PDA

View Full Version : unfair



flyrite
09-12-2014, 04:06 PM
Let me start out by stating who I am.....Tony Zorn.... IAC # 24372 since 1996 ...2013 Northeast Advanced Champion...Not that my time nor acheivements gives me credibility at all!!!
But after years of competition it does give me some perspective. I understand that some will disagree with me. My issue is with some competitiors that after 3 or 4 years of flying advanced continue to compete in "Unlimted Machines" in the advanced category!
My opinion is move up{category} or move back in performance{airframe}!
How can you consider it fair fight on a hot day with the guys flying the "4 cyl small winged" mounts in the unknowns..

Tony

RetroAcro
09-13-2014, 07:56 PM
Yeah Tony, when are you moving back to Intermediate so we neophyte bi-wing guys have a chance in Advanced? Missed you at Warrenton buddy!

Eric

flyrite
09-14-2014, 10:40 AM
Yeah Tony, when are you moving back to Intermediate so we neophyte bi-wing guys have a chance in Advanced? Missed you at Warrenton buddy!

Eric

Eric ..A Neophyte..WOW I didn't know were going to bring sexual orientation into competition flying .
Hated to miss Warrenton , But alas WX did not participate. I plan to make Morganton though!

On the Advanced Lifers flying the unlimited machines year after year in the catogory....Thought I would stir the pot alittle.

Take care
Tony

WLIU
09-14-2014, 03:34 PM
OK, I'll bite. What is an "Unlimited machine"? I beat guys who are flying Intermediate in their Sukhoi's and $400K Extras, and I "merely" fly an Pitts S-2A. Its the pilot not the ride. Suck it up and get more coaching.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

flyrite
09-14-2014, 06:01 PM
Wes, If I got to s'plain it to a guy like you, Then really there's no use in making the argument for the umpteenth time!!

When you can explain why their use to be rules dictating by the IAC what was AWAC legal up to at least the early 2000's ..Then you can tell me to suck it up & get more coaching!

I am very pleased with my results when I compete... I beat'm also...My issue is not my results , But anyone who would argue that a guy flying a "Small Winged 4 cyl" against a "Big winged 6 cly" guy is a fair fight in my opinon has disqualified themselves from the argument! Also to address YOUR competeing against the "Unlimited Machines" in intermediate.... You cant use the performance in the lower categories like you can in the advanced & unlimited...Otherwise the 4 cy guys would be competing in unlimited!.........Move up to advanced & the more complex seqences & see how you feel about the differences in performance !!

BTW..The way you described the planes you compete against shows you know what an "Unlimited Machine" is....Just not willing to acknowledge the performance gap!

Take Care
Tony

WLIU
09-15-2014, 05:54 AM
The competition categories present increasing difficulty not just in technical execution, but also in terms of $$, time, and equipment. You have to bring enough of all of these dimensions to the arena.

I do not expect to fly a Decathlon once a month and be successful in Intermediate if we define success as consistently bringing a trophy home. The flip side is that I don't expect to bring a Sukhoi or the latest $400,000 supership to a contest and be awarded a trophy just for showing up.

I do not fly my Pitts S-2A in Advanced because I am not able to budget for the increased time and $$ required for practice and coaching and the increased maintenance required due to accelerated wear and tear on the airplane. To successfully fly Advanced I will need to budget for a higher performance airplane and more time and $$ for coaching.

Now the reality is that when Dan Rihn went to the drawing board 20 years ago he configured the One Design airplane for the performance that the Advanced and maybe Unlimited categories required at that time. But the world changed in the last 20 years as other designs hit the streets and pilot skills improved. The upper categories have gotten harder, requiring more of both the machine and the pilot. There is now a bigger wing for the One Design in an attempt to keep up.

Unfortunately, some of us have smaller budgets for competition. That's life. I compete against a friend who flies a brand new Extra 330 in Intermediate. I can and do outscore him in my "lowly" S-2A if I can connect my eyes and brain to my hands and feet working the controls on contest day despite his apparent performance advantage. That is the challenge. The reward is a trophy that cost about $30 and bragging rights for a week or two. That's all.

So I guess that we all occasionally get frustrated that we can not make our rides do the same things that pilots who have more expensive or higher performance rides do, but we can still score more points. We fly the same flight programs. Performance can hurt as much as it can help. You can make mistakes faster. And the Unknown Program tends to reward the pilots who can think at speed.

