SEN 2241

Posted on by

SEN 2241 – Table of Contents

  1. We like flying the big boy’s toys
  2. Fishing on the side
  3. why isn’t home economics taught to gold fish anymore
  4.  Off or On the Subject
  5. Ski Jumping and other sports
  6. honestly assess
  7. CIAM Info

We like flying the big boy’s toys
Hi Roger
F1A seems to be being singled out as the class to have its wings clipped. All countries have field problems and we need to respect neighbouring properties, but that’s another issue. I support Ken Bauer’s response in SEN 2239 and would like to add to his comments. I turn 70 this year and love flying F1A although I am athletically challenged being over 60 when I first started flying this class. Albert Fathers, another ageing Aussie, also flies F1A with similar expectations. We fly for enjoyment and only ever aim to place in the top 50% in the big events. We realise only a small group will ever have the chance to win, and we accept that. This will be my seventh Fab Feb and I’ve enjoyed every one. We would never want F1A to be changed to make it easier for us, or others like us. It’s a great spectacle in its current format. We should accept that F1A, B and C at the international level cater for the elite sportsman and manufacturers. If we don’t accept that, we should move to a less demanding class where we could place higher or even win. Formula 1 has had a chequered history of good and bad rule changes, particularly in recent years, but very few drivers have won a Formula 1 Grand Prix without proven credentials and in the best car (on the day). So, no matter what rules are enforced, the cream will always come to the top. And some knee-jerk rule changes could easily affect the lesser flyer even more so. As yet, I haven’t seen “Eddie The Eagle” but I did sit through and enjoy “Cool Runnings”.

Happy New Year to all.
Malcolm Campbell AUS

Fishing on the side
Re: SEN 2239 from Jim Lueken

I’m a little late with this but I would like to comment on Martin Dilly’s comment about the weak link idea for A and how it affected F3B. I use to do a lot of fishing…A LOT. I purchased huge spools of line as I reloaded my reels every 2-3 fishing trips and I fished 3 times a week. Within these spools there was a large difference in quality. It’s impossible to control the quality of large spools of monofilament which is the most economical way to buy it. Hence, the issues that F3B went through. What might work better would be to develop a mechanical unit that could be more closely controlled and reset after it has been tripped.

More from the side (fishing lines) lines, Jim

why isn’t home economics taught to gold fish anymore
From: Murphy, Jack

All,
I had locked my soap box up with some other things I can’t find either… best to save one’s juice for topics that are worth sacrificing one’s good will and name but these debates about what should be done yada yada yada ad nauseam re: the performance potentiality of F1A, B, C, P and Q or the national debt or why isn’t home economics taught to gold fish anymore……. I think that-

a) the gravity of opinions expressed should be heavily weighted toward those who actually fly the event.

b) see A.

-j

Off or On the Subject
Editorial Comment

We don’t control the subject manner in SEN and if you wander or not. You the readers do . Allard wrote about his experiment about electronic timing and got some feed back. But none of you continued the discussion. I think that some of you thought it was a good idea and others not so good. But we did not come to a conclusion In the last issue Allard talked about a poll or survey. The mechanism we use for distributing SEN has a way of doing a poll of the registered readers and making sure that no one voted twice etc. We would be happy to do this and to work with people who would like to collect information about what our readers think on subjects such electronic timing , by altimeter or some other method. Send an email to sen@faifreeflight.org with the questions you want to ask.

It is clear there are a number of issues that trouble Free Flight (and having enough good time keepers is one) and we need address them. Maybe what we at SEN need to do after a subject has been bounced around for a couple of weeks is get one of the protagonists to firm up the issue with a polls or survey ?

Ski Jumping and other sports
From: Chris Edge
Captain SCAT,
Ken Bauer’s comparison with ski jumping is a very interesting one. You have the aerodynamics development, probably structure issues as well, and you even wait for ‘good air’ before you launch.

