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

Shut-off in all classes

Expand Messages
  • henning.forbech
    Most people probably think that the new shut-off rules only concern combat. It is not so. The side effects of this rule are much deeper and wider than most
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 23, 2008
      Most people probably think that the new shut-off rules only concern
      combat.
      It is not so. The side effects of this rule are much deeper and wider
      than most model flyers realize.

      Let's take a look into the future and see how the situation will be
      after shut-offs have been made mandatory in combat.

      Now, imagine a situation where somebody has been injured or even
      killed in an accident with a Speed, TeamRace or Stunt model. How will
      our positions be and which arguments will be used against us in a lawsuit?

      Two facts:

      1) We have introduced the mandatory shut-off system in combat because
      we have considered that a combat model is dangerous in the event of a
      fly-away.

      2) Stunt, Team Race and Speed models do have higher impact energy than
      combat models. This meaning that these types of models are more
      dangerous than a combat model.

      In court the pilot, contest director and the control line model flying
      organizations now have to explain why this Speed/TeamRace/Stunt model
      did not have an anti fly-away device when it is mandatory for the less
      dangerous combat models!
      It is hard to find any arguments that justify this and there will be
      basis for a really huge lawsuit.

      The fact that dangerous events are very rare in these classes do not
      change the situation. There will still be a probability of an accident
      and a huge lawsuit against all involved.
      The key point here is to understand the difference between the chance
      of an event and the consequences of the event. One example: The
      problem with "Russian Roulette" is not the chance of "winning" but the
      consequence if you "win". You can not turn Russian
      Roulette in to good clean family entertainment by changing the odds of
      winning to, lets say, one in a million. The problem is the fatal
      consequence if you win, not the odds for winning.




      By letting the less dangerous class be the first to introduce the
      mandatory shut-off we put the other classes in a real bad position.

      Competition organizers will be under threat of a huge lawsuit. If
      nobody dares to run this new risk, the only solution will be also to
      introduce mandatory shut-offs in these classes.

      As you can see the shut-offs rule is not an issue that only concerns
      combat.
      Speed, Team Race and Stunt pilots will be highly affected by this new
      rule.
      It would therefore be reasonable also to hear their opinion in the
      discussion.

      A reasonable debate on this new subject can not be done before the
      CIAM meeting.
      I recommend that the shut-off rules be postponed for a year.


      Regards,
      Henning Forbech




      You will find more on the impact energy calculations here:
      http://www.modelflyvning.dk/linestyring/combat/shutoff/shutoff-salut.htm#impact

      See the difference between chance and risk here:
      http://www.modelflyvning.dk/linestyring/combat/shutoff/shutoff-salut.htm#risk
    • D LOVGREN
      I posed this exact question to a member of the F2 subcommittee and was told there is NO fly away problem in stunt. End of discussion. Of course, claiming
      Message 2 of 3 , Feb 23, 2008
        I posed this exact question to a member of the F2 subcommittee and was told
        there is NO fly away problem in stunt. End of discussion.
        Of course, claiming there is no problem could always be different from
        reality!
        I have also discussed the reality vs "red herring" nature of the risk of
        lawsuits and been told that the F2 committee had a duty to protect the FAI
        and if F2D had to be done in to avoid what was seen to be an inevitable
        lawsuit then so be it.

        In other words, we will screw F2D over "chicken little" claims but will deny
        that the same arguments have any validity in our own favourite event, be it
        stunt or team race.

        Dave



        >From: "henning.forbech" <hf@...>
        >Reply-To: combat-l@yahoogroups.com
        >To: combat-l@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: [combat-l] Shut-off in all classes
        >Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:09:10 -0000
        >
        >Most people probably think that the new shut-off rules only concern
        >combat.
        >It is not so. The side effects of this rule are much deeper and wider
        >than most model flyers realize.
        >
        >Let's take a look into the future and see how the situation will be
        >after shut-offs have been made mandatory in combat.
        >
        >Now, imagine a situation where somebody has been injured or even
        >killed in an accident with a Speed, TeamRace or Stunt model. How will
        >our positions be and which arguments will be used against us in a lawsuit?
        >
        >Two facts:
        >
        >1) We have introduced the mandatory shut-off system in combat because
        >we have considered that a combat model is dangerous in the event of a
        >fly-away.
        >
        >2) Stunt, Team Race and Speed models do have higher impact energy than
        >combat models. This meaning that these types of models are more
        >dangerous than a combat model.
        >
        >In court the pilot, contest director and the control line model flying
        >organizations now have to explain why this Speed/TeamRace/Stunt model
        >did not have an anti fly-away device when it is mandatory for the less
        >dangerous combat models!
        >It is hard to find any arguments that justify this and there will be
        >basis for a really huge lawsuit.
        >
        >The fact that dangerous events are very rare in these classes do not
        >change the situation. There will still be a probability of an accident
        >and a huge lawsuit against all involved.
        >The key point here is to understand the difference between the chance
        >of an event and the consequences of the event. One example: The
        >problem with "Russian Roulette" is not the chance of "winning" but the
        >consequence if you "win". You can not turn Russian
        >Roulette in to good clean family entertainment by changing the odds of
        >winning to, lets say, one in a million. The problem is the fatal
        >consequence if you win, not the odds for winning.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >By letting the less dangerous class be the first to introduce the
        >mandatory shut-off we put the other classes in a real bad position.
        >
        >Competition organizers will be under threat of a huge lawsuit. If
        >nobody dares to run this new risk, the only solution will be also to
        >introduce mandatory shut-offs in these classes.
        >
        >As you can see the shut-offs rule is not an issue that only concerns
        >combat.
        >Speed, Team Race and Stunt pilots will be highly affected by this new
        >rule.
        >It would therefore be reasonable also to hear their opinion in the
        >discussion.
        >
        >A reasonable debate on this new subject can not be done before the
        >CIAM meeting.
        >I recommend that the shut-off rules be postponed for a year.
        >
        >
        >Regards,
        >Henning Forbech
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >You will find more on the impact energy calculations here:
        >http://www.modelflyvning.dk/linestyring/combat/shutoff/shutoff-salut.htm#impact
        >
        >See the difference between chance and risk here:
        >http://www.modelflyvning.dk/linestyring/combat/shutoff/shutoff-salut.htm#risk
        >
        >
      • Leonardo De Vincenzi
        Forbech Very consistent analysis/arguments. You may consider for stunt risk the fact that most maneuvers are made between 1.2-1.8 meters high (in most part of
        Message 3 of 3 , Feb 23, 2008
          Forbech

          Very consistent analysis/arguments. You may consider for stunt risk the fact
          that most maneuvers are made between 1.2-1.8 meters high (in most part of the
          time stunt model flies at 1.5 meters). In combat, models normally stays most
          part of the time higher than 3 meters.

          If a 1.8 kg stunt model escape from the fly field at 1.5 meters, certainly a
          near person will have less chance to avoid been hit from a stunt model than in
          a combat case.

          Leonardo De Vincenzi
          Brazilian F2D pilot
          Mad Dog Team



          --- "henning.forbech" <hf@...> escreveu:

          > Most people probably think that the new shut-off rules only concern
          > combat.
          > It is not so. The side effects of this rule are much deeper and wider
          > than most model flyers realize.



          Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail, o único sem limite de espaço para armazenamento!
          http://br.mail.yahoo.com/
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.