Technology and FAI Free Flight Competition - A proposal for change
Background
FAI Free flight competition
aeromodelling is a
technological sport. Technology continues to move on and is now a major
focus at the International competition level. The issue is that
technology is now becoming, more and more, the over arching driver of
FAI free flight competition.
We cannot put the genie of technology back in the bottle, we have to
learn to live with it, but there comes a time when we have to “manage”
it. Technology is what motivates much of the interest in our sport,
however it needs to be controlled. Without some measure of control,
problems will arise – in fact this has already started.
In addition changes are being forced upon us by factors external to
model flying. Whilst at the same time there is an internal lobby group
that feels all the problems can be solved by changes to organisational
procedures. Further groups favour restricting performance there are
others who would leave everything untouched. However, the general
feeling of most fliers is that as a movement we have lost our way while
trying to correct the problems. A way of changing and bringing these
disparate views together has to be found.
A Solution
In the past CIAM/FFSC has looked ahead. It
was the
CIAM/FFSC who created the World Cup, this was a centre inspired idea.
We need another inspiration to take us forward in the management of
technology. We need to consider making changes to the way that we
manage our sport to reflect the current situation.
In the UK the British Model Flying Association (BMFA) administers Free
Flight via its Free Flight Technical Committee (FFTC). Early in this
decade the FFTC realised that similar technology and management
problems had arisen in the British Free Flight movement and that
something radical needed to be done to correct these. The result was
the development of a cohesive plan that would:
- Implement restrictions on
performance and
technology development, but not prevent such development, or make
models that relied upon advances in technology redundant.
- Base the restrictions to
performance on the
premise that flying sites were getting harder to find and were
generally smaller than in previous years.
- Introduce low technology
alternatives that would
give “equivalent” performance to the (now performance restricted)
unlimited technology approach.
- Alter the calendar of events so
that there was a
good balance of flying old and new technologies and equal opportunities
for all approaches to be successful.
- Look for ways to encourage new participants from a wide range of age groups, and aim for growth, rather than containment.
Our experience so far is that implementation of this plan has been largely successful. The Specifications now implemented in the UK are set out in Annex 1 and Annex 2 at the end of this paper. There are still a few problems to be addressed but they do not have an impact on the overall concept. Above all we have learnt that radical change can be introduced, and, that once it is realised that there is no alternative, the “new” opportunities produced create a re-awakening of enthusiasm. Further it has reinforced the requirement of the need for proactive management. Specifically that changes need to be proposed by the “management” in advance to avoid potential problems. The UK Free Flight management (FFTC) are continuing this process and will be holding a conference in early 2009 to present further ideas and gather more opinion from fliers themselves.
This paper suggests a way of making similar changes within the FAI class specifications in an effort to stem the “Unrestricted Technology Problem” and achieve similar objectives to those that the UK FFTC had set for itself. It will also suggest the method by which future problems may be prevented by proactive planning and monitoring.
Issues to address
A. There is
nothing inherently wrong with
Technology per-se, or its continuing development. However, currently
this development is left generally unrestrained until a crisis arises.
When such a crisis occurs corrective action is taken. The action, being
reactive, often causes yet more extreme developments to take place. A
vicious circle of development and reactive control is thus created.
Further, over recent years this development has acquired a commercial
input – albeit at a “cottage industry level”. This has resulted in a
feeling among modellers and fliers in general that we could effectively
be putting the future of the sport in the hands of manufacturers and
commercial developers.
B. The dropping of the builder of the model rule has
allowed
those on the periphery, without the necessary skills or access to
materials to participate, which is to the positive good. Model
performance has improved generally and is available for purchase
However some of the technology involved is now of such complexity that
only factories can produce it, we thus get what we are “given”. To stay
in the race fliers are having to make an “investment”. In the process
we may have traded much of the skill of the builder for the skill of
the flier, the craft aspect of the sport could be dying away and then
who would, or could, create the future ideas and progress them?
C. Current major class specifications (F1A, B, C,
and E) appear
to be based solely on what is required at the “Championship” level.
Given the fact that major championships make up around 3 to 4% of the
international calendar and less that 1% of the total of main FAI class
flying throughout the world this is really not a sensible basis for
class rules/specifications? The effect of these “Championship
Orientated Specifications” is to reduce general, individual country
based participation and push our sport beyond the reach and interest of
many fliers. We should have a contest structure where the World
Championship is the pinnacle, but an accessible pinnacle. Access should
be open to a mixture of resources and talents.
D. The World Cup has been a positive benefit in the
stimulation
of International competition. On the negative side many fliers of the
international classes, within member countries, now look on these
contests not as an attainable pinnacle but as something only within the
reach of a “few” with sufficient time and money to take part.
Consequently those without such means – the vast majority – are loosing
interest in international classes. The net result is an overall
decrease of participation in international classes not an increase.
Many forces have taken us to our current position, but all of the above
illustrate that a change can and does have both positive and negative
benefits. This serves to make the point that the situation is not
straightforward and conflicting arguments exist, consideration of these
conflicts has to be taken into account.
In short we must try to stop the vicious circle and create a virtuous
one in its place, we have painted ourselves into the corner, and we
need to find a way out.
