Jury Report on 2000 Free Flight European Championships F1A F1B F1C
FAI Jury
Ian Kaynes | GBR | FF S/C Chairman |
Pavel Wlodarczyk | POL | CIAM delegate of Poland |
Marius Conu | ROM | CIAM alternate delegate of Romania |
Location
The Championship were organised by the Romanian Modelling Federation at Buzau, Romania.
Dates
From August 19 to 25 2000
Communications
2 bulletins were issued in advance of the event, one at the CIAM March 2000 meeting and the second after that meeting. The second bulletin presented timetable and also gave maps, but unfortunately reference copies of neither of these were available at the event.
Participation
24 countries participated in the Championship, with 69 flying in F1A, 65 in F1B and 36 in F1C, including the defending champions flying independently in F1A and F1B. The defending champion in F1C flew within the Ukraine team
Accommodation
The standard accommodation provided for participants was in the Hotel Pietroasa in Buzau, 5km from the flying field. Alternative cheaper hotels were made available to participants requesting them. The accommodation was of a good standard. The camp site on the flying field was very basic.
Food
Breakfast and dinner in the hotels were good. The restaurant of the Hotel Pietroasa provided hot 3-course meals on the flying field, with very good quality food served effeciently within the 1 hr 15 min lunch break. Plentiful quantities of bottled water were provided during the flying days.
Flying field
The championships were flown on a dry grass field 3.5 x 5km at a distance of 3km from the city. The organisation was based on tents erected in the middle of the field and this tended to restrict movement of the starting line to make maximum use of the field. On some rounds models were descending from strong thermals to land in the unacceptable surrounding area, which included military units, factories, roads, railways and the city itself. The launching line was efficiently moved upwind after lunch on F1B day, following a round in which significant recovery problems had occurred. The recovery of some models was aided by the special labels provided by the organisers including organisers’ mobile phone numbers.
Timetable
Unfortunately the timetable had not been reviewed by a CIAM meeting. The timetable proposed by the Romanian Modelling Federation was followed but did not meet Sporting Code requirements because it did not have a minimum of two rounds with wind or thermal activity at a minimum. Sunrise was just after 6am and the frst round did not commence until 9am. Soon after dawn the usual local conditions would have met the requirement for little thermal activity but there was a significant local wind.
No plan had been set in place to allow for early breakfasts for officials or competitors in the event of an early morning flyoff being required..
The competition ran according to the published schedule for the seven rounds except for the short delay while the starting line was moved during F1B.
The proposed flyoff timetable had been over-ambitious in terms of the time necessary to prepare for a flyoff and would also have had the first two rounds in thermal conditions. It was agreed at the team managers’ meeting to commence flyoff round 1 at 18.30 and round 2 at 19.15. This was not achieved on either occassion and communication of the planned start time was poor.
Model processing
In accordance with the Sporting Code, on the preparation day models were checked against the certificates and each component was identitified with a rubber stamp. During the competition facilities were available to competitors for checking weights and towlines. At least the required 20% of models were checked during the competition. The winning models were processed after the event. No problems were found in any of the models checked.
Competition
The contest director, George Arghir, controlled the competition effectively and pleasantly. Start and finish of each round were indicated precisely and clearly by a flare. There was no countdown of time during the rounds, which can be useful as an additional reference. The only exception was the final flyoff round of F1B when, with only three competitors, there was no clear announcement of the start but there was a later countdown. A scoreboard was maintained but times were entered only at some time after the end of each round.
Timekeeping ran smoothly but with occasional incidents of the timing the wrong models (see protests) or models prematurely lost from sight. Most timekeepers were not using tripods which are advisory in the current Sporting Code. It is recommended that this be made mandatory and the FFSC should consider the possibilities of : (1) each team be required to bring tripods for the use of the organisers and (2) holding some form of timekeeper lessons to improve the standard of timekeeping and standardise techniques.