Now as I noted in the second paragraph there are limits to what you can get out of your ride, and that gets back to bringing enough airplane to the contest. Frankly, to move to Advanced I would be swapping my Pitts for a Staudacher, a Lazer, or maybe a Super Stinker. Those monoplanes have more wing and balance better and the SS design recognizes the changes in the competition world since Curtis Pitts first started drawing up plans for his biplanes.

An airplane is not a lifetime commitment and if you are competing with one you have to regularly take a hard look at your equipment and how it helps you deploy your pilot skills. Sounds like its time for a change.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

flyrite
09-16-2014, 05:01 AM
Wes,...With out meaning to you have framed how IAC has dropped the ball. Its about the money your willing to spend on equipment in advanced rather than having rules to keep the little guy in a fair fight.

Byron J. Covey
09-16-2014, 05:15 AM
Wes,...With out meaning to you have framed how IAC has dropped the ball. Its about the money your willing to spend on equipment in advanced rather than having rules to keep the little guy in a fair fight.

This must be about round 83 of the eternal debate ...

Tony: Do you believe that a clipped wing Cub should be able to compete in Unlimited? Just trying to define the boundaries of your contention.

WLIU
09-16-2014, 06:17 AM
It is indeed an eternal debate. And the debate does not change the conditions in the contest arena.

A guy in the Marine Corps once said "if you show up for a fair fight, you are unprepared."

In golf, you can buy a $1000 driver, but that won't keep your ball on the fairway or guarantee you a winning score.

Aerobatics is the same. I compete in IAC Intermediate in my Pitts S-2A. I have peers who are able to spend 8 times as much to buy their airplane as I spent on mine. Their airplane is powered by 50% more horsepower and can go 50 mph faster. Just like in golf, I can not influence how my peers put that fancy equipment to work to post a score. But I can and do work on my own airplane, on my own skills, and my knowledge of the rules, to make the best use of my airplane, my skills, and the smarts that I can muster at 200mph in a contest box 3500' wide.

Competition is hard. Its supposed to be. Its competition. Bill Rose, the 1980 US Team Trainer, once told me that each category up the ladder is about twice as hard. That observation feels right to me as I look around. So if you can take the 1st place trophy home through your dedicated preparation and execution, what is the point of complaining that it is hard? This is one arena that mirrors real life where there are winners and losers and of you don't take a trophy home its up to you to look in the mirror and think about what it will take to get to where you want to be and whether you are willing to do the work to get there. And as we look in the mirror we all have to come to terms with ourselves, our motivations, our means, and the fact that the reward is only a $35 trophy and the respect and admiration of a very small group of peers.

We have all winter to get ready for next season. I am upgrading the airplane and planning to work on the figures that did not get good enough scores in 2014. And planning how to practice more with better critiquing than last season. I hope that you are doing the same.

See you at the box,

Wes
N78PS

flyrite
09-16-2014, 03:11 PM
It amazes me the lengths people will go to defend what is obvious......Guys how can you argue that the extras...staudachers...mx's...etc... don't have a big advantage flying the sequences in advanced over the pitt's....1D's...etc .

Even the IAC director for my region admitted in a conversation to me last week... yes it's an extreme advantage, He by his own admission said when he moved from the little pitts to a staudaucher it was a big advantage for him. He said the only way to get the rules changed is to have enough of the membership to make it an issue or the board with continue to allow CIVA sentiment to dominate the rules we fly by here!
Fellas I have no problem with competing against bad odds ....I can do a fair job of getting thru the unlimited known with my little 1D....But I'm smart enough to know that I'm not going to be competitive in unlimited with the other equipment because of how the sequences favor the HP & wing area of them.

It's called "Unlimited" for a reason!

But if I'm going to spend the money to get ready for a contest & fly as well as I can I would like it to be as much about skills as possible{BTW Wes that's what Dan was trying to do with the one design concept}I like hard competition, Got one whole room with a wall just for my $35.00 trophies....But when one competitor can start at the bottom of the box & work up thru the sequence he starts with a big advantage over anyone that can't....Thats just a fact..And no amount of practice will overcome that!

