PDA

View Full Version : CIVA Known Proposals for 2014



Martin Price
08-20-2013, 10:04 AM
Since I haven't seen it appear here yet, the proposed CIVA Advanced and Unlimited Knowns for 2014 are available at

http://www.fai.org/civa-documents

Go to Meetings, select 2013, and there they are for your viewing/flying entertainment. Any input from Advanced/Unlimited pilots should go to Mike Heuer before the November meeting.

Cheers
-Martin

RetroAcro
08-20-2013, 07:47 PM
Interesting...never seen a vertical up snap in Advanced (Proposal E). I vote for Proposal D. Thoughts based on flying a stock 180 hp Pitts S-1S:

Proposal A - good energy/flow except for the line into figure 5 which would require a big slow down. I don't like the snap after the roll on the 45 down due to the potential for a higher speed snap than I'd like in the Pitts. I'd rather see a well-placed outside snap introduced into Advanced than a vertical up snap. For Figure 5 here, I'd rather do a 1/2 outside snap followed by a full aileron roll than the 1/2 aileron roll followed by the full inside snap. As drawn, it presents no particular challenge other than snap speed concerns for biplanes. Fine for monoplanes, though.

Proposal B - Figure 3 seems a little goofy, but not bad energy/flow otherwise.

Proposal C - Good variety and challenge, but flying off Figure 3 clean would be hard in warm Wx.

Proposal D - Good flow/energy, maybe just a little hard to round out the looping segment of Figure 6.

Proposal E - Interesting introduction of the vertical up snap. That would be lots of fun to see in Advanced...especially from the judges line. Not sure I like it as an Advanced figure though. Requires me to fly my Pitts pretty hard to do a decent 3/4 up snap.

Proposal F - Figure 1 is a very high energy figure for the Pitts and would be hard to fly round.

Proposal G - Same issue as above for Figure 7. Would struggle with energy into the push into Figure 6 in warm Wx.

Eric Sandifer

Martin Price
08-21-2013, 09:23 AM
I haven't flown any but your comments largely reflect my thoughts based on flying a stock S-2B (and I'm almost always in warm wx). I'm definitely not a fan of figure 5 in Proposal A.

I think D would be my personal favorite, followed by B.

Martin Price
10-24-2013, 11:09 AM
The latest versions of these proposals have been posted, along with comments from the Known Analysis Working Groups which gives an inkling as to which sequences are favored. The comments are an interesting read so it's worth revisiting (or visiting, if you haven't already).

Martin Price
11-10-2013, 08:11 PM
CIVA has voted. The 2014 Knowns (Unlimited, Advanced, Int/Y52) are...

341034113412

(Incidentally, I have no idea how well image embedding will turn out so, for the record, that's Unlimited proposal B, Advanced proposal B and Y52/Intermediate proposal A.)

-Martin

WLIU
11-13-2013, 07:38 AM
For the IAC Known Programs for Primary, Sportsman, and Intermediate for 2014, you can see them through the IAC web site in the agenda package for the fall Board meeting.

See you at the box,

Wes
N78PS

RetroAcro
11-13-2013, 04:36 PM
For the IAC Known Programs for Primary, Sportsman, and Intermediate for 2014, you can see them through the IAC web site in the agenda package for the fall Board meeting.See you at the box, Wes N78PS

Interesting change to the Primary sequence. I see in the table of contents a reference to "Primary RV / No spin sequences discussion", but didn't see any details related to that. Curious if there's a general concern about spins in Primary, or if the idea is to get more RV involvement via the removal of the spin, which I don't totally understand since RVs spin and recover normally, except for the RV-6 which has a high rotation rate and relatively delayed recovery once fully-developed. But competition spins do not reach this fully-developed state, and the other RV models (RV-3, 4, 7, and 8) have no spin quirks whatsoever.

Martin Price
11-14-2013, 09:28 AM
I think the main rationale was to come up with a Primary sequence that had no downwind loop/half cuban and there wasn't an easy way to do that and keep the spin. Altitude loss from the spin may have been a secondary concern, too. Good catch on the table of contents. I'd be interested to hear if there are any further discussions around this.