But what’s this ? The contest director makes a decision before every round on the safety of the jumped distances and will change, often reducing, the potential energy available to the competitor (via their release position up the hill) to ensure the distance jumped is safe. Other sports, I’m thinking the javelin in particular, have reacted to reductions in safety (a consequence of greater thrown distances) by changing the CG of the equipment so they now don’t fly as far.

Maybe if we re-phrase a ‘reduction in performance’ to ‘increase in safety’ (see Alan Jack’s past letters to SEN on this specific point) then we could see things more clearly. I agree with Ken that ski-jumping has much to teach us.

EoB

honestly assess
From: Ross Jahnke

Roger,
I agree with Ken Bauer. Please leave F1A,(and B and C) rules as they are
for the time being. Instead honestly assess your ambitions, commitment,
abilities, and circumstance and fly events that suit you, instead of
changing an event to suit you.

CIAM Info
Editor’s comment

We have included here a piece from Free Flight News written by Ian Kaynes. Normally we don’t re-publish items from FFn because it is their material and if you want to read it you should subscribe to FFn.

But as Ian points out in the article it may be some time before the FAI/CIAM publishes the information and it is very important because it concerns a number of critical rules changes and people need to understand them and get to their National Aero Club to offer input to April FAI/CIAM meeting. Naturally any discussion on SEN amd possible polls or surveys as mentioned above are welcome.

CIAM FREE FLIGHT PROPOSALS
By Ian Kaynes

The following is a summary of the free flight proposals
submitted to be considered at the April 2017 Plenary meeting.
The official agenda will probably not appear before late
February and so this summary gives an advance notice of the
contents for immediate discussion. The formal route for
comments is to send these to your national CIAM delegate, but
please wait and do that after the official agenda has appeared –
partly in case there are some differences between my summary
and what actually appears in the agenda, but also so that you
can quote the exact item number in the agenda.

3.1.3.a Number of flights

1) Canada, Denmark, Netherlands propose to return F1A F1B
F1C from 5 flights to 7 flights at World and Continental
Championships.

Reasons include:
Flying seven rounds will create a stronger competition, will
provide more enjoyment to the sportsmen and will reduce the
number of fly-off participants. The competitions are held for
the promotion of the sport, participants, and not the organizers.
More flights will reduce the number of fliers in the fly-off. It
will also be more satisfying for competitors who may have
travelled very long and worked for years to make their national
teams, that they are allowed to make seven flights at
championships, and not just five.

Preferred by a majority of competition participants. Free flight
is presented as a sport and the number of flights has been
reduced in the last rule change to reduce the physical effort
which contradicts this classification. To reduce the number of
fly off participants. To avoid lengthy breaks between the end of
the last round and the start of the fly off, which results in
timekeeping problems as non fly off participants leave the field
and might not return for the fly off

2) FFSC propose: Each competitor is entitled to five or seven
official flights. The number to be flown must be announced in
advance in the bulletin.
Reason: For some competitions likely to have good conditions
it is appropriate to return to seven flights

Definition of an Unsuccessful Attempt – Duration
less than 20 seconds

1) Denmark propose to delete the paragraphs “The duration of
the flight is less than 20 seconds” as a reason for a second
attempt in F1A, F1B, F1C, F1H, F1J, F1P and F1Q.

Reason: It is possible to dethermalize models with a radio-D/Tsystem
to make a bad start last less than 20 seconds. This is not
the intention of the rules, so it should be prohibited.

2) Belgium propose to delete just the F1C rule 3.3.5.c the
duration of the flight is less than 20 seconds.
Reason: Deleting the 20 s rule will reward the competitors that
fly reliable and thus safer models and will stimulate the
construction of such models. In case of maintaining the 20 s
rule, competitors might be tempted to use RDT for competitive
advantage rather than for maximising safety. For example: In
order to stay below the 20 s limit, competitors might be
tempted to shorten a bad but safe flight by RDT, possibly
resulting in a high-risk landing, too close to the starting line,
hurting people and damaging models, cars and others.