Now Wes you seem to think that's alright. That if a guy doesn't like the disadvantage then he should be willing to put out the $$$'s to be competitive or look in the mirror or come to terms with themselves, motivations, etc.....I would contend that we acknowledge the issue & go about getting the IAC to address it as they once did. What I have found in bringing this "Eternal Debate" up every chance I could this past year is this...After the initial arguments that some are making even here... I can get every person or persons to finally agree that yes there is a big disparity no reasonable person would argue that. Every sport you could compete in has rules to even the disparities in equipment......What say we get into car racing, Are we gonna allow the super modifieds to run in the sportsman class, Boat racing the same....motorcycles the same...Name one motor sport that allows the firebreathers to compete in any class without some sort of "handicaps".

BTW...I noticed no one addressed the FACT that the IAC use to have these very handicaps[what was awac legal] I'm talking about.....The Board members of the past to the early 2000's certainly recognized the disparity. If you want to blame the economy as the only reason our sport is at an all time low I would agree with that being a big part of it , But Fellas lets don't keep our heads in the sand about the obvious catogory creep thru the years in advanced....Were flying close to the level of the unlimiteds of a few years back in difficulty.
Most intermediate guys aspired to move up, Knowing that they could put in the practice & have the contest be about skills not equipment

The difference then is that most everybodys mount was reasonably close in performance...That's no longer the case!

Oh well, We ain't none of us getting any smarter on this subject so all you guys tell me again how I just need to pay for some more coaching & put more gas thru the tank & quit complaining to makeup for my poor results{which ain't been to bad} & so on & so forth.....

Take Care
Tony

flyrite
09-19-2014, 12:21 PM
How interesting that this months "Sport Aerobatics" had 2 good articles that ...Directly{Giles Henderson} & indirectly{yours Wes Liu} addresses this very topic.

Also Giles's article educates as to the metric that use to be used to establish each planes "API" or aerobatic performance index. He also did a good job of pointing out that 2 planes with big differing API's could compete in the same category by giving the lower performance plane access to it's potential energy by designing sequences that didn't favor the higher performance planes.....Just extrapolate his point from the entry of the sport to advanced.

And to the point of designing sequences that do this...I made a post on this forum addressing the subject last year{fair unknowns} in October when the new knowns for 14 were being considered.

Tony

WLIU
09-19-2014, 06:53 PM
This post turned out to be surprisingly long so if you are not interested in a little history and a discussion of the effort required to host an IAC aerobatic contest you can go on to another thread now.


On the topic of alternate contest formats I will suggest that there are a few issues to overcome if you are to change the competition format. Some easy some not so easy.


First, only about 700 pilots across the entire Continental US, 49 states maybe, compete. I can speak from experience that only a handful of those competitors have the desire to actually be a Contest Director. So those folks have an existing contest format to follow and there is enough work involved in organizing any aviation get together that inventing a new format is beyond most of them.


Now the competition format that we have has its roots in international competition. You likely know that our modern competition originated with the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) forming Commission Internationale de Voltige Aérienne (CIVA) to organize periodic competitions between pilots representing their nations. If you remember the Cold War, the aero clubs of western countries, and the national governments of communist countries, approached the World Aerobatic Competition just like the track and field sports organizations approached the Olympics. Winning the Nesterov Trophy was a matter of national pride, especially for the communist block nations who wanted to show the world that their system produced better everything than the soft, decadent, "corrupt", capitalist western societies (we all now know that once the Iron Curtain came down, all of those "superior" folks wanted to move here and did so at the first opportunity...).


The people who formed the Aerobatic Club of America focused on Unlimited only. They were having some fun but also building pilots and airplanes for international competition. IAC started as a separate organization that created the ladder of primary through Advanced competition categories that we have today. Eventually ACA faded away and IAC assumed ownership of all aerobatic competition in the US. But the location of the Nationals in Texas is one of the legacies of the old ACA. At the international level, up until a few years ago only the Unlimited category was flown. Relatively recently Advanced was brought into CIVA as a championship category.


Given the history it is not surprising that the format of the competition categories, and the organization of contests has not changed. There is a lot of acceptance of the tried and true format. Throughout the Cold War years, communist governments spent huge sums on building airplanes that their pilots could use to win bragging rights over the decadent capitalist western pilots. Individuals and small companies in the western world did their best to build even better equipment. There was something of a technology “race”. Of course, in our capitalist society, the pilots, not the government, has to figure out how to pay for the ride. It still works that way. Our system gives us great airplanes like the Edge and the MX, but they are not free. But figuring out how to pay for the ride has always been part of aerobatic competition. The competition is more than flying in the performance zone.


