The return of the K Factor

I had missed this when it came up last week.

Apparently, the FAI rule change proposal that Andy Sweetland and Peter Germann spent so much time getting just right, wasn't (to someone, anyway). The "K" Factor was restored, and to make it work, the 0-100 scoring system intended to provide more resolution in the score while using nice whole numbers went away at the same time (presumably to keep the score absolute number the same), to be replaced with 0-10 in .1 increments. There is some comment/"agreement" about getting rid of the K factor in 2008.

Once again, I am rather amazed that the careful work of many active participants over years can just get tossed at the last minute, with no possibility for public feedback, and by people that are (apparently) not directly involved in the event on a regular basis.

It's not all bad, of course. The multi-circle format appears to have remained intact and at least some of the many positive changes are still in. But clearly, I am going out on a limb in assuming that some other random or broken FAI process is not still lurking to decree, from on high, that these changes too are null and void.

Now, more than ever, US fliers might consider themselves fortunate that the AMA and PAMPA rules process is completely above board and fully engaged with the needs of the event, and the desires of the participants.

I guess I'm not too surprised, but I am, once again, bitterly disappointed.

LAST EDITED ON Apr-01-04 AT 04:21 PM (CDT)
 
Brett,
You might be bitterly disappointed, others will be relieved ...

The abolition of K factors was nowhere near as well supported as it's proponents would have us believe.

It is just possible, that a few or a majority people don't actually want their rules to be a clone of US rules, and perhaps they think that the current method of scoring (agreed that the 100 points spread would be good)is just fine. The 1/10 point increment is better than what exists.

I dont see that any rules changes are null & void, the kerfluffle about the 2004 w/champs is because the organisers wanted to anticipate a rules change, not run the event to the current, ratified rules, I understand (maybe wrongly).That is a pity, because it would have been a great opportunity to demonstrate the advantages of multi circle format. Maybe the change to the number of throwaway flights in qualifying was the problem?

I dont know, but I'm really p****d off at the likely schedule changes, my guess is that the w/champs can only be brought forward a day or so - reducing the practice time available. Now that it is less than 90 days to go I'm faced with a $1500 penalty to rebook flights. Just great.
Cheers, Dave

The real problem with this, to me, is that Andy and Peter worked their posteriors off to get a consensus rules package. This was no easy task, and it was done with grace and skill. Then it got picked apart "behind closed doors" with no possibility for commentary, pro or con. That's why it rankles so much.

For reference, the US uses contest boards for each discipline - C/L Aerobatics being relevant to this topic. There are 11 voting members. They are either fliers or active participants like judges The proposals are distributed, published, and a comment period is provided at each of several steps. Then, the board members vote yay or nay -and that's it. Not subcommittees, plenary committees, boondoggle trips to Switzerland on member money, nothing. Everybody knows whats happening, everybody has a say, even Godzilla and myself, and people directly associated with the event do the administration and vote based on member input.

As opposed to FAI, where the process seems to be very similar to picking a new pope. This committee, that committee, advisories, etc. Peter and Andy work the issue for years with participants in the event, generate a very well-written proposal and smooth over the various disagreements until it's something that fliers actually find acceptable. Then, it goes into some mysterious processes were one committee votes to recommend it to another, a whole bunch of people travel to a spa somewhere, and competely unbeknownst to participants or the proposers, people not normally associated with the event pick it apart based on unknown inputs from who-knows where, white smoke comes out of a chimney, and it's done, no recourse, no debate, you don't like it, try again next time. Maybe, if you know the right good old boys, it comes out the way you want, otherwise, maybe not.

The real problem with FAI in the US is not the K-factors, the 7 minutes, or even the lack of BOM. I could probably at least live with just about any rules package that reflects the desires of the the participants. It's that the process used to control the event doesn't seem to be either open, nor transparent. It's not even just a problem with C/L Stunt - pretty much the same to varying degrees for every FAI event from rockets to R/C. FAI events are odd highly specialized events with kind of loony rules (40 MM minimum diameter for at least 200 mm for B Altitude?), that not many people care about except when it's time for the team trials.

But maybe it just doesn't matter. I guess I don't really care very much aside from being frustrated with the seemingly arbitrary results even after an tremendous amount of good work - on both topics.

