PDA

View Full Version : Proposed Rule Changes for 2013



DJ Molny
10-15-2012, 11:34 PM
The proposed changes appear below. Use the 'Reply (http://eaaforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=23638&noquote=1)' button below to provide your feedback no later than Nov. 11, 2012.



No.
Synopsis
Affected Rule
Proposed Rule Change
Rationale


13-1
Remove certain figures from the list of legal Intermediate power Unknown figures.
Appendix 3, Intermediate, Family 8
Remove 8.5.9.x thru 8.5.19 (vertical 5/8th loops) from Appendix 3, Intermediate.
The downward figures all require a transition from negative or zero g loading to high sustained positive g- loading, raising a safety concern. And the upward figures require significant aircraft performance to avoid stalling over the top looping portion.


13-2
Adds a rolling turn to the list of legal Intermediate Unknown figures for both power and glider.
Appendices 3 & 4, Intermediate, Family 2
Add the 2.1.3.1, “90-degree, 1 roll to the inside” rolling turn to the list of legal figures for both power and glider Intermediate categories.
This figure has now been used for multiple years in Intermediate Knowns without issue and it is a common figure used in Intermediate glider Free programs. The figure presents no undue stress on either the pilot or the aircraft and increases the options for Intermediate Unknown sequences to transition between axes.


13-3
Deletes the 75% figure completion rule.
5.2.2
Delete 5.2.2 in its entirety:
In addition, competitors who do not complete 75% of the figures (by either not flying the figure or receiving a grade of zero for a figure flown) in their Known compulsory will be disqualified from that category. This does not mean that competitors who receive zeros for figures flown in the wrong direction will be disqualified solely for this error.

Charging the chief and grading judges with assessing whether each competitor is flying safely is the most robust safety tool in our bag. Tacking on a mandatory disqualification due solely to a poor score adds no value to contest safety; and serves only to procedurally eliminate competitors who, while flying safely, have a bad Known Program flight. It stands to reason that dismissing a competitor per 5.2.2 lessens the likelihood that we'd see him/her again at a future contest.


13-4
Provides the Chief Judge with the explicit right to interrupt a flight at any point if the Chief believes the competitor is unsafe.
4.2
Add new subparagraph:

4.2.4 The Chief Judge may direct a competitor to interrupt the sequence at any time if, in the Chief Judge’s opinion, that competitor is demonstrating an inability to safely control the aircraft during any part of the flight program. Following the direction to interrupt, the Chief Judge will immediately conference with the grading judges.

(a) If a majority of grading judges agree that the competitor is demonstrating unsafe flight, the Chief Judge will disqualify the competitor from further flight at the contest per rule 4.2.3.

(b) If the majority of grading judges do not agree that the competitor is demonstrating unsafe flight, there will be no penalty for the interruption and the sequence may be resumed in accordance with the procedures found in rule 4.20.4(b).
The current rules do not include “safety” as one of the reasons a Chief Judge may interrupt a flight in progress. This change provides a real-time check of the ability of a competitor to safely execute the sequence and defines the consequences of being found either “safe” or “unsafe” by the grading judges.


13-5
Deletes the eligibility of Advanced pilots to fly the 4-Minute Free program.
5.6.1
5.6.1 The contest Director may schedule this special trophy event for any Unlimited category competitor. or Advanced category competitors who also hold at least a current ICAS 250-foot waiver. All 4-Minute Free competitors must have completed the scheduled competition flight programs in their respective category.
1) The current rule (changed in 2012) was intended to encourage greater participation in the 4-Minute Freestyle, but the benefit to the organization is small to nonexistent and regardless, there are very few Advanced pilots who qualify.

2) The ICAS waiver is NOT designed to test skills that are required to fly a competent 4-Minute Freestyle. In fact, it is entirely possible to obtain a 250 foot waiver by simply demonstrating competence in flying an Intermediate-level sequence at lower altitudes.

3) The IAC’s established method of a controlled escalation of increasing figure complexity and exposure to lower altitudes has undoubtedly contributed to our excellent safety record. Changing the requirements for the 4-Minute Freestyle is a major departure from that proven approach and adds no benefit to the overwhelming majority of members.