So you want to overcome the organizational inertia and have a category where the lower performance guys can fly with the higher performance guys and maybe break even or win? The first hurdle is that maybe only a handful of the 700 competitors across the US are interested. Sure a lot of folks say it’s a good idea but how many have offered to sit on the committee to draft the rules.


The next hurdle is getting a chapter to staff and run an alternative format contest. Most chapters already put on one, regular format, contest each year and that is all that they can handle. Putting on a contest involves a surprising amount of work, starting several months in advance of contest weekend. So the chapter resources are already committed. My chapter was hosting two low quality contests each year. When I became Chapter President I convinced the chapter to put on one really good contest rather than two financially strained and poorly staffed contests. Everyone was really happy with the result. The chapter finances wound up in much better shape. Many people do not realize that it takes about 24 volunteers in addition to the pilots currently flying a competition category to run a contest. 5 grading teams of Judge, Assistant, Recorder, 3 at the Chief Judges table, scoring room staff, Registration staff, etc. It adds up to a surprising number of people, besides the group of pilots flying a category at any given moment. The more contests that a chapter tries to host in a year, the more unpaid volunteers they have to recruit. So the logistics of adding a new format contest to the planned traditional contest can be a problem. And we have the 700 competition pilots who already have plans and have to be convinced to add a new format contest to their schedule. So the contest schedule may already be full with traditional format contests.


Add a new category to an existing contest? 5 category contests already take all weekend. Adding another category with different rules is not likely to fit into the time we have for a contest. Many of us take 4 days to attend a contest, which can easily cost $1000 when you include hotel, rental car, fuel, registration, etc. Adding another category adds to the time and expense.


All of that said, it is worth trying new stuff and I can report that IAC 35 has been speaking with past and the current IAC President about this. So in October we plan to try a handicap format for a one day contest. First a one day contest means we will not fly 5 categories. We have decided to only fly the Sportsman category. IAC requires that we fly the Known program if we have a one day one flight contest. So we will all fly the 2014 Sportsman Known. Everyone is welcome, but we will use a handicap system to attempt to level the playing field.

Now how do you handicap an Unlimited pilot flying Sportsman so that the kid in a Decathlon feels that it is worthwhile for he or she to come and try to go home with a trophy? Not an easy formula to figure out.


The first determination we made was that the Decathlon will be the reference aircraft. Any pilot can fly a Decathlon and no handicap will be applied. We figure that if your daily driver is an Extra 330SC, stepping into a Decathlon for a day will have you far enough out of your regular rhythm to have you handicapped enough.


Next we decided that if you do bring your Extra 330SC to fly, we will apply a points penalty that is graduated depending on what your “regular” competition category is. This way we apply a handicap to the airplane-pilot pair. Our handicap schedule is; Intermediate pilots -75 pts; Advanced pilots -120 pts; Unlimited pilots -150 pts. This means that these pilots start with boundary penalties that total these point numbers. Now after the contest we will look at these values and see how we might need to adjust them for the next contest. I expect that the handicap values will need a few contests to work out.


And no, if you claim that you are an Extra driver but you will bring an Eagle and you should not be handicapped since the Eagle is not your daily driver, you still have the handicap applied since the Eagle is not the reference airplane for the contest.


So this experiment is intended to invite everyone to fly, encourage the new competitors by handicapping the more experienced pilot-airplane pairs, and get it all done in one day, bringing the cost of attending the contest way down. We hope that the new competitors will benefit from rubbing elbows with the more experienced competitors. And we will use the minimum number of volunteers. Some of the more experienced competitors like myself have volunteered to stay on the ground to make the contest go. Should be an interesting experiment. Feel free to try the idea yourself at the contest that you organize.


Best of luck,

Wes

N78PS

flyrite
09-20-2014, 08:13 AM
Wes I appreciate your giving some history to frame how we got to where we are as an organization & why things are done the way that they are{categories, plane development, etc.} And I truly appreciate the "labor of love" of the people like yourself that through the years have invested your time talent & treasure so that guys like me can just show up & enjoy themselves.

