Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Shut-off and DQ problem

Expand Messages
  • henning.forbech
    Proposals for new rules that have been send forward to the CIAM Control Line Subcommittee meeting this weekend. One rule is concerning disqualification if the
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 28, 2007
      Proposals for new rules that have been send forward to the CIAM
      Control Line Subcommittee meeting this weekend. One rule is concerning
      disqualification if the shut-off is not working:

      4.4.15. Cancellation of the Flight:
      y): In the event of a flyaway where the engine shut-off device does
      not stop the engine within 5 seconds.

      This simple rule can lead to some unexpected problems:

      Imagine a situation with a DQ rule for a not functioning shut-off and
      pilots fly with shut-off systems with a success rate of 90 %. (Some
      pilots will probably even block the shut-off systems because the risk
      of a DQ is lower than the benefits of avoiding the trouble with
      unreliable shut-off systems).

      If a pilot is about to lose his fight some might be desperate enough
      to go for there opponent`s lines. If his model flies away and the
      shut-off doesn't work he will be disqualified and the "desperate
      pilot" will be declared the winner.
      Just the chance of the shut-off not working will be enough for some
      pilots to try out this tactic in some situations.
      If you don't think some pilots will go for a fly-away to win a match
      then just take a look around. Today we see pilots do the same just to
      get a reflight! If the reward for cutting your opponents lines was a
      good chance for an instant win I think we will see an increased number
      of dangerous fly-aways (remember some of these models will have non
      working or blocked shut-off systems and can fly really far away).

      A solution to this problem could be to let both pilots be disqualified
      in the event of a fly-away.
      The first problem here is that pilots sometimes act as parts of teams.
      If a pilot from one team is about to lose to a top pilot from another
      team he could go for a fly-away (his opponents or his own, doesn't
      matter here). By causing a fly-away he gets a DQ (no problem, he has
      lost anyhow) but he also takes out the top pilot from the other team.
      This could be a big help for his teammates and at the end of the day
      this could rank his team higher than if he just accepted that he lost
      that bout.
      A second problem is that fly-aways do also happen just as results of
      simple accidents. If both pilots get a DQ after a fly-away there would
      be a higher element of randomness end luck in the competition. This is
      not the way to make combat more interesting and it is in direct
      opposition to the wish to let the fight be settled in the air.
      A third problem could rise when a pilot with two lives left meets a
      pilot with only one life in the final. If the 2-life pilot could
      arrange a fly-away both pilots would lose a life and he would be
      declared the winner since he will be the only pilot with a life left.
      A really odd problem could come up after a fly-away in a final with
      two one-life pilots. No winner but a group of pilots that all have the
      same score. This would be a real nightmare to all organizers.

      I see no simple solution to this problem but good and reliable
      shut-offs would minimize the problem. If the shut-off rule is
      implemented too early we might end up in a scenario with even more
      dangerous situations than we see today.

      Once again: I recommend that the shut-off rules are postponed for a
      year !

      Regards,
      Henning Forbech


      See also:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/combat-l/message/15249
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/combat-l/message/15242
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/combat-l/message/15225
    • kb1_us
      I agree, a good reliable shut-off that is currently available will do much to stop the issue. If I m cut away with my equipment, it will stop in less than 2
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 28, 2007
        I agree, a good reliable shut-off that is currently available will do
        much to stop the issue. If I'm cut away with my equipment, it will
        stop in less than 2 seconds especially if it is cut near the
        airplane.The ones who block the shut-off should be disqualified from
        the contest for endangering the people around them.
        To repeat what has been stated, this is not to make F2D more
        interesting but to prevent the FAI from eliminating the event period.