That is a pity, because it would have been a great
>opportunity to demonstrate the advantages of multi circle
>format. Maybe the removal of the throwaway flight in
>qualifying was the problem?

This statement and others similar to it over tha past several weeks represent some of the misunderstanding about the two circle qualification process. There are those that believe that the proposed qualification process does not allow for any throw-away flights. What people who have not taken the time to understand the process are missing is that the pilots are divided into two groups fof the qualifying rounds. Each pilot will fly two flights in front of one set of judges. That same pilot will fly another two flights in front of another set of judges. The pilot's qualfying score is determined by adding the best single flight from the first set of judges and the best single flight from the second set of judges. In actuality, the pilot has two "throwaway" flights during the qualification rounds. Each pilot has four flights to demonstrate his skills with the poorest of each pair of flights being discarded. The multiple flight/multiple circle qualification process that has evolved here in the States makes a significant improvement so that the truly best qualified pilots get to fly in the finals instead of having potential unfavorable weather conditions coupled with the "luck of the draw" seriously impacting the outcome of the qualification process.

To say that Bill Lee and Doc Jackson were extremely frustrated in the outcome of the recent Planary meeting would be an understatement. Actually, the problem started last Fall when an earlier Plenary meeting disallowed the rules proposal concept that three judges per circle could be used during the qualification process, thereby reducing significantly the financial burden of providing 10 judges. Also being proposed at that time for this World Championships was the idea to enhance spectator interest by taking a number of qualifiers (15 or possibly 12), fly three flights as they do not for the finals, taking the best two of those three flights, but then take the top 3 into a finals round to fly two flights, taking the best of the two, or fly three flights, scoring the best two of the three, or possibley fly two flights where both flight scores are counted. (The finals rounds in TR and Combat do not allow any trow-away flights to determine the World Champion in those events.) Team Racing goes all week to select the final 3 for the feature race. (All activities at the field stop to watch this - except for the 15 stunt finalists that are grinding away all day for their finals rounds). Same as combat where it goes all week to take the final three in head-to-head competition where all else on the field watches - except for the 15 stunt finalist that are grinding away all day for their finals rounds which to the casual observer is about as interesting as watching grass grow compared to the action in the TR and Combat circles.) But this was not to be.

What has been squandered here was an ideal situation to clearly demonstrate a multiple circle qualification process, to give each pilot more opportunity to demonstrate his skills, to minimize signficantly the impact that unfavorable weather conditions that can literally eliminate otherwise qualified pilots from the finals, to fully utilize a truly suburb facility, and to see how a true professional team that Warren Tiahrt had put together can run what would have been a premier and precedent setting event in the history of F2B international competition.

Bret, you must understand that the “k” factor is something normal for us, something what we use long time and something what are judges comfortable with. I thing we exchanged enough of messages with Keith and we clarified everything. There are clear advantages, disadvantages, but especially DIFFERENCES. And that is the problem with “k” factor. There must be good reason to CHANGE it and we (flyers and especially judges) must be happy and prepared to do it so. It is the same if someone will force you to use “k” in AMA. Why only, if you are happy and used without “k”?

We do not see discarding of "k" factor at present time at present situation as an advantage. That is all.

>Bret, you must understand that the “k” factor is something
>normal for us, something what we use long time and something
>what are judges comfortable with. I thing we exchanged
>enough of messages with Keith and we clarified everything.
>There are clear advantages, disadvantages, but especially
>DIFFERENCES. And that is the problem with “k” factor. There
>must be good reason to CHANGE it and we (flyers and
>especially judges) must be happy and prepared to do it so.
>It is the same if someone will force you to use “k” in AMA.
>Why only, if you are happy and used without “k”?
>
>We do not see discarding of "k" factor at present time at
>present situation as an advantage. That is all.

Well, given that a very significant fraction of large worldwide contests (assuming the world still includes the US) don't use K-factors, I would say it's probably a toss-up.

But you miss my point - I obviously think the K-factor is not only unnecessary and disadvantageous to the event. And you obviously don't. That's NOT the point.

We had this (friendly) argument already. I guess I can live with this just like we have for years if it was the majority opinion of the group. No "group" got everything they wanted exactly the way they wanted - like when you and I wanted to eliminate the limitations on autonomous engine controls ENTIRELY - and we still have some. That's what it means to compromise.

