New FAI F2B Judging Instructions
(plus Sporting Code manoeuvre description clarifications)
In Lausanne on March 24th 2000, the CIAM Plenary Meeting approved the edited and clarified new version (Version 2.0) of the Judging Instructions for Category F2B, Control Line Aerobatic Models. The clarification of some manoeuvre descriptions in the present Sporting Code as related to the new Judging Instructions were also approved at that meeting. The new Judging Instructions and clarified Sporting Code manoeuvre descriptions will all be valid at the "Landres2000" F2 World Championships to be held in Landres, France, July 12th to 19th.
Here are the Sporting Code manoeuvre descriptions as clarified, followed by key extracts from the new Judging Instructions:
Sporting Code clarifications:
1. Section 4c, Part 4. Class F2B Paragraph 18.104.22.168: add, after last sentence: All turns to and from level flight should be of 1.5 metres radius, not exceeding 2.1 metres.
2. Section 4c, Part 4. Class F2B Paragraph 22.214.171.124: Remove the term "equal sized": ..., each with four inside turns of approximately 1,5 metres radius and straight
equal sized segments,... And remove this sentence from " Errors": Sides of loops are not equal.
3. Section 4c, Part 4. Class F2B Paragraph 126.96.36.199: Remove the term "equal sized": ..., each with four outside turns of approximately 1,5 metres radius and straight
equal sized segments with bottom segments at normal flight,... And remove this sentence from " Errors": Sides of loops are not equal.
Judging Instructions Extracts:
(expect the complete Judging Instructions document to be published by CIAM in the very near future)
4A.1 Purpose: This document forms part of Section 4 of the FAI Sporting Code applicable to Class 2B Aerobatics. (Some recommendations for the training and "certification" of F2HB Judges by NAC’s then follows in this paragraph).
4A.4.1 In all of the following manoeuvre marking instructions, the descriptions have been written from the viewing point of the pilot and not of the judges; and all the following descriptions use "two dimensional" terms on the basis that whilst it is known that models actually fly hemispherical arcs, the real judging task is to mark manoeuvres such as Square Loops (for example) on the basis of what can be most easily and clearly described in writing as "straight line" flight paths. Rather than using terms which are geometrically accurate but which may create confusion, all the manoeuvre descriptions in this document therefore use terms which express the meaning of the Sporting Code and explain the judges’ marking tasks as clearly and as simply as possible .....
.... "vertical" means at right angles (perpendicular) to the ground over which the flying takes place.
.... "horizontal" means parallel to the ground over which the flying takes place.
4A.5.2 Size: Manoeuvre sizes are defined in the Rules by specifying line elevation angle (specified in degrees of arc above the normal 1.5 metres upright level flight height)....
.... The use of visible fixed terrain reference points at each site to help judges "fix into memory" both the 1.5 metres normal upright and inverted level flight height, and 45 degrees lateral angle (1/8th lap) is recommended. Contest organisers are also encouraged to erect suitable markers at contest sites to assist judges, particularly at sites where suitable natural fixed features are limited ....
4A.6 General comments regarding the marking of manoeuvres: Although models fly on the surface of a hemisphere, from the pilot's perspective all manoeuvres are flown in plane geometry – because all points on the surface of a hemisphere are at an equal distance from the pilot, the pilot sees all manoeuvres as if they were drawn on a flat sheet of paper. But from their position outside the circle, judges are, firstly, not in the ideal position to view manoeuvres, and secondly, they also usually view manoeuvres from a point which is not directly opposite the centre line axis of each manoeuvre. Therefore the judges’ marking tasks include a large element of personal analysis and situational awareness that should take their own (less than ideal) viewing position into consideration when awarding marks ....
4A.6.7 Recognition of "maximum 2.1 metres radius" as an abrupt change of direction with the resulting requirement for the model to fly a very tight corner ....
4A.6.9 Recognition of the fact that all the above "dimensions" are specified as measured from the pilot’s viewing point, with due allowance to be made by judges for models flown on different line lengths and for the difference between the pilot’s position and the judges’ actual viewing position/s.
4A.7 Judging objective errors: Provided that throughout all the judged laps the model remains inside the tolerance defined in the Rules and provided that it tracks smoothly without any visible height changes (that is, no "hunting") throughout, no downgraded mark should be awarded. A flight track which slightly exceeds the stated tolerance (such as flying 40 cm off the flight track where plus/minus 30 cm is required) should be considered as a "minor" error which would cause the judge to award a mark downgraded by 0.5 points. Flying off the defined flight track by as much as twice the defined tolerance should be considered as a "medium" error, resulting in the award of a mark downgraded by 1 point. Errors of three times the defined tolerance from the defined flight track should be considered as "major", resulting in the award of marks downgraded by 1.5 points. In order to use this method successfully, judges must be trained to recognise flight path deviations of 30 cm and 60 cm at a viewing distance of approximately 45 metres, and this will require relevant and repeated demonstrations to train judges to be able to readily gauge such measurements. Such training is highly recommended for all judges, and such training should also emphasise the varying tolerances defined in the Rule for each manoeuvre and for each segment of each figure of each manoeuvre.
4A.8.2 Turn radii: .... judges should recognise that the intent of the Sporting Code regarding corner radii in manoeuvres such as Square Loops, Square Eights, Triangles, etc, is that models should turn as sharply (tightly) as possible. .... the intent of the Sporting Code is clearly that models should turn as tightly as possible when making such turns ....
4A.10 Awarding marks: ....It should also be noted that since nothing written anywhere in the Sporting Code defines terms such as general impression and flying style, accurate and repeatable marking really depends "only" (!) upon each judge deciding on the total number of errors committed and the degree to which each error has deviated from the flight track defined in each manoeuvre Rule ....
4A10.3 also gives a detailed "table of marks" which could be awarded, according to the number of errors and the extent of each error, as observed by each Judge.
4A.15 Judges’ calibration ("warm-up") flights: ....After each warm-up flight the judges should not discuss the individual scores they have awarded to each flight. Instead they should go through a manoeuvre-by-manoeuvre discussion, comparing and discussing their individual assessments of each error (including the severity of those errors) that they have seen during every segment of every figure and every manoeuvre flown ....
4A.18. Judges’ position: The panel of judges should be placed in a position defined by each competitor prior to starting his/her official flight ....
.... Judges may however, at their own discretion, move from the positions originally taken at the start of an official flight by up to plus/minus 1/8th of a lap during an official flight.
The new Judging Instructions document then goes on to give detailed guidance to Judges on the general procedures to be adopted during competitions, including covering such areas as awarding marks for manoeuvres which are not attempted, manoeuvres which are performed out of sequence, etc, etc. Finally, the Judging Instructions give a detailed manoeuvre-by-manoeuvre description of each manoeuvre required by the Sporting Code, breaking each manoeuvre into separate parts, and clearly defining the points at which Judges should start and stop the judging of each manoeuvre.
The above is purely an extract of the major points in the new Judging Instructions document. For full details please refer to the complete document, to be published by CIAM in Spring 2000.