The Objectives
- To moderate the effects of
technology development
- To restrict current performance
to a level where
it is acceptable within the constraints of flying sites that are
generally available worldwide.
- To formulate “less
technologically complex”
alternative specifications that produce “equivalent” performance to the
restricted current performance level.
- Set up a proactive planning and
monitoring
activity within the present CIAM/FFSC structure that will prevent
future “runaway” situations.
The Plan
To achieve the above objectives
the idea is that we
actually allow development to proceed. However, there is a price to be
paid for the continuation of such technological development, to
maintain a level field. The price is that we “handicap” the technology
approach, while levelling the field by allowing an “equivalent
performance” to be achieved with a low-tech alternative specification.
It will be up to the flier to decide which approach to select.
Crucially these alternative specifications, outlined below, are not
separate classes. They are intended all to been flown together as one
class. In the UK this principal is known as “combined” classes, and our
experience is that it works very well. Different fliers decide that one
approach is more attractive than another, dependant upon their
interests and experience. However in reality any of the approaches is
capable of producing the same result. It is the job of the “management”
to ensure that the overall level of performance is acceptable in the
first place, and that each alternative approach is truly equivalent and
that it remains so through monitoring and continued change.
Specification Changes
They are brief and only in outline, needing
filling out
in detail at later stage. However the essence of the correct “balance”
in performance is there:
F1A.
F1A/1. Flapped wing models, or other
unlimited developments,
are allowed at current weight and area specifications but have to be
flown off a 40 metre line.
F1A/2. Bunting and Circle tow
models are allowed at
current weight and area specifications are allowed but have to be flown
off a 50 metre line.
F1A/3. Models restricted to
fixed, straight tow only
hooks, simple Auto Rudder and DT only. Current area specifications but
no minimum weight. Flown from a 60 metre line.
F1B.
F1B/1.
Unlimited technology allowed at current weight and area specifications
but Rubber weight limited to 30 grams maximum.
F1B/2. Models restricted to fixed
pitch/diameter
propeller units, one tail movement (single VIT) and Auto Rudder;
current area and weight specifications; Rubber weight 35 grams.
F1B/3. Models restricted to DT
only (no functions at all). Current area specifications but no minimum
weight. Rubber weight 40 grams.
F1C.
F1C/1.
Unlimited technology allowed at current weight, area and power
specifications but Engine run limited to 4 seconds.
F1C/2. Models as per current
area, weight and power
specifications but restricted to direct drive engines and “fixed
geometry”; Engine run 5 seconds.
F1C/3. Models restricted to DT
and Auto Rudder only (no
other trim changes permitted). A maximum area specification of 35sq.
decimetres but no minimum weight. Engine restricted to direct drive,
plain bearing, maximum size 2.5 cm3.
Engine run 10 seconds.
F1E.
F1E/1.
Unlimited technology allowed at current specifications. (Note: current
specifications produce acceptable performance but do not employ
acceptable technology levels.)
F1E/2. Models restricted to
“conventional” magnet units (electronic drives not permitted).
Mechanically programmed rudder movements permitted but tail movements
restricted to DT only. Time scores achieved are multiplied by 1.1
before “percentages” are applied to reach the final points score.
F1Q.
F1Q/1.
Unlimited technology allowed at reduced battery weight specification of
100 grams for Nickel types and 60 grams for Lithium types, 15 seconds
maximum Motor run.
F1Q/2. Models restricted to
“Brushed Motors” at present battery restrictions. 20 seconds Motor run.
In both categories Fly-off Motor runs would be reduced by 5 seconds in
each round to a minimum of 5 seconds for Category 1, and 10 seconds for
category 2.
Development, through this mechanism of specification management, is not
stopped but controlled. Existing models are not made redundant. Future
innovations are considered and regulated accordingly.
Fliers are not sidelined by being either priced or engineered off the
flying field. The competition is thus opened up to those who like to
fly the main international classes but have been put off, or those who
have ceased to compete because of the current level technology
required. The commercial outlets can continue and the homebuilder can
compete on the levelled field. There is thus more variety and choice of
model options.
Further we suggest that in the UK we experiment with a set of
alternative category specifications (alternative for the current
performance levels and specifications that is) for our own FAI
specification contests. The results of our experiments can be fed on to
give a factual basis for its debate.
Planning and Monitoring
In effect monitoring already exists – that is all fliers take note of
developments taking place or even instigate their own. The very nature
of competition dictates that they use this information to formulate
their own response. What is required, from an administrative position,
is that this information is used to produce a continuing plan for
“organisation and specification development”.
At present the change process provides specification alterations in
“reaction” to situations that have already taken place. What is
required is that the administrative body provides proposals in advance
of requirements. In short, that it becomes proactive.
As there is no present formal mechanism to provide this “proaction” we
suggest the following:
That a Working Party is set up from membership of
the CIAM/FFSC.
This should ideally consist of a small number (6 or so) of members
whose task would be to “formulate” future organisation and
specification changes in advance of their requirements.