The point I was trying to make is that while it wasn't universal, there was a consensus, carefully crafted and entered into the rules proposal. I think everybody thought the package sent out by Andy and Peter was top-notch and represented a pretty good compromise that everybody could live with.

Then it dropped into some black hole, where it at least seems (if not actually) as if it was simply picked apart by unknown people who didn't participate in the original process. FOR CERTAIN none of the changes were fed back to the larger group of people who reviewed and helped develop the package in the first place. And whatever axes these people had got ground again, in secret, and it was ALTERED WITHOUT FEEDBACK from the larger community. Maybe my opinion was accurately represented and well-argued. Maybe it wasn't. I have no idea. Obviously your opinion was more persuasve, but I have no idea why or what the argument even was, and I certainly had no opportunity to present a counter-argument. It just happened.

That's why we argued it out ahead of time in the light of day.

Of course, I personalized it to make a point. But it's not about me personally - lots of people had lots of ideas, and NO ONE that I know of got a chance to argue either way at whatever decisive meeting it was. and as far as I can tell no one that contributed originally did, either. Did you?

That's MY problem with it.

If I could put it a change request against the change process, I would. But it's a catch-22 situation.

Sorry Bret, I did not want to separate the world by Atlantic, I tried to separate the world by those who welcome the “k” factor and those who not. So I wanted to say that it is normal for us who are used on “k”, because that is actual presence, which is going to be changed. And that needs first good (and adopted) arguments and then it have to be well prepared. I wrote enough notes to the realization, but we (nation) do not agree with reasons to cancel “k”.

But you mean something else. You mean it is problem in communication. I thought also. (then). After meeting in Sebnitz I saw that there is lot of flyers meaning but not saying anything. I think new rules need spread agreement, so I offered to establish that forum dedicated to present all arguments to whoever wants to say something. And there was lot of arguments including yours, ours (yes, including that “k” factor change which we stated as not welcome long time ago) and many others. So no one can say there was no chance to open mouth or that byrocracy of FAI does not allow effective inputs. But still, try to count participating nations and especially those who used voice for voting.

LAST EDITED ON Apr-02-04 AT 12:46 PM (CDT)
 
> I think new rules need spread agreement, so
>I offered to establish that forum dedicated to present all
>arguments to whoever wants to say something. And there was
>lot of arguments including yours, ours (yes, including that
>“k” factor change which we stated as not welcome long time
>ago) and many others. So no one can say there was no chance
>to open mouth or that byrocracy of FAI does not allow
>effective inputs.

Put the K factor completly aside - I still think it's a mistake and distorts the event, but I can live with it once every two years. I wasn't going to make our team anyway.

Instead, lets talks about the PROCESS underlying the rule change "events"

I know that you provided an excellent forum, and Andy and Peter went out of their way to make sure the proposal was right. Everything that happened in this process was exactly the way it should have been. There's simply so argument that everyone got their say into what went into the proposal, and you have documented proof of that fact. I was perfectly happy to live with the results - presuming what we agreed to was what happened. No problem or argument about this, in fact it worked perfectly as near as I can tell.

Then - black hole. The proposal was not accepted. A different proposal was crafted and approved, with no input from the larger community, over what appears to be a weekend meeting. As far as I can tell, no one fed back any of this to the original participants in your message board or in the email loop. I am not aware of any active F2B flier's or administrator's involvement in this meeting. There certainly was no involvment of any US Stunt flier or judge with sufficient experience or depth of understanding to represent the position (Trostle, McClellan, Walker, Fancher, etc.) I look around, and I don't know anyone who did from any country. Can you provide references? If we don't have a representative familiar with the event, how do we ensure that our argument is aired fairly, coherently, and opposing arguments are rebutted - or accepted, if the representative is convinced?

Just look what happened with multi-circle - we had perfectly intelligent people not understanding they had a throwaway flight (or in fact, TWO throwaway flights). Maybe that misunderstanding torpedoed the PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AND COORDINATED WITH FAI REPRESENTATIVES* multi-circle format. A misunderstanding that anyone that has ever attended such a contest could have cleared up in 30 seconds.

What irks me to this extent is that the obscure *decisive* process is not at all open to the participants, nor is it attended by a reasonable cross-section of active competitors.