3.1.7. Duration of Flights

1) Netherlands propose to change 3.1.7, 3.2.7 and 3.3.7 to
have the first and second rounds as being the ones with
extended maximum, instead of the first and last round in the
current rules.

Reason: The last round is often the round with the strongest
thermal activity and wind speeds. A max of 4 minutes
contradicts the last sentence in paragraph 3.1.7 which reads
“Maximum durations greater than three minutes should only be
used for rounds at times when wind and thermal activity are
expected to be at a minimum.”The second round is often the
most difficult as thermals are not yet fully developed .
Consequently, a max of 4 minutes in the second round will
reduce the number of fly off participants. On average wind
speeds are still low in the second round compared to the third
to last round

2) FFSC propose to change these paragraphs to specify the
extended rounds to be the first round and one other round, in
order to give more flexibility of choosing when a second
longer maximum is used.

3.1.8 Classification – Flyoffs

3.1.8.a). FFSC propose to reduce the flyoff round period from
10 minutes to 7 minutes. For F1A, F1C and F1P this is a direct
reduction. For F1B there is an additional allowance that
competitors may wind one rubber motor before the start of the
7 minute period.

Reason: To make the flyoff a greater challenge by giving less
time to find good air.

3.1.8.f). Denmark propose to delete the group-flyoff possibility
Reason: The group-flyoff feels unjust and against the spirit of
free flight competition.

3.1.8.f). FFSC propose to modify the group flyoff rules:
– Adding the condition that it may be used only when it
would be difficult to provide enough timekeepers,
– clarifying item (6) as “If possible an equal number shall go
forward from both groups. If one group has fewer
competitors with a maximum than the other group, then the
number going forward from that group must be increased
by including the competitors with the best flights below the
maximum time. In order to go forward a competitor’s
flight time must be at least 75% of the highest time scored
in that group.”
– adding to (7) a clarification “without the 75% time
requirement of (6).”
– adding (9) a clarification about scoring: “Competitors
continuing from the group flyoff will be classified by their
time in the later single flyoffs. Their times in the group
flyoff should be recorded in the results but do not count in assessing their final placing. There should be two columns
of times in the group flyoff results to show which times
have been flown in which group.

Reason: to clarify the rules to eliminate the misunderstandings
that arose in 2016.

3.3.2. Characteristics of F1C models
Some countries have submitted proposals on motor run and
also on changes to the RDT definition. For ease of comparison
these are split into the two subject items for this summary. I
have hear that there will be a revision to one of the German
proposals

Motor run

1) Netherlands and Germany propose two classifications:
a) Models with variable geometry (changes of camber,
incidence or area) grade A with maximum duration of
motor run 4 seconds
b) Models with fixed geometry (fixed camber and fixed
area) grade B with maximum duration of motor run 5
seconds.

Reason: The season 2016 shows clearly that there is a big
difference in using a Folder or Flapper with 4 seconds motor
run time in comparison to a normal straight model. In more of
90% of fly offs models with variable geometry are wining
competitions. Test shows that after climb there is a difference
from about 30 m in high and in glide there is a difference from
round about 60 to 90 sec or more in dead air.
To compensate the performance difference between categories
A and B there should be a difference in model specification
and a difference in motor run time. In this way new
developments are not blocked, investments keep valued.
The competitor can make his own choice, to take a grade A or
grade B model, depending on circumstances. Most important is
to avoid that many members of the F1C community will leave
the sport; because they feel it is no fun anymore because they
have to buy and use a model that is not easy to handle.
Competitors don´t have to use high-tech models which they
can´t handle. So it would be more save for everyone if people
can fly with models they can handle and have success with
them without stress. The sense of free flight is not to be pressed
in one direction and to have to use a special type of models.