And I would NEVER advocate for changing the current format or adding anymore administrative or time consuming endeavors to the current categorical structure such as adding another category or having a separate contest for the low performance planes. As I said the people like you putting these contests on are already doing great job. My contention is that we even the playing field as much as is possible. Which seems to be what you guys are planning for your sportsman only contest & also what Giles Henderson's article put forth. Which the article & your contest BTW....demonstrates an acknowledgement of the disparity.

So now that we finally at least agree that there is an unfair advantage, Let me make the assumption that you & I are having a friendly debate not about the past position on where the IAC has been on this issue{because we know that their use to be rules regarding this very issue} but my hopes for the present as well as the future of it. I will also make the assumption that your arguing for leaving things as they are & I have already assumed the task of arguing why there needs to be some tweaking.

So with the above assumptions established let me make some proposals that from my perspective would be very simple to implement & cause no additional burdens on CD's & staff nor would it require any changes to the present format or category system.



Give any "unlimited machine" so many contests or years of competition in the lower categories to develop their skills & then require them to move up till they get to the category that their plane was designed for...UNLIMITED...or...start handicapping them as you guys are doing for the sportsman only contest...or...handicap them based off the API differential of their plane if they don't want to move up. The latter would be best in my opinion. that's it.

By doing this you take away the advantage of the "Lifers" with the $$'s from parking year after year in a lower category. This would provide motivation to either move up ...or... save some money & buy a plane that doesn't cost so much & might also provide a lot more motivation for some intermediate guys to jump into advanced. But regardless of what it motivates competitors to "do or not do" it certainly would make the competitions much more fair & about "Skills Not Frills"!

To go back to your history lesson on the sport....Remember the guys of yesteryear in every country were designing planes to compete in unlimited...not the lower categories...The categorical system we have as you have pointed out in other posts was designed to be stepping stones up the ladder of skills to top out in unlimited. Never with the idea of getting an advantage in equipment over your competition year after year.

What happen back then was that the state sponsored countries with the will to throw $ at designing planes to give there pilots an advantage in performance did so...Well naturally as you said us bunch of enterprising capitalist had to meet the challenge. But what the IAC has done is to marry that sentiment to the rules{or lack of rules} here in the states under our capitalist system with the idea of whoever has the $ can buy an advantage & continue to use if they so desire!
I could make more points as to what I think the benefits would be for the sport as an overall, as well as address what I know some of the arguments against this would be. But I'm convinced the benefits would far outway any downsides!

Thanks for involving yourself in the "ETERNAL DEBATE" once again.

Tony

WLIU
09-20-2014, 06:10 PM
I personally think that the solution is to encourage partnerships in higher performance aerobatic aircraft. Trying to "dumb down" categories to create "fairness" is much less interesting than trying to level the playing field by figuring out how to match like-minded and comparably skilled pilots to share ownership in one of the super-ships. We all want to fly the highest performance ship that we can muster the intestinal fortitude and pilot skills to get into. That is just our nature. Anything less is a compromise. So lets come up with a model partnership agreement, and create a program that has IAC chapters function as match makers to mentor pilots looking to own their own acro ship.

There is even a business opportunity separate from IAC here. Really experienced acro owners and mechanics might be able to offer aircraft management specific to aerobatic aircraft. I take care of the scheduling of maintenance for a partnership and the owners just have to show up and fly. Hmmmm......

I'd love to be a partner in a Staudacher, a Sukhoi, or an Extra 300S. Then we could stop complaining about our wealthier friends. Food for thought.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

flyrite
09-21-2014, 07:41 AM
I personally think that the solution is to encourage partnerships in higher performance aerobatic aircraft. Trying to "dumb down" categories to create "fairness" is much less interesting than trying to level the playing field by figuring out how to match like-minded and comparably skilled pilots to share ownership in one of the super-ships. We all want to fly the highest performance ship that we can muster the intestinal fortitude and pilot skills to get into. That is just our nature. Anything less is a compromise. So lets come up with a model partnership agreement, and create a program that has IAC chapters function as match makers to mentor pilots looking to own their own acro ship.

There is even a business opportunity separate from IAC here. Really experienced acro owners and mechanics might be able to offer aircraft management specific to aerobatic aircraft. I take care of the scheduling of maintenance for a partnership and the owners just have to show up and fly. Hmmmm......

I'd love to be a partner in a Staudacher, a Sukhoi, or an Extra 300S. Then we could stop complaining about our wealthier friends. Food for thought.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS



Wes I guess that's one way to do it.....Hmmmmm...Lets move every pilot UP in plane performance to even out the disparities in performance instead of taking away the performance advantage of pilots with the same skills as the guys that are not flying the "superships".