Brett

*any suggestion that the multi-circle format suddenly appeared from the clear blue sky two weeks ago is disingenuous. I'm sure we would have run 4 had we had our preferences.It had been coordinated with at least some arms of the FAI for about TWO YEARS. In fact, the two-circle format was A COMPROMISE to PLACATE THE FAI. Bill/Warren/Shareen worked the process in good faith. I have to wonder if the same was true on the other side of the pond.

LAST EDITED ON Apr-02-04 AT 04:45 PM (CDT)
 
>>>A misunderstanding that anyone that has ever attended such a contest could have cleared up in 30 seconds.<<<

Brett, are you sure it was misunderstanding?

>>>>A misunderstanding that anyone that has ever attended such a contest could have cleared up in 30 seconds.<<<
>
>Brett, are you sure it was misunderstanding?

No, I'm not sure, that's why I used the word "maybe". But Dave Simons, a clearly thoughtful and intelligent guy, did in fact misunderstand this particular point as stated in the other thread.

But the point is, no matter what the reasoning, it all happened without external oversight or input, and that's why I have to use the word "maybe" in the first place.

Hello Brett ( and others ),
I can fully understand your reaction, I feel very much the same. Let me just comment a few points.
First of all: making rules for FAI ( that means for the whole world ) is another job than making them for one nation ( say America ) only. Disagreement is probably much less within one nation. Also you seem to have a contest board ( which is a subcommittee, after all ) for F2B only. FAI cannot have such a luxury. That's why the F2B working group was born. Alas participation was not as big as we had hoped.
However you are right. What has happened at the Lausanne meeting was an impudence. Since I didn't go to this meeting I sent letters to the committee, trying to support Peter's proposal as well as Bill Lee's suggestion on how to run the Muncie world championships. And I had very good arguments. You cannot imagine how much flak I got against my arguments. Besides being pure nonsense, some answers were really insulting ( including some reaction obviously caused by "healthy" national conciousness ).
I don't know what happened at the meeting ( you should ask Doc). But I do know that several people wanted to change the content of the proposal at the last minute - the same people who didn't either participate at the F2B working group nor at the F2B forum !
These same people were against Bill's WCh version.
I'm not going to say more here ( it might just not be interesting to the general public ). I'm sure we'll meet at Muncie, so we can continue this topic.
Btw , K factors are not cast forever.
regards, claus

>Hello Brett ( and others ),
>I can fully understand your reaction, I feel very much the
>same. Let me just comment a few points.
>First of all: making rules for FAI ( that means for the
>whole world ) is another job than making them for one nation
>( say America ) only. Disagreement is probably much less
>within one nation. Also you seem to have a contest board (
>which is a subcommittee, after all ) for F2B only. FAI
>cannot have such a luxury

I guess it doesn't immediately jump out at me why it "can't". "Won't" is a much more likely reason.

What I would suggest is a C/L contest board consisting of one representative from each memeber nation that wants to participate, or at least divide the world along generally accepted regional lines, if you want to keep the numbers down. These people would be charged with representing each region/nation's interest, and they would be nominated by the national aero clubs. Preferably, choose someone competent. This part is not a lot different than it was.

Have the same cycle length. Any member of a national aero club could submit a change along standard lines

Title of change:
Description of change:

WAS: (current rule you want to modify, paragraph #, etc)

IS: ( what you want it to read instead )

Reasoning:
(( an explanation of why)))

Then get it signed be at least 5 members in good standing.

Send it to CLCB chairmen, who distributes it out and to the national aero clubds for comment, with at least 6 months of lead time (preferbly longer ) to publish it the national aero club newsletter for comment. I proposal is technically deficient, CLCB member works with proposer to get technical items corrected, and alterations also published with time for comment.

Then have the CLCB members vote by mail. It's either Yay or Nay, no fiddling allowed. You either accept a change as published, or you don't. End of process. No FAI subcommittees consisting of people not connected or active with C/L, no boondoggles to Switzerland, no last-minute rushes to twiddle it to suit the whims of the CLCB members without the ability for the public to comment.

EVERY SINGLE WORD OF EVERY SINGLE PROPOSAL SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH PUBLIC CHANNELS WITH SUFFICIENT TIME FOR PUBLIC FEEDBACK AND EVERY SINGLE WORD OF EVERY SINGLE PROPOSAL SHALL BE VOTED ON VERTBATIM AS PROPOSED. The use of the word "shall" is intentional and is intended to have it legal meaning.