2) USA propose a split motor run:
Maximum duration of motor run:
4 seconds for models with variable wing geometry
5 seconds for models with fixed wing geometry

Reason: The most recent rule change from a motor run of 5
seconds to 4 seconds has caused the fixed wing models to
become immediately obsolete. They were already at a
disadvantage due to lower climb height and poorer glide
performance, but with a 4 sec engine run, the disparity is more
obvious. The sportsmen who fly these simpler models can
upgrade (at great expense), but now the barrier to people who
want to enter into F1C is much higher. Much of the
construction and repair of the simpler models can still be done
by individual flyers. However, moving to variable geometry
models almost surely necessitates the purchase of ‘factory’
models from a very few suppliers.
It is important for us to continue to look for ways to keep
performance in check and reduce it where possible. However,
rendering simpler models obsolete in favour of more complex
and expensive models is a step in the wrong direction.

3) Canada propose to change the motor run from 4 seconds
back to 5 seconds;

Reason: This proposal is supported by the protest of 137
signatures from 15 countries which was submitted to CIAM in
June 2015.

Radio DT

1) From Germany, to be effective from 1.1.2020:
Change the requirement that the functions of radio DT from
MAY include stop the motor to MUST stop the motor.

Reason: The requirement to have a radio control for
dethermalisation was introduced as a safety measure. But with
a running engine the actuation of the dethermalisation may
destroy the model there will be not increase of the safety. Thus
it is necessary, that the radio control includes the possibility to
stop the motor. As this might have some impact to the timer
(likely an electronic timer to be used), this change should
become effective 1.1.2020, only.

2) USA “F1C models may be fitted with functional radio
control only for irreversible actions to control dethermalisation
of the model. This may include stopping the motor…”

Reason: RDT devices fitted to F1C models with mechanical
timers can only release the stabilizer after the model has gone
to glide. Releasing the DT line prior to glide will have no effect
during the “unsafe” part of the flight.
RDT does work on F1C models with electronic timers but
there is little RDT can do to increase safety. RDT would
normally be used if the model was going off pattern and
perhaps diving. Unless the wings are folded, pressing the RDT
will often rip the wings off and the fuselage becomes a more
dangerous ‘spear’ type projectile.

3) Canada propose: F1C models may be fitted with radio
control but only for irreversible action to control
dethermalization of the model.

Reason: ,Models equipped with mechanical timers cannot use
RC device. The usage of RC device almost always results in
breaking the wing of the model in flight and further increases
the possibility of harming people. The 2016 Sporting Code
does not specify when is required and/or when is mandatory to
use the RC device. It represents an unnecessary expense which
will result in further loss of competitors in this category.

4) Netherlands propose: F1C models must use radio control
only for irreversible actions to control dethermalisation of the
model. This includes stopping the motor if it is still running.
Any malfunction or unintended operation of these functions is
entirely at the risk of the competitor. Whenever the electronic
timer in the model is activated (e.g. put in non-flight mode
or starting position) the competitor must be able to stop the
motor and dethermalise the model.

Reason: Current used electronic timers already have the
possibility to be activated by radio even if the starter button
is not yet released. Some timers may need a software update.
Nowadays most glider flyers use electronic timer including
radio control to save their models and avoid dangerous
situations. Why should power models, which are more
dangerous, not have at least the same possibilities?

F1C for Juniors

Poland propose adding to 3.2 Characteristics with additional
requirements for Juniors’ models:
– Motor exhaust duct(s) connected with a silencer consists of
a single, circular and fixed chamber with an outlet diameter
8 mm. The total capacity of the silencer system must
exceed 12.5 cm3. Maximum total length of the system,
measured from the motor exhaust duct, including the
engine outlet, shall not exceed 150 mm.
– Reducers prohibited.
– Wing with fixed span and constant sprung profile (flaps
prohibited).