The group would need to base these proposed changes on information
obtained from observing the direction of technology development (both
high and low) taking place. Some of this information would inevitably
come from their personal experience but the majority should be provided
by interaction with “other” fliers. The group should also actively
canvas “views” from a wider range fliers from other free flight
classes, other aeromodelling disciplines and administrators, and even
different sports – to access an “overall feeling” of what is
desired/required. The latter would in fact form the bulk of the work
involved. Web based and/or E-mail communications could form the basis
of this but an extra full FFSC meeting might also be required.
As we have discovered in the UK that “both” of these components to the
plan are needed to ensure it's success. It requires a lot of work and
may indeed need extra help – either extra members on the FFSC or help
from the FAI's full time administration. Nonetheless all of this is
necessary, if international free flight is to survive and, importantly,
expand.
Timetable and Stages
A timeframe has to be considered. The task
could easily
go on and on indefinitely if allowed to do so. We need to set a time
constraint but at the same time be realistic.
The stages that are required by the process will, to a great extent,
determine the time frame. We suggest the outline of the timings below:
2009
- Agreement
by the FFSC that a “change” is required.
- Debate started on the actual
specification changes and alternatives required.
- Debate started on how the
proactive planning and monitoring functions can be set up.
- Publicity of proposals and
details to the National Aero Clubs.
- Exact proposals/plan published.
- Feed back and discussion
process started.
- Final plan announced for
implementation in Jan 2010.
2010
- Implementation.
What we have presented is
a plan to control technological development. At the same time the means
for providing an alternative route to similar performance is detailed,
whilst also providing a method of control and monitoring of its
progress. These ideas taken together, we believe, will provide a
solution to the declining levels of participation in International Free
Flight.
The plan takes the world of International free flight forward. The
measurement of success or failure will be the simple criterion of
achieving a greater participation in international free flight
competition.
Do we think that these ideas will be the answer? The answer is yes! Do
we think that leaving things alone would be better, the answer is no.
We commend this paper for consideration.
BMFA FFTC December 2008
Follow Annex 1 and Annex 2
Annex 1 – BMFA Combined Classes
In the UK Combined Class contests are run by flying together
various 'individual' classes all to their individual class
specifications at the same time and to the same max. Each of the
individual classes have their specifications tailored to produce the
'similar' performance levels. Thus a Vintage Glider flown on a 100
metre line is expected to have an equivalent performance to a current
F1A flown on a 50 metre line. Similarly a BMFA class Power model, F1C
model and BMFA Electric model are also expected to have similar
performance levels.
After two years of running these contests it has become clear from the
results that the specifications have been set correctly and that a
variety of classes have produced the winners.
No particular class has dominated – this was the object. The great
advantage has been that the enthusiasts for each class get to fly what
they want to fly, and, have much bigger entries to compete against. As
a result interest in contest flying as a whole has been increased.
Combined Glider:
F1A
Current Specifications
50 metre towline
BMFA Glider
See Specifications in Annex 2
50/75 metre towlines
Classic Glider
Models from period 1951 – 1960
75 metre towline
Vintage Glider
Models from period to 1950
100 metre towline
Combined Rubber:
F1B
Current Specifications
30 grams rubber
BMFA Rubber
See Specifications in Annex 2
50 grams rubber
Classic Rubber
Models from period 1951 – 1960
75 grams rubber
Vintage Rubber
Models from period to 1950
100 grams rubber
Combined Power:
F1C
Current Specification
5 second motor run
BMFA Power
See Specifications in Annex 2
5/7/10 second motor run
Slow Power
See Specifications in Annex 2
10/12 second motor run
Classic Power
Models from period 1951 – 1960
12 second motor run
Vintage Power
Models from period to 1950
18 second motor run
F1Q Electric
Current Specifications
25 second motor run
BMFA Electric
See Specifications in Annex 2
28 second motor run
Annex 2 – BMFA
Individual Class Specifications
Note that the following are not 'full' rules. They are
extracts
and/or edits from the BMFA rule book. They are for illustration of
class combinations only.
BMFA
Glider:
Two
types of model are permitted:
- Models fitted with bunt launching and/or circle tow devices – 50 metre towline.
- Models not fitted with devices to allow bunt launching or
circle towing; auto-rudder is permitted – 75 metre towline.
Other than above there are no restrictions on the design, area or weight of the model.
BMFA Rubber:
The
amount of rubber used shall be restricted to 50 grams (lubricated).
Other than above there are no
restrictions on the design, area or weight of the model.
BMFA
Power:
The maximum size of
engine is restricted to 10 cm3. The maximum engine run allowed from the moment of
release of the model will be:
- For models fitted with mechanisms enabling bunt transition from power to glide - 5 seconds
- For models not fitted with bunt transition but fitted with
other moving surfaces – 7 seconds.
- For models not fitted with any moving trim surfaces other than DT – 10 seconds.
BMFA Slow Power:
Models shall have no timed moving surfaces apart from DT.
Other than above there are no
restrictions on the design, area or weight of the model.
engine or from a self pressurising tank.
BMFA Electric Power:
- Motor
maximum size……… 600, brushed type only
- Maximum motor run from release of model……… 28 seconds
Other than above there are no restrictions on the design, area or weight of the model.