4) From a legal standpoint the IAC is accepting the financial and ethical responsibility for any accident or incident that may occur due to granting eligibility to pilots approved by an organization (ICAS) over which the IAC has no control or say as to certification requirements.

5) The IAC charter has an emphasis on safety. Prominent in our organization’s purpose is “A Commitment and Responsibility to Safety and Excellence in every aspect of our Sport.” The current rule flies in the face of our stated purpose and goals. Why risk that record for little to no benefit to the overall organization?


13-6
Clarifies the maximum wind speed rule.
4.19.3
Contest flight will not be conducted if the cross wind component for the active runway exceeds 20 knots or the total wind velocity at the surface exceeds 25 knots from any direction.
The current rule is open to many interpretations due to its lack of defined specifics. This change addresses the safety aspect of takeoff and landing operations in high winds and sets the maximum total surface wind at approximately the well-proven CIVA limit. Further, it takes the Jury out of the equation. It is not unusual to have several jury members who are not pilots and thus not equipped to appreciate the safety aspects of high wind operations.

DJ Molny
10-16-2012, 08:50 AM
13-1: By way of background, this proposal only impacts the six figures that are permitted by Appendix 3 of the IAC Rule Book: 8.5.9.1 ("reverse teardrop"), 8.5.11.3, 8.5.12.3, 8.5.17.1 ("teardrop"), 8.5.17. Of those, I would agree that 8.5.11.3, 8.5.12.3, and 8.5.17.4 present a risk of over-speed / over-G or GLOC due to the neg-pos transition. However the "teardrop" figures have no such risk, and don't require any more aircraft performance than, say, a diamond or square loop. In fact these figures can be flown as ordinary loops with a brief hesitation to establish the 45-degree line. While 8.5.19.3 incorporates a long 5/8ths pull, the pilot can decide how hard they want to pull, and the figure does not require any special aircraft performance. Therefore I support dropping 8.5.11.3, 8.5.12.3, and 8.5.17.4 from the list of acceptable Unknown figures, and retaining the others.

13-2: Concur.

13-3: Concur.

13-4: Strongly concur. While it's unlikely that a Chief Judge would stand idly by during an unsafe flight, there is clearly a gap in the current rules that should be rectified.

13-5: Abstain.

13-6: This issue has been debated for years, and I applaud the effort to bring more clarity to the rules. However I would much rather see the maximum crosswind component set at 15 knots. The proposed 20 knot limit is three knots above the demonstrated crosswind capability of the Super-D. And I shudder to think about newbies trying to land a Pitts S-1 in a 20-knot crosswind.

Martin Price
10-16-2012, 11:27 AM
My comments are largely a straight copy and paste of DJ's...

13-1: I don't see 8.5.9.1, 8.5.17.1 or 8.5.19.3 presenting huge issues to any Intermediate pilot. Somewhat lukewarm on the other three. I've flown 8.5.11.3 in a contest unknown, only after a protest changed the roll from a 2x4 to a 1/2 to tame the figure a little, and it could result in an unscheduled nap for an unprepared pilot. On the other hand, there really shouldn't be any unprepared pilots in Intermediate. Abstain on these three.

13-2: Concur - this is a great unknown figure for Intermediate

13-3: Concur

13-4: Strongly concur. I've had the daylights scared out of me on a judging line and it went on longer than I would have liked.

13-5: Abstain - above my skill level so I can't really comment. I'm not opposed in principle to an Advanced pilot flying a 4-minute free, especially if they're "stuck" in Advanced due to financial constraints, but I have no idea how to set a safe bar to qualify them for the 4-minute Free.

13-6: Disagree. As PIC I'll set my own wind limits (hint: I'm not landing the Pitts in a 20-knot crosswind) and I'm not sure a blanket rule is effective here.

WLIU
10-16-2012, 12:30 PM
Thanks for posting the rules change proposals. I hope that there is a notification in Sport Aerobatics and on the Acro Exploder.

My input is:

13-1 I support.

13-2 I support.