Reasons: Class F1P does not allow a smooth transition to F1C
class (from junior to senior
Class F1P with its technical rules is an archaic one. Result – a
small number of juniors compete in competitions especially in
EChs and WChs – 15 juniors F1P only in 2015 Junior WCh.
(Ed: F1C was used for5 Junior World Champs up to 1996 and
at the last 3 of those Champs there were fewer than 15 entries)
During the course of juniors there is no need to build from a
scratch or to invest in other models (just remove a muffler or
replace an engine and readjust a model) – to increase a number
of young players competing,
Reduced engine power and noise more secure to use a junior

F1P 3.6.3 Number of flights

FFSC propose to replace the number of flights paragraph
(a) by “See 3.1.3.a.”
Reason: To keep the number of flights flown in F1P consistent
with F1A F1B and F1C, particularly significant at Junior
Championships for F1A F1B F1P

3.4.2 Characteristics of Indoor Models Aircraft F1D
FFSC propose to add new paragraph: “The model shall
carry the FAI unique ID number of the competitor on the
motorstick written with permanent marker or other nonremovable
means.”
Plus a consequential change: to processing rules. Also to apply
to F1L, F1M and F1R.
Also for F1N FFSC propose to add at end of 3.7.2: The model
shall carry the FAI unique ID number of the competitor on the
upper surface of the wing.

Reason: To provide identification of the model with the
competitor and to add a check of the number to the indoor
processing requirements. As a new rule it is appropriate to
introduce this specifically for the FAI ID number and not
include the licence number alternative allowed under the long
established rules for outdoor models.

3.Q.2. Characteristics

1) Denmark propose to change the connector type for
connecting a Static Energy Test (SET) device. From “3.5 mm
male and female bullet connectors and the specification
of male positive/female negative” to “XT30 connector”
Reason: Safety. The connector combination as currently
required by the F1Q rules may very easily be connected
wrongly. For example, it is possible to short-circuit the Lipobattery
(the plus and minus terminals are connected with each
other by an error), or – again by an error connect two batteries
to each other. Both of these possible errors connections will
result in a short circuit of the battery with serious
consequences.
Furthermore, the current
connector can be errorconnect
to the SET
(“Joule-tester”), so that it
has reverse polarity.
XT30 connector will
eliminate possible errors
– the XT30 connector is
“foolproof”.

2) Germany propose to reduce the maximum motor run to 30
seconds and energy budget to 3 Joules per gram and increase
maximum mass in energy calculation to 600 grams.
Reason: Reduce the model performance and balancing the
energy budget between different model designs to avoid that
any models will be obsolete under the new requirements.
Balancing the calculation weight will not add more energy for
heavier models compared to today. Also for these the reducing
to 3 J/g will decrease the absolute energy amount to reduce the
performance.

3) Denmark propose to reduce the energy budget to 3 Joules
per gram and increase maximum mass in energy calculation to
600 grams.

Reason: Reduction of F1Q model performance.
4) Denmark propose to delete the majority of paragraph b)
except for the last sentence (i.e. to enforce energy limiters by
deleting the option to have a motor run time) and to change (a)
to require “The SET must store and display energy amount
used and motor run time.”

Reason: Simple, reliable and fair – as well as limiters are now
available on the market.

5) Germany also propose to make energy limiters mandatory
but also revert to their idea of specifying system architecture
with “The energy limiter must interrupt the impulse signal
from the timer to the ESC and cuts of the motor(s) when the
given energy limit is reached, without need of interaction of
other devices. The ESC must always operate via its serial
connection to the energy limiter and not with direct connection
to the timer. The timer stays independent, but the energy
limiter may inform the timer about the end of the energy
supply.” They also add” The SET must store and display
energy amount used and motor run time”

Reason: The measurement method of the motor run in models
without limiter is very complicate and difficult applicable in
practice. As in this case the motor run is not to be timed in
flight, the compliance of the correct run time is not possible. A
rule which cannot be controlled should not to be used.
Energy limiters are approved devices also in other
aeromodelling categories. Reliable limiters which meets the
requirements are available on the market and also as an open
source project for self-made (for saving costs). The stored data
are replicable and verifiable. Limiter can be verified by the
CIAM EDIC commission.
The independence from the other electronic control
components (timer) is required to avoid manipulations by
software.