I struggle to see how allowing a guy flying a supership designed for unlimited capabilities to have a set time period WITHOUT penalty's to develop their skills & then taking away their advantage is in anyway "dumbing down" the categories. We may all aspire to fly some other ship & some may move up in performance at some point in their flying {I did}.

But a lot of the active competitors never will & you can bet a lot of the guys flying the lower categories have showed up a contest & seen the Lifers in the superships in their category year after year & say to themselves ..."something ain't rite here". They may never verbalize it so it can be heard for whatever reason but the sentiment is there. I say this because I have had these conversations over the last 2 years. As well as being one of them obviously.

Listen... I don't know if anything in this economic climate will ever bring us back to the days when some of the regional contests had almost as much participation as the nationals...Maybe there's nothing that will change the participation in the sport...We may be at "critical mass" for the present climate...But I truly don't believe that continuing the direction in buying more performance to give you an advantage over your fellow competitors with the SAME SKILLS AS YOU & then parking in a lower category is going to encourage more involvement!


Take care
Tony

WLIU
09-21-2014, 11:05 AM
Another way to incentivise and reward the pilots with lower budgets is to create a contest within the contest. The actual true "One Design" is the single seat Pitts. The DR-107 population is slowly increasing, but it has a long way to go to catch up to the huge flock of S-1's out there. We could create a "Curtis Pitts Trophy" to be awarded at every regional contest. We could solicit that the IAC database keep track of the standings for the Pitts trophies that are awarded. We could have regional recognition of the "Top Pitts Pilot" at the end of each season like the IAC Regional Series that is under-recognized today. That would reward the guys flying the $40K S-1's who might be outscored by guys flying Edge's, but will provide recognition and encourage friendly competition within their peer group. When the DR-107 community reaches similar critical mass, there could be a Dan Rihn Trophy.

All that is needed to do the above is organizing a sponsor who will put up about $4K per year for trophies and some data processing volunteer help.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

ssmdive
09-21-2014, 03:37 PM
Please read where this thread went - It went down hill.

http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?4448-Fair-unknowns

But I agree… It seems that as an organization the IAC has little interest in competition for anyone that does not have a supership.

For example, I just came back from the Skydiving Nationals. I just won the Advanced class (I also won it in 2003, this year I did it as a player coach). I am not eligible to compete in Advanced again till 2019 unless I am the only member of a 4way team. This prevents people camping out in that class year after year.

I am one guy that is not sure he will compete again even though I have a ship that is very capable of Sportsman and I am flying the known to get better as much as possible.

Dan Rhin's idea of a one design contest is something I would love. Don't want to buy or build a third plane for acro and the class does not exist.
Wes's idea of a Pitts contest is something I would love. Really, I like it but the class does not exist.
Wes's idea of a group buying a plane… Again a great idea, but I have to buy yet another plane.

The trend with all these great ideas is it requires the individuals to do something, and not the IAC to do something.

What is the IAC doing to encourage aerobatics? I have seen very little effort in attracting new pilots.

flyrite
09-21-2014, 06:14 PM
Welcome to the "Eternal Debate" ssmdive...You know you would think because it keeps coming up that it might behoove the Powers that be to at least jump in to discuss...dismiss...lend credence to...Tell why this or that won't work & just generally make guys like us at least feel like our voice is being heard.

And to that point I shot an e-mail to Mike Heuer yesterday & asked him when he got through with this weeks nationals would he peruse this thread & maybe give his 2 cents worth. He responded & I quote....I will give a look.

So maybe he will jump in sometime next week, We'll see.

But to that point of the membership being able to have forum to discuss issue's like this ... I guess most use the "Acro Exploder" which is great if you figure how to post on it...But...I've always assumed that this is the official EAA web-site...Which means it's the official IAC web-site & through the years I've never seen one president or board member{unless I've missed it} get actively involved with any of these threads...Huh, go figure!!! I do appreciate Guys like Wes & others that participated in the "Fair Unknowns" & this thread for making the arguments for changeing nothing, But..They like me & you are just lowly members. Although they are the guys doing a lot of the work to put on the contests & I would assume they are afraid that messing with the status quo might affect turnout. And rightfully so

Tony

ssmdive
09-21-2014, 07:07 PM
But to that point of the membership being able to have forum to discuss issue's like this ... I guess most use the "Acro Exploder" which is great...But...I've always assumed that this is the official EAA web-site...Which means it's the official IAC web-site & through the years I've never seen one president or board member{unless I've missed it} get actively involved with any of these threads...Huh, go figure!!!