The proposal we are talking about (single wholesale proposal that covers everything) is generally a mistake in this type of cycle. It's much better to do it feature by feature, so that it can accomodate the sort of thing that (apparently) happened this time - somebody said they were going to can the whole thing unless it got re-written, so the people at the meeting had to scramble to alter it to accomdate them.

Additionally, there appeared to be a "short fuse" because it was voted on at a meeting away from home. This makes it certain that the machinations of the rewording and vote could not effectively be interactive with the rest of the participants. hence, vote by mail.

This process also gets the process to a level where people actually involved with the events get to decide - not some mysterious coverall, "one size fits all" committee (e.g. CIAM). Everybody gets their say, it's not weighted by region number of participants, so no "bullying" possible, and so it's fair.

Clearly, if us dumb ole' warmongering, prudish yokels here way off in the USA can manage such a process for 120,000 members, I would think a sophisticated and well-run organization like the FAI would be able to manage it with no problem at all. It would appear to scale well and easily, has minimum overhead, and allows the events to accomodate the wishes of the participants. You could easily set up the committees for each discipline in as fine a resolution as necessary. Since there is no travel involved, there is very low costs (offer to pay the participants postage bill) and the mangerial overhead is volunteer.

In fact, with my stellar record in international diplomacy (and mroe seriously) 20 years of participating in and running change boards in the aerospace industry, I'll volunteer myself to set it up and be the first chairman.

So I fail to see why it "CAN'T" be done, in fact, in technical and logistical terms, it seems trivial and a huge reduction in cost and adminstrative effort.

I'm just curious...

I know Andy Sweetland and Peter Germann and their committee people and contributors worked for several years on refining their proposals for F2B rules.

I know that Warren and Bill Lee and Shareen and Gary Mac have spent large amounts of the last two years working on the proposed multi circle format for F2B.

What I don't know are the names of the people who in a matter of minutes on somebody else's dime flip a coin to see if those who actually did the work get to implement the fruits of their labor. Who are they who actually voted yea or nay on these proposals, who elected them and what is their individual involvement in F2B?

>>>who elected them and what is their individual involvement in F2B<<<

Ted, I think does NOT matter who is it. But DOES matter what Bret wrote - that we do not know arguments, so we can not react. I can tell to our representant how to react for what question if I know them, but what can our representant who do not know too much about F2B does if arguments/inputs/questions are not published before?

>>>>who elected them and what is their individual involvement in F2B<<<
>
>Ted, I think does NOT matter who is it.

Sorry, Igor. I couldn't disagree more. How can we even pretend to evaluate the reasons and conclusions this "auguste body" reaches if we've no idea what their level of expertise they have and what their motives might be for making those decisions. Whatever the rest of the world thinks about the way the U.S. does business, one thing they can't pretend is that we hide our decision makers in a cave somewhere and simply genuflect when their "author unknown" pontifications surface. Further, I'm not sure I understand why the FAI's meager resources are used to haul these people around to exotic european locales for the meetings when a fraction of the expense could be utilized to much better advantage in a system organized in the manner Brett suggests.

>But DOES matter what
>Bret wrote - that we do not know arguments, so we can not
>react. I can tell to our representant how to react for what
>question if I know them, but what can our representant who
>do not know too much about F2B does if
>arguments/inputs/questions are not published before?

Given the numbers and strength of F2B around the world, there is really no excuse for the competitors and flyers to allow some uninterested kabal of expense accounted world travelers to be the arbiter of how we do what we do. As near as I can tell from the point of view of an interested observer and part time participant in the process, Andy and Peter have a great deal more right through acquired wisdom and personal expertise to address the needs and desires of the stunt community than have this underground cluster of self appointed rule lords.

Sorry to be so up front, Igor. I very much respect the opinions and input on this forum from yourself, Claus, Dave and other friends from across the sea. For the life of me I don't see how so many thoughtful people share the same heritage of whoever it is who decides how we're going to be allowed to fly our event.

Alas, I'll just go and fly again and watch the grass grow between flights. That's a recipe for excitement and spectator appeal, isn't it?

> As
>near as I can tell from the point of view of an interested
>observer and part time participant in the process, Andy and
>Peter have a great deal more right through acquired wisdom
>and personal expertise to address the needs and desires of
>the stunt community than have this underground cluster of
>self appointed rule lords.