        Ken






        --- In combat-l@yahoogroups.com, "henning.forbech" <hf@...> wrote:
        >
        > Proposals for new rules that have been send forward to the CIAM
        > Control Line Subcommittee meeting this weekend. One rule is
        concerning
        > disqualification if the shut-off is not working:
        >
        > 4.4.15. Cancellation of the Flight:
        > y): In the event of a flyaway where the engine shut-off device does
        > not stop the engine within 5 seconds.
        >
        > This simple rule can lead to some unexpected problems:
        >
        > Imagine a situation with a DQ rule for a not functioning shut-off
        and
        > pilots fly with shut-off systems with a success rate of 90 %. (Some
        > pilots will probably even block the shut-off systems because the
        risk
        > of a DQ is lower than the benefits of avoiding the trouble with
        > unreliable shut-off systems).
        >
        > If a pilot is about to lose his fight some might be desperate enough
        > to go for there opponent`s lines. If his model flies away and the
        > shut-off doesn't work he will be disqualified and the "desperate
        > pilot" will be declared the winner.
        > Just the chance of the shut-off not working will be enough for some
        > pilots to try out this tactic in some situations.
        > If you don't think some pilots will go for a fly-away to win a match
        > then just take a look around. Today we see pilots do the same just
        to
        > get a reflight! If the reward for cutting your opponents lines was a
        > good chance for an instant win I think we will see an increased
        number
        > of dangerous fly-aways (remember some of these models will have non
        > working or blocked shut-off systems and can fly really far away).
        >
        > A solution to this problem could be to let both pilots be
        disqualified
        > in the event of a fly-away.
        > The first problem here is that pilots sometimes act as parts of
        teams.
        > If a pilot from one team is about to lose to a top pilot from
        another
        > team he could go for a fly-away (his opponents or his own, doesn't
        > matter here). By causing a fly-away he gets a DQ (no problem, he has
        > lost anyhow) but he also takes out the top pilot from the other
        team.
        > This could be a big help for his teammates and at the end of the day
        > this could rank his team higher than if he just accepted that he
        lost
        > that bout.
        > A second problem is that fly-aways do also happen just as results of
        > simple accidents. If both pilots get a DQ after a fly-away there
        would
        > be a higher element of randomness end luck in the competition. This
        is
        > not the way to make combat more interesting and it is in direct
        > opposition to the wish to let the fight be settled in the air.
        > A third problem could rise when a pilot with two lives left meets a
        > pilot with only one life in the final. If the 2-life pilot could
        > arrange a fly-away both pilots would lose a life and he would be
        > declared the winner since he will be the only pilot with a life
        left.
        > A really odd problem could come up after a fly-away in a final with
        > two one-life pilots. No winner but a group of pilots that all have
        the
        > same score. This would be a real nightmare to all organizers.
        >
        > I see no simple solution to this problem but good and reliable
        > shut-offs would minimize the problem. If the shut-off rule is
        > implemented too early we might end up in a scenario with even more
        > dangerous situations than we see today.
        >
        > Once again: I recommend that the shut-off rules are postponed for a
        > year !
        >
        > Regards,
        > Henning Forbech
        >
        >
        > See also:
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/combat-l/message/15249
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/combat-l/message/15242
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/combat-l/message/15225
        >
      • Iskandar Taib
        ... The problem I see with this analysis is that it relies too much on a slippery slope type argument. First of all, we ve seen at least 2 shutoffs that are
        Message 3 of 3 , Nov 28, 2007
          "henning.forbech" <hf@...> wrote:

          > If a pilot is about to lose his fight some might be
          > desperate enough
          > to go for there opponent`s lines. If his model flies
          > away and the
          > shut-off doesn't work he will be disqualified and
          > the "desperate
          > pilot" will be declared the winner.
          > Just the chance of the shut-off not working will be
          > enough for some
          > pilots to try out this tactic in some situations.
          > If you don't think some pilots will go for a
          > fly-away to win a match
          > then just take a look around. Today we see pilots do
          > the same just to
          > get a reflight! If the reward for cutting your
          > opponents lines was a
          > good chance for an instant win I think we will see
          > an increased number
          > of dangerous fly-aways (remember some of these
          > models will have non
          > working or blocked shut-off systems and can fly
          > really far away).

          The problem I see with this analysis is that it relies
          too much on a "slippery slope" type argument. First of
          all, we've seen at least 2 shutoffs that are workable,
          even under F2D rules, never mind the complaints about
          external controls, etc., so whether the practice of
          disarming shutoffs during flight would become common
          is already questionable. Second, if cutting away an
          opponent on the chance that he doesn't have a
          functioning shutoff does becomes rampant, you'll bet
          people WILL start arming their shutoffs, in
          self-defence if nothing else, in which case the tactic
          won't work anymore and people will stop using it.

          Iskandar
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.