6) USA propose to add a new item:
Flyoffs: If required, the jury or contest director may reduce the
energy budget by 0.5Joules/gram decrements together with 5
second decrements in the maximum motor run for flyoffs as
follows:
3.5J/gr with 35 sec maximum motor run
3.0J/gr with 30 sec maximum motor run
2.5J/gr with 25 sec maximum motor run

Reason: The rule proposal retains the energy multiplier and the
max motor run, but allows their proportional reduction in
flyoffs, if the need arises. The reductions are in 12.5% steps,
corresponding to 3.5J/gr and 35 second max motor run, 3.0J/gr
and 30 sec, 2.5J/g and 25 sec. Reducing the energy and the
motor run ceiling by 12.5% steps means that 40-second
cruisers will satisfy the 3.5J/gr energy multiplier with a 35
second motor run. Had the max motor run remain pegged at 40
seconds, there is an incentive to develop specialized models for
that combination.
F1Q models are processed prior to contest and their energy
level or the motor run for models without an energy limiter
(EL) is recorded. Because ELs and e-timers are not sealed they
can be reset during a contest, a timer or the contest director can
ask a competitor to demonstrate the programmed energy level
or motor run prior to the flight. Since motor run are recorded,
albeit inaccurately, it serves as a benchmark when the energy
multiplier is reduced in a flyoff. For example, dropping the
energy multiplier by 25% should correspond to a similar drop
in the motor run relative to the motor runs in the regular flights.
Otherwise, the model can be impounded and reprocessed after
the fact. Of course, motor runs exceeding the max motor run
are overruns
3.Q.8. Classification

Germany propose a reduction of energy in flyoffs by deleting
(e) and changing (d):
d) In the event of exceptional meteorological conditions or
model recovery problems, the Jury may permit the maximum
for a round to be changed that given under 3.Q.8.b. and
decrease the maximum energy amount up to 2 J/g AND the
motor run time linear up to 20 seconds according to conditions.

Reason: To avoid model damages or losses by landing outside of
the flying field or difficulties by observation the model by
timekeeper it should give the possibility for CD to reduce the
model performance for fly off rounds. This can be done very easy
by reducing the energy amount and motor time linear. Nor
changes for model trim are necessary.

3.Q.9. Timing

Denmark propose to Remove item (c) The motor run will be
timed…..

Reason: Section c) is in direct conflict with 3.Q.2 third last
paragraph (..”the motor run will not be timed in flight”)

Timing

1) Netherlands propose to add a new item to F1.2.1
Timekeepers:
c) In case competing fly-off participants are requested to
supply timekeeper(s) for a fly off (see a), these time keepers
must be randomly distributed among the competing fly-off
participants, e.g. by draw or moving timekeepers to respective
neighbouring starting poles.

Reason: To improve time keeping impartiality.