13-3 Do not support. While I have never seen this rule invoked at a contest, I have used this rule to explain to up and coming pilots what is expected of them. I will suggest that the rule sets an expectation and that its existence is one reason we never see it used.

13-4 I do not support. I have never seen a Chief Judge hesitate to stop a scary competitor just because the rule book did not explicitly address the safety aspect of a competition flight. And I have never seen a protest of the Chief Judge breaking off a competitor. I will suggest that adding a Judges Conference to the process is not needed. I will support a rule that allows the Chief Judge to break a competitor for safety reasons with no conferencing required.

13-5 I strongly support. I opposed the original addition of this rule to the IAC book for the reasons listed in this change proposal.

13-6 Do not support. My observation has been that Contest Directors and Chief Judges (on the east coast) have not needed a detailed rule to suspend contest flying for wind and weather. They seem to find enough justification in the existing rules, and have been well organized enough to consult with the competitors, to identify when the wind conditions on contest day are a safety issue. Have never seen a protest filed by a competitor who believed that a high cross-wind would provide a competitive advantage. And I have never seen a Contest Jury (east coast) with non-pilot members. Should there be a rule about Jury qualifications?

Thanks!

Wes Liu
IAC 10467
Intermediate Competitor
IAC National Judge
IAC Chapter 35 President Emeritus
Pitts Belly Washer

smutny
10-16-2012, 04:03 PM
13-1 - Disagree. It makes no sense to remove 8.5.x.x when the similar 8.6.x.x figures remain legal for Intermediate Unknowns. Both sets of figures require identical pilot ability and can be flown by the baseline aircraft.

13-2 - Agree.

13-3 - Disagree. Bear in mind, the text says 75% of the figures, not a score of 75%. It also states the competitor would be "...disqualified from that category..." which means they could fly one lower if desired. If a pilot can't fly three quarters of the Known figures, they need additional training, and that shouldn't be happening under the pressure of competition.

13-4 - Agree. I would add that the leading sentence should read, "The Chief Judge shall direct a competitor to interrupt the sequence..." In a nutshell, the IAC does not do well in training its new Chief Judges in the aspects of event safety and maintaining a three dimensional awareness of the contest. Any clarifying text to simplify safety issues is welcome.

13-5 - Agree.

13-6 - Disagree.

NZSlackie
10-16-2012, 05:29 PM
13-2 Strongly disagree, in fact I believe rolling circles should be removed from the Intermediate Known program also. By incrementally making Intermediate more and more difficult, and requiring competitors in this category to have more and more capable aircraft is slowly but surely killing off the competition. Whilst my aircraft is capable of flying the figures, many of my competitors' aircraft are not, and so an increasing number are being forced to either zero the manouvre or slide back down to Sports. Is this what the intention is???!!!

cyav8r
10-16-2012, 07:46 PM
...requiring competitors in this category to have more and more capable aircraft

Really?? A 90 1-turn roller is very flyable in a Decathlon with a bit of practice. That's the reference aircraft for the category and pretty low on the performance scale.

Chopmo
10-17-2012, 09:04 AM
... Decathlon ...reference aircraft for the category ...

Isn't the reference aircraft for the Intermediate Category the Great Lakes? I believe the Decathlon is the reference aircraft for Sportsman.

Not sure where this is declared...still looking for an official reference.

Jim Ward
10-17-2012, 10:54 AM
Chopmo, the reference aircraft for Intermediate is the Great Lakes. For Sportsman, it's a 7ECA Citabria (115hp, no inverted system). Find these in P&P 221 on page 3.

-Jim

Chopmo
10-17-2012, 11:13 AM
Chopmo, the reference aircraft for Intermediate is the Great Lakes. For Sportsman, it's a 7ECA Citabria (115hp, no inverted system). Find these in P&P 221 on page 3.

-Jim

Thanks, Jim! I have no objection to rollers in Intermediate given that the Great Lakes is the reference aircraft. I saw a Decathlon compete at the US Nationals in the Intermediate category. He did a fine 90 degree roller.