WLIU
11-14-2013, 12:34 PM
"I see in the table of contents a reference to 'Primary RV / No spin sequences discussion', but didn't see any details"

The agenda package speaks to the topics that they are planning to discuss. Unless you can speak to the board members before the meeting you and I are unlikely to know the motivations and details that will drive that discussion. At some point after the board meeting the minutes should be posted and we will find out something about the details of the issues. Jim Ward is the IAC Secretary. Jim used to be my neighbor and in fact I just exchanged e-mails with him. I will expect that Jim will be timely in posting the board meeting minutes.....

I have more than a passing interest as a couple of my proposals for rules changes are on the agenda.

Film at 11...

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

n_a_spin
11-30-2013, 09:34 PM
We had more discussion this year within the selection committee than other years on all of the proposals. The Primary Sequence change was for two reasons, get a dialog going about where primary fits into IAC as well as getting rid of the downwind looping portions.

I'm very happy with all of sequences this year. The Sportsman is challenging and will be fun to teach.

Intermediate is Decathlon friendly which was my main concern.

Now I have to work on the eight sided loop and up P loop push around with a roll on top for advanced. Whoohoo!!!!

I'm looking forward to the 2014 season.

Adam

WLIU
12-02-2013, 10:20 AM
Hello Adam,

Since you raised your hand, I thought that I would mention that out here in internet-land there is some grumbling from folks who draw up candidate flight programs, send them in, do not have any window into the discussion and deliberations of the committee, and are puzzled why their candidate is not picked each year.

The guidelines in the IAC Policy & Procedures doc are so general that folks are really shooting in the dark when they draw up candidate Known Programs to send in. You might pass on the suggestion that the committee post some better guidelines for the submitters. For example, I know that Sportsman candidates that use figures that end inverted are a no-go. Folks just need more of a clue so that they can participate and help.

And thanks for your hard work for IAC each year.

Regards,

Wes
N78PS

cyav8r
12-04-2013, 10:17 PM
The guidelines in the IAC Policy & Procedures doc are so general that folks are really shooting in the dark when they draw up candidate Known Programs to send in. You might pass on the suggestion that the committee post some better guidelines for the submitters.

Doesn't look like Adam posts much so I'll take a crack at this one since I've been on the committee a few years now. These are just my observations and nothing official from the Committee, but should give you an idea of what we are looking for. I'll also see if Brian has any ideas for this next summer when he sends out the request for new sequences.

In general the same ideas floating around for a good free program design, apply to the Knowns as well. What people sometimes forget is it needs to be flyable and safe for more than just what's sitting in their own hanger.

The first thing the Committee focuses on is providing a safe sequence for all pilots in the category. Second, any Known sequence should be flyable in the reference aircraft (Citabria w/o inverted systems for Sportsman, and the Great Lakes for Intermediate), in reasonable winds, without requiring a break for altitude, energy, or the boundaries.

Common problems I’ve seen in submitted candidate Known sequences in rough order of occurrence:



Sequence will not fit in the box (vertical and/or lateral limits). Typically due to excessive altitude loss (i.e. putting a spin too late in a sequence) or downwind figure combinations (i.e. 2 downwind 45s back to back).
Figures not flyable in reference aircraft (i.e. inverted figure exits in Sportsman)
Sequence flow does not provide the energy needed for subsequent figure(s) to be flown without a break (i.e. an Immelmann followed by a Hammerhead)
Safety issues (i.e. high GLOC potential, high-speed snaps)
Figure cadence (i.e. long (boring) level-line segments between figures for proper figure placement)
Figures flown the wrong way for the wind (i.e. downwind loops or downwind spin entries)
Figures cannot be properly judged (i.e. a cross-box loop)


Avoid the pitfalls listed above and you have a good shot at getting your sequence past the committee and sent on to the full board for consideration and approval.

We see the same type of issues with submitted Unknowns as well, so the problem is not limited to the submitted Knowns. However the Known sequences for a given year are flown at every contest all year long, and so we owe our members something safe and fair to all the competitors.

Paul

WLIU
12-05-2013, 09:50 AM
Paul,

Thanks for the info. One problem that I think may exist for folks trying to compose candidate flight programs is that we have a generation of pilots who have never flown a Citabria and maybe never seen a Great Lakes in the flesh. Or to put it another way, they have never flown acro in an aircraft without and inverted system. So when they see that the Citabria is the reference aircraft for Sportsman, that statement carries no information. Likely a generational factor, but when trying to communicate performance information, its important.

The posts out on the internet that I see suggest that IAC members want to participate, they just need some more guidance.

Thanks for you work on the committee.

Wes