2) Netherlands propose to add a new paragraph F1.2.7 and
renumber the following paragraph regarding binoculars:
In flyoffs, electronic time and altitude recording devices may be
used mounted in or on a model. Such devices must be
commercially available with an altitude measuring frequency of
at least 2 Hz and display equipment like a computer, tablet or
smart phone equipped with graphing software must be available
to produce a time-altitude graph of the recorded flight. The
responsibility of the use and correct functioning of such devices
rests with the competitor.
The use of an altimeter is voluntary. Prior to each fly off,
participants with (reserve) models equipped with such recording
devices being switched on, should position their model(s) at
ground level no more than 5 meters from their assigned starting
pole. Upon instruction of the contest director, the participant will
have to lift the model(s) from the ground and hold the model(s)
elevated a number of times, the number and duration of these
movements is decided by the contest director thereby generating
an unique altitude-time signature. In case of a flight-time related
dispute, the competitor automatically may proceed to the
following fly off round. Any dispute must be marked on the
competitor’s scorecard for that fly off round. After the last fly
off but no later than 30 minutes from the end of the last flyoff,
the jury will ask the competitor who filed the dispute to read out
the altimeter data and present the altitude versus time graph. The
jury will check the signature in the graph and determine the
flown time for the fly off round for which a dispute has been
filed. If the moment of launch, landing and flight time can be
clearly established and the correct signature is present, the flight
time will be recorded for the final result. If any one of these
conditions is not met, the timekeeper’s time of the disputed fly
off round will be used as the score for that fly off round. If this
time is less than the maximum flight time set for that particular
fly off round, any subsequently flown fly off rounds will be
cancelled for that competitor. In case of a protest related to the
altimeter generated flight time, the altitude graphs must be made
available to the jury. Failure to do so will result in the time
keeper’s recorded flight time being the official score.

Reason: Make use of electronic possibilities. Recorded flyoff
times often suffer from inaccuracies as caused by time-keeper
skill, equipment used and/or poor visibility which could result
in flight scores which do not reflect the true performance and
proper ranking of sportsmen. The use of electronic altimetry
can objectively supply the flown time. Timekeepers are
however still required as per the current rules.
Some arguments have been raised against this proposal, which
I summarize below:
Electronic altimeters are inaccurate: as this may be true for the
measured altitude, the time base of these devices is accurate
and comparable to electronic stopwatches. The absolute
altitude values are not used for measuring the flown time, it is
merely the signature in the graph which is used for establishing
launch, landing and unique signature which is generated prior
to a fly off. These devices can be tampered with and pre stored
altimeter graphs can be presented as ‘proof’: the contest
director will define a unique signature which will mark the
start of a fly off and recorded flight. As the competitor does
not know such signature prior to the fly off, he can also not pre
record it.
Launch and landing cannot be clearly seen in the graph: launch
of F1B and F1C models can, without exception, be clearly
established in the graph. Also the launch of an F1A generates a
clear and distinct signature in the graph. If the model descends
and touches ground, the sink rate will show a marked
discontinuity in the graph. If the model does not sink it will
keep its altitude or climb and the dethermalisation will generate
a distinct signature in the graph. In cases where either the
launch (in the unlikely scenario where a model floats off the
tow line) or moment of landing cannot be established, the
altimeter result will be inconclusive and the timekeeper’s score
will be used instead.
Such devices are expensive and complex to operate: a typical
altimeter such as the one sold by ‘Hobby King’ costs less then
the average entry fee for a World Cup event. They are typically
plug and play: apply a lipo battery and they will start
recording. Analysis software is freeware and available for
Android and Window devices.
Sportsmen are forced to invest in additional equipment: See
above as to costs. The use of the altimeter is strictly voluntary.
There will always be a timekeeper who will record the flight
time.
Models can disappear from timekeeper’s view but the altimeter
can continue recording the flight: This is a valid argument,
however it is up to the competitor if he wants to take advantage
of the real flown time rather than the time the model is or can
be visible by the timekeeper. Basically, flying at a site with
many downwind obstructions will effectively be similar to
flying on a site with no obstructions if altimeter time keeping is
used.

3) Netherlands propose to add a new paragraph to the end of
3.A2B.6.: In flyoffs, a dispute can be solved by data as
recorded by an electronic altimeter. This dispute must be
marked on the scorecard for the disputed flight-time of the
flyoff round.

Reason: Addition of disputes and electronic altimeter in
relation to new proposal above.

World Cup

Poland propose; that any country may host a maximum of one
competition in each class on behalf of another organising
country.

Reason: Too many competitions organized in one country.
Because of transportation problems in competitions compete
competitors from an organizing country only. It distorts the
final World Cup results and virtually eliminates cup winning
by competitors from other continents

…………..
Roger Morrell