My Votes:

13-1 Do not Concur
13-2 Concur
13-3 Do not Concur
13-4 Do not Concur
13-5 Do Not Concur
13-6 Concur

Jim Ward
10-17-2012, 11:34 AM
Sure! 180hp Decathlons will do rolling circles all day long at 1 roll inside per 90º without exceeding AFM limits. (I've watched a friend, who has much better finesse than I, do outside rollers in his Decathlon. He says the airplane groans a little more than rolling to the inside. But maybe that was just him.)

I don't want to hijack this important thread any further, so I'll start a separate one soon about making Intermediate more friendly to Super Decathlons.

-Jim

Jim Ward
10-18-2012, 08:46 PM
13-1: My support is close, but not identical, to DJ's: I'd keep the "start upward" figures 8.5.9.1 and 8.5.17.1. I've heard no carping about these from pilots flying lower performance airplanes; to my eye they look flyable in Super Decathlons. I'd probably keep 8.5.17.4 providing there's no more than a short time inverted before the figure begins. And I'd keep 8.5.19.3, as there's just a pull following the spin but no intrinsic G-LOC issue.

Removing 8.5.11.3 and 8.5.12.3 would be acceptable. The rationale is, many Intermediate pilots I know don't consciously practice all possible Unknown figures. Rather, they show up at contests and expect to be able to fly whatever Unknown is put in front of them. To see one of these figures for the very first time in a contest Unknown might present a safety issue for the unsuspecting pilot.

13-2: I support. Super Decathlons can handily fly these inside rollers. (I believe that the reference airplane [the Great Lakes] can do this, too, but have no direct knowledge.) In the future year, I'd like to see 180º turns with two rolls inside added, too.

13-3: I support. Though infrequent, I've seen competitors who are very experienced in category forget to fly figures or just have a bad Known flight. It's too heavy-handed to mechanically disqualify them providing they're flying safely. I'm all for IAC having well-balanced rules that enhance safety. Today's 5.2.2 is not one of them.

13-4: I support. This new language may state a practice that some chief judges employ today, but not all do so. Regardless, nowhere is there formal direction as to how to proceed once the CJ breaks the competitor; this language provides that. This addition also offers clear guidance to contest juries about how to resolve a protest related to a CJ-directed safety break.

13-5: I've no opinion.

13-6: I'm not sure this is the right direction to go. Setting wind limits is a bit like defining beauty. Surface wind limits are personal and often dependent more on pilot skill than airplane. DJ's comments reflect my thinking.

Paul Jennings
10-22-2012, 10:51 AM
Agree with all Rules Changes except 13-6.

Rob Holland
10-26-2012, 03:55 PM
13-1 Disagree
13-2 Agree
13-3 no opinion
13-4 Agree
13-5 Strongly Disagree. IF you have the skills and have been evaluated by and Aerobatic Competency Evaluator to a level 2 SAC card...Then I don't see why you can't fly the 4 minute free...The rational for not allowing them could be used against Unlimited competitors Who don't have a current SAC card. I don't see the logic in the argument and strongly Disagree with this rule change.
13-6 Disagree

Francesco Pallozzi
10-27-2012, 09:05 AM
13.1: DISAGREE. Rule changes should be made to make Intermediate a more challenging category not an easier one. It is true that the consequence of this will be that some people will have to go back to Sportsman but Sportsman as well should be transformed in a more challenging category with a 6-7 figure unknown and 1300 ft box lower limit (Intermediate should feature 1000 ft box lower limit). Finally, Primary should become a real category with a 8-9 figure sequence including an hammerhead. If the concern is safety, why not having an aerobatic endorcement for pilots who want to fly in competition, the endorcement should foresee unusual attitude and spin recovery training. Basically I'm trying to remark that, in my opinion, aerobatic competition should not be for aerobatic beginner pilots.