I do appreciate Guys like Wes & others that participated in the "Unfair Unknowns" & this thread for making the arguments for changeing nothing, But..They like me & you are just lowly members

The lack of action at all by the IAC is why I have let my membership expire. People like Wes mean well, and like I said many of the *individuals* I have met have been great. But the IAC as an organization seems uninterested to even listen. I saw/see zero benefit in being a member, I only joined last time because I wanted to be a competitor.

RetroAcro
09-21-2014, 08:39 PM
Wes's idea of a Pitts contest is something I would love.

I think Wes was talking about a scoring system within a contest that recognized the top scoring Pitts pilot across categories, much like the Grassroots award we currently have. One of the various problems with "One Design" categories involving head-to-head competition between similar types is what difficulty level do you make it? A Pitts can compete in Primary through Advanced competitively. Make it Intermediate level of difficulty, and it will be too challenging for many and too simple for others. What you really need is an entire "One Design" contest with multiple categories and levels of difficulty. You'd be doing good to get 10 similar types to show up at a regional contest. And then once you divide these ten pilots between categories (Sportsman, Intermediate, Advanced for example), you're going to be left with categories of three pilots. Not very competitive.

IMO, all this talk of unfairness revolves around two scenarios - 4 cylinders (Pitts and One Designs) in the Advanced category, and very low performing airplanes in Sportsman. Primary is a rank beginner category, and is essentially a way for a competitor to get their foot in the door and get some contest experience. The piloting abilities at this level are so inconsistent that it really doesn't matter what aircraft type is flown. Maybe something could be done in Sportsman. You, 'ssmdive' brought up that 'other thread', but one of my remaining problems with much of what you state is that I'm just flat not convinced that there are significant numbers of Citabria type pilots who would all of a sudden come out of the woodwork and compete in a "fair" Sportsman category just because of rule changes. There's just no evidence that trying to pull them in would produce anything more than a handful across the country. Are significant numbers of Sportsman pilots unhappy about Extra 300's being allowed? I don't know, but I somewhat doubt it. Look at who has won Nationals the last couple years. If anything, some may rather see a limitation on pilot experience in Sportsman than a limitation on the type of aircraft flown. Is that a good idea? How do you implement that? Would it just cause pilots who have been around a long time supporting the sport to just say screw it? Lots of hard questions and no easy answers.

So to continue - In Intermediate, you must fly an airplane that folks are generally willing to snap. These days, this generally excludes Citabria and Decathlons and leaves the airplanes that are perfectly able to meet the performance requirements of the Intermediate category.

Again, we see the issue resurface in Advanced where stock 180 hp Pitts (and One Designs) may struggle at times just to get through certain figures in a sequence, where that MX breezes through it. In Unlimited, it's pretty much all 6-cylinder monoplanes anyway, so the issue is moot here.

So what's the magic recipe for making IAC more attractive to current and prospective members? I would sure like to know. So would the board members. I can guarantee that statements such as "IAC only cares about the super ships" is untrue. As I've said before, I'd love to see some "One Design" contests for Decathlon and RV types. I'd put in effort to make it happen - if people would actually show up. I've organized and run six contests. I know what it takes, and I'd volunteer to run something like this. Competition in any form (even catered to them) is a non starter for over 99% of RV pilots. Try rounding up a bunch of Citabria pilots. I would be interested in seeing Pitts categories, but again there's the reality of participation, structuring, and that of "one design" participation diluting participation under the current structure. IAC needs more pilots, but we sure can't afford to lose the few we have now.

I imagine there are definite ways to improve the sport, but I also imagine that our biggest obstacle by far is the economy, diminishing pilot population, increased cost, fewer and fewer acro/tailwheel operators, fewer airport kids, and fewer kids who see flying as "cool" and something they'd like to do.