We tossed tea into Boston Harbor over something less trivial (but not dissimilar) in 1773.

Aye mate Brett, and we Scott's tried to dethrone King Henry Longshanks too but were outmaned alas!

>>>Sorry, Igor. I couldn't disagree more. How can we even pretend to evaluate the reasons and conclusions this "auguste body" reaches if we've no idea what their level of expertise they have and what their motives might be for making those decisions.<<<

That is simple. Does not matter who it is, the same idea / input / problem or whatever relation to the topic could be at any other member OR can be missed by all others. Also beginner or racing car driver can have good idea and also old stunt flyer can miss the point. Just look to this forum. If you write something, then 100 readers read your input, they question it and try to extract the best from your input. Those 100 brains really can recognize if your input is clever or if you did a mistake. The name front of any message means something, that is for sure. If I see known and proofed author it really mean something, but I can also read and think about input from unknown “Mr. JDKIDCLYF“ but not only that, I often see here on forum question of beginner or newcomer who is asking trivial question but that question sometimes contain eye opening thought. Why we are asking HWO and not WHY? I still think the problem is that we did not hear the reason before and not that the “Mr. Propbreaker” tried to vote different way.

But you wrote:
>>> what their motives might be for making those decisions<<<
That is exactly what I think is much more important that the other thing you wrote:
>>>what their level of expertise they have<<<

Sorry, but there's a BIG misunderstanding! ( and I wonder about your comment, Igor ).
To say that the public was not informed and and didn't hear about arguments/ reasons etc. , and couldn't react is simply wrong. We had the F2B Working group, and we had the F2B Internet forum ( you established that yourself, Igor!). This whole procedure was running for at least 3 years, repeat THREE YEARS ! This should allow everybody to get the information, and to have his say. If three years is not enough, I don't know what is enough.
There were about 25 people spread all over the world who received the suggested wording . These were the "national representatives" , who were expected to inform their respective F2B pilots and collect their opinions. Also we had the forum which everybody had access to. ( I really don't know why I have to repeat this again and again, and still people don't know it ).
I'm not defending myself here, since I was just one of the representatives. But I find it totally illogical to accuse the working group - and mostly Peter Germann is meant - of not giving information. If somebody hasn't got information then it's the fault of the respective representative. Blame him.
Of course, when the proposal is finally written in its final version and offered to the meeting for voting, then no further discussion is possible, nor neccessary, nor reasonable. When do you think can we come to an end?
I'll try to include a copy of my mail which I've sent to the members of the F2 subcommittee two weeks before the meeting took place. The mail has all the arguments to support acceptance of the proposal. Here goes:

Ladies and gents,
Maybe I will not be present at the subcommittee meeting at Lausanne. I do not think that my presence is absolutely necessary every time. However this time we will be discussing a topic which I’m very concerned in - the F2B rule proposal.
Since many of you do not fly F2B you might have no extraordinary interest whether this proposal will pass or not. As for me, however, I do have a special interest, and I would really want it to pass. There are several reasons.
1) The content of the proposal is as good as any rule proposal can be. A lot of work has gone into these rules, and it’s final version has been checked several times before it was written and offered for voting. It has been checked by several competent people, including members of this committee ( a big thank you to these!)
2) The F2B Working Group ( WG ) has been very active for about 3 years now to establish the new rules. This was not a simple job, not like just deleting a few bugs. It included a complete overhaul of the complete F2B rule pages, inclusion of latest knowledge, and consideration of modern technology. Anybody of you who is busy in one of the F2 working groups knows very well that this is a huge amount of work. Especially the coordinator Peter Germann has done an outstanding job to find an acceptable solution when formulating the rules. . Being one of those “national representatives” I’ve had my share of it, and I know what I’m speaking about. I for one really do not intend to do any additional work on this project. We’ve done all we can, more is not possible.
3) No matter how long you work on a task like this - there will always be people who have another idea at the last moment; usually when you have finished work. If you would want to wait for all individuals in the world to have a say, you would never ever finish your exercise. There was time enough for everybody to offer his/her opinion.
4) To the best of my knowledge there has never been a more comprehensive and more democratic survey for control line people ( I think for model flyers in general ), in order to get as much information as possible, to reach as many people as possible, and to find out what the F2B population of the whole world expects to see in the rule book. More than 20 national representatives spread all over the world received the suggested details, and were asked to collect the opinion of their respective nation’s flyers. More cannot be done.
5) Whatever rule you decide on, there will always be some who have a different opinion. You can never please anybody. First thing you might be tempted to do is to find a compromise. However in many cases a compromise is the worst solution. So you are left with the task to make a decision to the best of your knowledge and belief. This is what had to be done in a few cases. I’m absolutely convinced that Peter did this in a most honourable way ( I definitely know he even accepted solutions he didn’t like himself. The same goes for me ! ). Further discussions are not helpful and don’t make any sense.
6) There are also those people who mainly want to hear their own voice. We’ve had enough feedback with this kind of advice. These experts will never agree with anything. No need to wait for more of this kind of input.
7) In the past when looking for a certain item you had to browse through the whole rule book . Very often you didn’t know where to look , in order to find what you were looking for. Now in the proposed rules we have everything contained in one place. This may result in some items ( like ABR things ) being repeated in the F2B section. I can only see this as an improvement. It will keep me from spending endless hours with reading rules I didn’t want to read.
8) With all of the above reasons given I think you only can agree that the presented proposal is as good as a proposal can possibly be. Nothing manmade can ever be perfect. With these rules I think we’ve made a noticeable step forward. I cannot see how they could be improved at the moment.
I’ve been told that at the plenary meeting a proposal will usually pass easily when the subcommittee has decided on it unanimously. When this proposal doesn’t pass this year, all the work done until now was in vain. Nobody will invest any more time in this area, and our rules will remain just as bad ( unclear, obsolete, wrong in several cases ) as they are now. May I please ask you to spend some careful consideration when you discuss the F2B proposal and are asked to vote at Lausanne , and help us to put a satisfying end to what would otherwise be a never ending story. End.

Okay, I've really made it!
Obviously this letter hasn't helped much. It's those people who tried to change - and have changed - the content of the proposal at the last moment which upset Brett so much - and me either. And as I said: after three years time to argue, comment, and propose !!!

regards, claus

Claus, I did not mean that Peter did not inform us. In reality he was THE ONLY who told me about new rules. That forum is not 3 years old. It is 2 years old and was established because of troubles in communication. If you remember, the conclusion in Sebnitz was, that majority of F2B community should agree with changes. I think you will agree, that one group coordinator Peter Germann cannot go and inform everybody what is actually changed and why and who and what argument told him to phone or wrote by mail. That is all about communication. Lack of that communication was reason for that forum.

But OK, let it be. But you say your letter did not help too much. I understood the draft is prepared for November meeting … with some changes but it is. Do you think it is on wrong way?

Ted,
It's no worse than stunt flyers voting on a TR lines rule change, with equally predictable and stupid results, at the same meeting.
Cheers, Dave

>Ted,
>It's no worse than stunt flyers voting on a TR lines rule
>change, with equally predictable and stupid results, at the
>same meeting.

Good example. Someone who doesn't know very much about T/R shouldn't be voting and fiddling with the rules. I don't know ANYONE who is truly qualified to comment and decide for the world on both T/R and Stunt.

LAST EDITED ON Apr-02-04 AT 08:09 PM (CDT)
 
>Ted,
>It's no worse than stunt flyers voting on a TR lines rule
>change, with equally predictable and stupid results, at the
>same meeting.
>Cheers, Dave

Dave, I'm certain you're absolutely correct. Once again, Brett's suggestion for a body of competitors in the actual events to evaluate changes make imminent good sense.

Ted, agreed that it makes sense - but it won't be imminent.
Cheers, Dave

Brett,

I can only agree that presenting change proposals in bite size chunks is a smart move. The presentation of an all enveloping change is a recipe for a conservative vote, the all or nothing approach inevitably leads to nothing, as options are reduced.

For example, I believe our position was that we were in favour of the multi circle format, but opposed to the removal of K factor scoring.

The adoption of last minute proposal changes is what seems to be particularly offensive.

For instance, our representative isn't even a c/l flyer, but was given strict written instructions (distilled from local competitor opinion and wishes)on how to vote on the relevant proposals that were on the agenda.