13.2: AGREE. same rationale provided for 13.1

13.3: AGREE

13.4: AGREE

13.5: STRONGLY DISAGREE. As mentioned by Rob H. , whoever has the skill to fly the 4 minutes free and has been evaluated by a competent examiner should be allowed to fly. As matter of fact, if I was able to figure it out how submit a rule change (the IAC website is not user friendly), I would have proposed to transform the "4 minute free" in a completely separate competition, that is we should allow pilots to fly only this contest. In fact, there are several airshow pilots who don't fly anymore in competition, perhaps some of them could be interested in attending a contest, if they can arrive in the morning, register and fly the same day the 4 minute free. it is a different way to fly and there are pilots who are able to be very competitive in this speciality and not in the standard competition. Eventually, there could be one day contests only for 4 minute free, this kind of event could be much more interesting for people to watch.

13.6: AGREE

pjdugan
10-29-2012, 02:18 AM
13-1 don't agree
13-2 agree
13-3 do not agree
13-4 do not agree
13-5 strongly agree: The fact is this rule has been on the books for 1 year. With a zero participation rate of advanced category pilots. It has not served the purpose for which the rule is written. Several of the known individuals who would be qualified to take part don't. They have felt that this rule is detrimental to the IAC.

What I can see is an individual who has flown 10 airshow flights of intermediate level aerobatics going to advanced, flying the four minute as low as 328' doing low altitude tumbles. If he can't do a level slow roll below 656' in the advanced unknown without penalty, why should he be allowed or even encouraged to do tumbles below that.

13-6 do not agree

RetroAcro
10-29-2012, 11:59 AM
13-1 Disagree

13-2 Strongly Agree

13-3 Agree

13-4 Agree

13-5 Disagree. If the concern is regarding safety, I don't consider the simple fact that a pilot has entered a contest in the Unlimited category to be sufficient vetting by IAC of one's ability to safely fly the 4-min. Free. I'm not sure if IAC should get into the qualification business. IAC does not qualify Unlimited pilots to fly at 328' to begin with. If a SAC is required, then it should be required of Unlimited pilots as well. It seems those currently entering the 4-min. program self-qualify. Flying Unlimited either marginally or skillfully does not necessarily translate to the ability to fly tumbles at 328'.

13-6 Disagree. 20KT is an arbitrary number considering the many aircraft types at a contest, all with different x-wind capabilities. I've been to a few contests where flying was stopped due to wind, and the decision was made among the competitors, all understanding that different airplanes and pilots have different limits and that nobody wants to see anyone bend anything.

Eric Sandifer

pjdugan
10-29-2012, 06:35 PM
13-1 Disagree

13-2 Strongly Agree

13-3 Agree

13-4 Agree

13-5 Disagree. If the concern is regarding safety, I don't consider the simple fact that a pilot has entered a contest in the Unlimited category to be sufficient vetting by IAC of one's ability to safely fly the 4-min. Free. I'm not sure if IAC should get into the qualification business. IAC does not qualify Unlimited pilots to fly at 328' to begin with. If a SAC is required, then it should be required of Unlimited pilots as well. It seems those currently entering the 4-min. program self-qualify. Flying Unlimited either marginally or skillfully does not necessarily translate to the ability to fly tumbles at 328'.

13-6 Disagree. 20KT is an arbitrary number considering the many aircraft types at a contest, all with different x-wind capabilities. I've been to a few contests where flying was stopped due to wind, and the decision was made among the competitors, all understanding that different airplanes and pilots have different limits and that nobody wants to see anyone bend anything.

Eric Sandifer


I understand your point however an individual who enters unlimited has not been vetted by a single individual, he has been vetted by the rank and file from primary on!

RetroAcro
10-30-2012, 07:54 AM
I understand your point however an individual who enters unlimited has not been vetted by a single individual, he has been vetted by the rank and file from primary on!

Yes, but not in their ability to fly a low-altitude airshow routine with all the usual gyro maneuvers. Likewise, the majority of airshow pilots (those not having a background in Unlimited IAC competition) do not have the skills to compete in Unlimited, but if they wanted to show up to a contest, fly Advanced and the 4-minute Free just for fun, it wouldn't make much sense to prohibit this. Yeah, I know this doesn't really happen, which I think is why IAC is proposing the rule change. I simply feel entry into one competition category or the other doesn't necessarily have much bearing on the the ability to safely perform (at low altitude) the style of flying typically associated with the 4-minute Free.

