879
No.01/15/2009 at 3:45 am #46880
>Note that I’m only suggesting concurrent flyoffs not rounds of concurrent flyoffs.
Similar sort of thing… other than that flyers have to hang around for an indefinite period of time until a further flyoff is called
>Same reason I avoid ALL FAI events.
Same reason I gave up decades ago. I can make better use of a day than being tied to one event, flying heavy airplanes.
No.01/15/2009 at 1:02 pm #46881
Concurrent flyoffs only apply to events with multiple fliers.
According to this proposal, flyoff could begin at 12 or 1 PM. When to actually begin the flyoffs can be flexible. If only two or three fliers are flying a particular AMA event, they could decide among themselves to start the flyoffs as soon at they are all done with their regular flights. I’m sure any reasonable CD will concur. On the other hand, because Camp Borden has powerful early afternoon thermals, it would be wise to begin flyoffs later in the day. Having to wait for other fliers to retrieve their models in a flyoff depends on how the CD is managing the contest. We both agree that flyoffs should not be extended beyond what is reasonable.01/15/2009 at 2:04 pm #46882
I have a better idea.
Show up at dawn.
Line everybody up.
Launch at a signal.
Last one down wins.
Now go home.
Wouldn’t that be nice. Now we wouldn’t need to waste a day at the field and maybe we could get a round of golf in, also.01/15/2009 at 4:34 pm #46883LAITHE MARRA SRParticipant
I’ve got it, I’ll quit building from scratch, I’ll order a pre-built model from Europe or maybe Russia, this will allow me more time to stand in front of the mirror and perfect a “launch pose.” 🙄 Oh, then I can convert my barbecue into a towable thermal generator and offer my “lofting”services 😆01/15/2009 at 6:05 pm #46884
>It is suggested that all regular flights be completed by a set time, say 12 or 1 PM.
So, in effect, only the morning is available for flying events and those who didn’t max out might just as well go home? I prefer to fly events all day on the limited occasions I have an opportunity to do so and I surely wouldn’t drive a couple of hundred miles to a half-day contest
> After 12 or 1 PM, the fliers who are maxed out will proceed to a series of flyoffs /// for example, if three fliers are maxed out in A-gas, they will fly head-to-head in the first flyoff and this will be repeated until there is a winner.
Repeated until there is a winner. In other words … concurrent consecutive flyoffs.
As far as Borden is concerned, it’s immaterial. The only events flown there now are FAI, at Huron and Canada Cup dates.
I appreciate the thought you’ve given to this, Aram, and the initiative taken.. but the answer is still NO!
Regards J01/16/2009 at 3:14 pm #46885
After speaking with a few people about concurrent flyoffs, it became evident that this proposal will separate record attempts from regular contests, as it would be incumbent on a CD to end the contest on the same day.
If the event happened to be B-electric, its clear that a 10-second motor run with a two minute max would not do the job – as demonstrated by Jim Jennings at the last Nationals (24 flights). Obviously, termination such a contest could not be done with a framework of concurrent flyoffs (the second place only made 12 flights). A reasonable CD would have used a combination of motor run reductions and or longer maxes to bring the contest to closure. This would have solved the event’s over performance “locally.” (Trying to reduce the event’s motor run through the Contest Board Committee has fallen into the 2-year rule cycle, which will be effective on January 1st 2011).
Besides facilitating head-to-head flyoffs, the other implications of this proposal are enhancing the active role of CD’s and well as the separation of contests from record attempts. These implications can be viewed positively or negatively.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.