F1A had 31 competitors in the flyoff which was accommodated at the limit of available timekeepers. The first round started at 18.40. The second round was held at 19.40 when light was fading and models were difficult to see at low altitude.
The F1B flyoff had 29 competitors. The first round was at 19.00 and the second round at 19.45, leading to difficult visibility. Three competitors achieved the 7 minute maximum. The organisers choose to hold this in the morning according to the Sporting Code but, in view of logistic difficulties, to do this not on the next day but on the reserve day. On that morning the weather had changed and a cool strong wind (6 to 7 m/sec) was blowing but by that stage there remained no option of postponement. It was not ideal conditions for a flyoff . The models flew long distances so that visibility was difficult, however the results rewarded what appeared to be the best flight. With hindsight it would have been better to have reviewed making the final F1B flyoff on the F1C evening, particularly since no flyoffs were required in F1C.
It was notable that towards the end of the winning F1B flight, some of the timekeepers were disturbed by a spectator. Thankfully one timekeeper (with tripod) maintained sight of the model during this incident and so it did not affect the results. This could not have occurred if better control of the launch area had been imposed, since spectators were allowed close to the start position.
In F1C only one competitor completed seven maxima and so no flyoff was required.
The weather was very hot for most of the championships.
Protests
Three official protests were submitted during the championships..
1. During F1A a protest was made for unsporting conduct against the suspected use of a radio control dethermaliser during round 3. The model dethermalised immediately after a bad launch and landed in less than 20 sec for the flight to be classed as an attempt. The model was processed and the competitor interviewed. He demonstrated one option in the program of his electronic timer which gave an early DT after a failed launch. He also demonstrated an external add-on radio DT module which he used during practice flights and removed during competition. It was not possible to prove or disprove the actual cause of DT on this flight. The Jury rejected the protest since no infringement could be proved.
The incident demonstrated the difficulty of detecting the use of radio DT and this would only be removed by withdrawing the 20 sec attempt rule when the dethermaliser operates. Other attempt options also arise. The Jury recommend that the FFSC review the matter and make urgent proposals to maintain visible sporting integrity.
2. In F1B Finland protested against the score of one of their team in round 1 being entered as 206 when they had understood it had been a maximum 210. The protest was made only after completion of round 7. The competitor was allowed to fly in flyoff round 1 while the protest was studied. The jury ascertained that the timekeepers stood by the recorded time but a full investigation was difficult in view of the delay in protesting. The jury decided that this did not meet the requirements of B.14.2.b which states that protests against a decision of judges must be lodged immediately. Consequently the protest was ruled to be invalid, the fee was returned, the competitor’s original score stood and the safeguard flyoff flight was deleted.
It was noted that the scorecards in use had neither a space for team manager signature or copies for team managers, which practices help to disclose any misunderstandings.
3. Great Britain submitted a protest against timing of two of their competitors in round 1 of F1C. One model had made a short flight but the full duration had not been recorded by the timekeepers. In the other case the team claimed to have watched the model max easily while the timekeepers had timed another model which landed below the maximum, a difference which was to have a direct bearing on the final results. The timekeepers did not express any doubt about their timing and so the official time had to stand. The protest was rejected.
F1C requires particular discipline to check motor run and keep watching the model and then change to using binoculars, all in an ordered way between the timekeepers. The FFSC should review possible recommendations on procedures.
Prize-giving
This was held at the Hotel Pietroasa. The Romanian Modelling Federation provided cups, medals and diploma for the top three places in each class both individual and team. The Jack North Trophy for the best overall performance was presented for the first time, with Bosnia Herzegovina the winners. This was calculated using the Sproting Code national classification procedure which will be introduced formally in 2001. The banquet followed the prize-giving in the same restaurant, once more with very good food but with rather slow service to the large numbers present. A pleasant end to the championships.
Thanks
The jury wish to thank the Romanian Modelling Federation for organising the championships.