WLIU
10-30-2012, 08:21 AM
There are a couple of problematical issues with the current rule about having Advanced competitors fly the 4 Minute Free.

First, no one has taken advantage of the rule. And why do we have a rule that favors a small number of IAC members who in turn are not using it? Near as I can tell it is the only rule in the book tailored to what appears to a group of 5 or so individuals. Can I have a rule too?

Second, what is the liability of IAC accepting a credential processed by a peer organization, where IAC has no input to the administration to that program. You and I know that these folks are OK, but if something goes horribly wrong at a contest, does this give a hostile attorney too large an opening for a lawsuit. My position would be different if the IAC was a formal partner in the ICAS accreditation program, but that is not where we are today.

All food for though. What we want and what makes sense in the large world may be in conflict here.

Regards,

Wes
N78PS

Jim Ward
10-30-2012, 12:01 PM
First, no one has taken advantage of the rule.

Actually, one Advanced competitor flew a 4-Minute Free Program in Ohio this year.

Jim

WLIU
10-30-2012, 01:33 PM
Thanks for the info. That is actually sort of good news in that the effort that IAC volunteers put into last year's rule change benefited one member. But it begs the question of whether the IAC contest rules should contain paragraphs that benefit one or two members.

Hope that the minutes if the fall board meeting offer some insight into the discussion on this one.

Regards,

Wes
N78PS

CSEngberg
11-05-2012, 05:28 PM
13-1 Disagree

13-2 Agree

13-3 Disagree

13-4 Strongly Agree

My thoughts are directly inline with Jim and Martin’s comments. This rule provides the direction and language to support what many chief judges already have done and/or would do if necessary while removing the uncertainty that currently exists around what to do in this situation. Unfortunately sometimes this problem occurs and chief judges are unsure of or are on the fence about calling a flight. By adding this to the rules it simply clarifies for competitors, judges and juries what is not only allowed by expected in order to maintain the highest level of safety.

13-5 Strongly Disagree

I supported the initial rule change and see no reason why it should be changed back (no issues with the change during this last year to my knowledge). The rationale states “The ICAS waiver is NOT designed to test skills that are required to fly a competent 4-Minute Freestyle.” I would argue that IAC does not test skills or even provide oversight for teaching competitors about low-level flying, “airshow-style” or “competition-style”. Thus, in many cases I would argue that an Advanced competitor with a 250ft card may have more experience, understanding and training for this type of flying and thus may actually be safer than an Unlimited pilot with no training in low-level flying and/or airshow energy management. As Rob points out, the arguments that are brought up in the rationale of this rule change proposal could easily be used against many Unlimited pilots (something that Eric Sandifer also clearly points out). If IAC’s goals are to increase participation and safety the inclusion of pilots with an SAC Level 2 card who have actually sat down for a checkride with an ACE would seem to not only benefit for our organization (as not only do they have to take a checkride but they have to do so every year which is an additional safety measure) but help meet both goals.

13-6 Disagree

This seems to be something more along the personal limitation lines – especially when it comes to surface winds.

AcroGimp
11-06-2012, 10:29 AM
13-1 - Disagree

13-2 - Agree

13-3 - Agree

13-4 - Agree

13-5 - Disagree

13-6 - Disagree

'Gimp

tom myers
11-10-2012, 03:44 PM
13-1: agree.

13-2: agree.

13-3: agree.

13-4: agree.

13-5: agree.

13-6: disagree. real world conditions, planes, and pilots are much too varied for such a simple blanket rule to be applicable, especially with such high limits.

tom
iac 16830

abslatkin
11-14-2012, 08:10 PM
13-1 Abstain: 8.5.11.3 and 8.5.12.3 may cause problems for a slow rolling airplanes, especially if those roll components are 2x4's, but other than those, the remaining figures should be within the capabilities of both pilots and airplanes in the category.


13-2 Support


13-3 Support


13-4 Support


13-5 Support: One year does not constitute a reasonable period for evaluation of this new rule.


13-6 Abstain (but leaning towards Do Not Support)