When proposals(ie, the agenda) are changed at the last minute, inside the meeting, how the heck is he supposed to get back to the people he is representing (and in the case of Ivan, most diligently) for fresh voting instructions? It simply doesn't work in a lot of cases.
Cheers, Dave

>I can only agree that presenting change proposals in bite
>size chunks is a smart move. The presentation of an all
>enveloping change is a recipe for a conservative vote, the
>all or nothing approach inevitably leads to nothing, as
>options are reduced.

Well, as a proposals aren't really propsals, but "suggestions", it was an OK way to go. As soon as the wording is not permitted to be "fiddled", the piecemeal proposals are the way to go. Besides most of the existing rules were just fine - there were really only about 4 points of debate and they could have been neatly seperated.

>
>For example, I believe our position was that we were in
>favour of the multi circle format, but opposed to the
>removal of K factor scoring.

And, given the situation of either
tossing the whole proposal
or
fiddling to re-instate the K factor

I think those at the meeting did good to fiddle. The problem is, of course. that after 2-3 years of careful polling, commentary, argument, etc, no one present should have had the authority to veto it for one point. It should have been a rubber stamp.

In fact, the on-line vote and debate process set up by Igor and initated by Peter and Andy would make and ABSOLUTELY PERFECT basis for a specialist Contest Board. And it worked EXACTLY the way a proper contest board should work.

>When proposals(ie, the agenda) are changed at the last
>minute, inside the meeting, how the heck is he supposed to
>get back to the people he is representing (and in the case
>of Ivan, most diligently) for fresh voting instructions? It
>simply doesn't work in a lot of cases.

Exactly, and I am gratified that you can see the same problem I do, even though the end results were more to your liking.

>>
> Once again, I am rather amazed that the careful work of
>many active participants over years can just get tossed at
>the last minute, with no possibility for public feedback,
>and by people that are (apparently) not directly involved in
>the event on a regular basis.
>

Brett,

This is the essence of FAI rule making. It's even worse in Spacemodeling (rocketry). Nobody's life, liberty or property is safe when the CIAM Subcommittee meets. The rules were completely and arbitrarily changed prior to the 2002 World Champs by one man (rubber stamped by the committee), who does not fly, with often disastrous results. All the senior events changed dimensions and impulse class, causing all the tooling that had been developed over years of work to be scrapped. For scale modelers this amounted to very large investments in molds and special decals lost. We're talking kilobucks here. And would you believe an increase in maxes from 5 minutes to 7 minutes for some free flight events?! But correcting the wrong takes years. The 2004 and 2006 Worlds will be flown under the same flawed rules. Then there are the F1K rules for FF CO2, where they outlawed the use of ice to cool the tank, so people blow huge amounts of CO2 into the air instead to accomplish the same thing.

I've concluded that the complete disconnect between the rule making process and those who fly the events is fundamental to the nature of FAI competition, and there seems no way to change it.

FWIW,

>>>
>> Once again, I am rather amazed that the careful work of
>>many active participants over years can just get tossed at
>>the last minute, with no possibility for public feedback,
>>and by people that are (apparently) not directly involved in
>>the event on a regular basis.
>>
>
>Brett,
>
>This is the essence of FAI rule making. It's even worse in
>Spacemodeling (rocketry). Nobody's life, liberty or
>property is safe when the CIAM Subcommittee meets. The
>rules were completely and arbitrarily changed prior to the
>2002 World Champs by one man (rubber stamped by the
>committee), who does not fly, with often disastrous results.
> All the senior events changed dimensions and impulse class,
>causing all the tooling that had been developed over years
>of work to be scrapped. For scale modelers this amounted to
>very large investments in molds and special decals lost.

I used to be at least a wannabe in FAI rocketry in the late 70's*. It was all pretty reasonable then. When I took another look in ~98, I was truly amazed at what had happened with regards to minimum diameters, etc. Right now, it really couldn't appeal to very many people.

I guess you mean scale altitude, not scale proper (somthing to do with impulse division between upper and lower stage - i.e. a "no more Bumper-Wacs" )? Or is there now some limitations on classic scale?

Brett

*I may have had one of the very first of the "multi-/massive- function" models - 1/100 Saturn 1b with all stages operable, pop-out fins, clustered, etc. - all driven with a motor-driven sequencer and pull-pins instead of electronics. It was originally designes to have 8 mini-B's but after AVI imploded and Centuri stopped supplying them. I went with an E5 in the center and 4 mini-A's. First flight was real scary!