I'm not some establishment type. I'm all for improvement. Most of these types of discussions are short on actual concrete, thought-out solutions. Good solutions require quite a bit of experience, knowledge, and wisdom about this sport. I wish I had all that. For now, I'll take satisfaction in showing how little stock Pitts' can stack up against the monoplanes in Advanced. :-)

Eric

flyrite
09-22-2014, 05:24 AM
Hey Eric, Glad to hear from one of the most "Skilled Pilots" I know & also someone who fly's with the same disadvantage in advanced as I do.

When I brought up the "eternal debate" again for the umpteenth time I was determined to not just complain about the status quo. But to also offer what I believe would be an easy fix as well as a fair way of dealing with the issue. It seems that one of the arguments for not changing anything is because the people complaining offer no solutions....I have...it's super simple...and the frame work to do it is already there that has been established by none other than the IAC.

Obviously the idea of establishing API's {aerobatic performance index} for every mount was done for a reason & was used to rate what was legal for AWAC & what was not...I know because when I placed 6th out of 29 in advanced at the nationals in 02 that was the rules in place at the time...None of the guys flying the unlimiteds would have qualified to compete under the old rules then for the obvious reasons!Whats your thoughts on my simple solution that's already been done & worked well ?

Tony

WLIU
09-22-2014, 06:11 AM
I have to note that we have complaints that the IAC Official Contest Rules contain way too many pages and everything discussed here will add a number of pages to that book....

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

ssmdive
09-22-2014, 07:52 AM
Most of these types of discussions are short on actual concrete, thought-out solutions. Good solutions require quite a bit of experience, knowledge, and wisdom about this sport.

While I have little to practically nothing of experience in this sport, I have been competing in various sports and activities for 30+ years. What I have noticed is that most sports that require a vehicle have classes based on the vehicle.

Take the NHRA. Imagine a guy showing up in his basically stock Mustang having to run against Top Alcohol Dragsters? The NHRA has over 200 classes of vehicles.

Look at IPSC (shooting). They have five basic divisions. In open you are allowed optics, but not in any other class. They even have a revolver division because it would not be "fair" to put a guy shooting a revolver with open sites up against a guy that could use a 30 round magazine with an optic.

Even things like Boxing have weight classes.

As for never bringing suggestions - That is just not true. Now maybe my suggestions are stupid based on my lack of experience in AEROBATICS. But I have brought suggestions more than once (and was made fun of them at least once).

So again:
1. Classes of planes. Alan Cassidy in his book on page 65 has an aerobatic performance index. A Citabria is not even listed, but we expect it to be able to compete against an Extra?

2. Move up rules. I just won the Advanced class at the US skydiving Nationals. That team is now required to move up to Open for the next 5 years. Only 25% (one team member with a Gold in that class is allowed to fly in that class for 5 years).

3. Handicaps. You have the raw scores and a handicap based on the performance of the plane flown. This could be done in a few ways:
* A Par like Golf. We know that X if flown almost perfectly will only get an 8 at best. So 8 is the Par for that plane on that maneuver.
* Handicap based on aircraft performance - Set. We know a Citabria would get a 20% bump in scores all the time. An MX would get 0%
* Handcap based on aircraft performance - Variable. We set the highest performance aircraft as 0% and work down from there. So if the highest performance plane was an 8KCAB, then it gets a 0% and the Citabria might get 5%.

So while my ideas may be stupid….. They are based on established practices in other sports, some of which I am pretty damn good at.

WLIU
09-22-2014, 01:07 PM
Your observations are very good ones. Where it breaks down is that there are many times more participants in those sports than in competition aerobatics. That provides many more volunteers to run the events in those sports, the cost of participation is much lower, and the on site time required to compete is much smaller.

I can compete in IPSC with a $1000 pistol, $200 in other gear, I show up for a couple of hours to shoot my course of fire, and I go home. Entry level in aerobatic competition is a $35K ship, more $$ for support gear, $1K for 4 days of a contest to include hotel, rental car, etc.

When I was actively skydiving, I needed about $4K of gear and 3 like minded friends and I had a 4 way team. A regional type competition at a drop zone was a day. You made maybe as many as 3 jumps at $25 each and you could go home or camp on the field. Again relatively low budget.

I wish that we could have the tens of thousands of folks competing in aerobatics that IPSC has shooting every year. The problem of number of participants drives everything else.

I encourage you to get involved in setting up and running the contest hosted by your local IAC chapter. For someone who has not been a Contest Director, it is a very educational experience. Insurance, FAA paperwork, airport logistics, etc. are all more work than most competitors think. Thank you to every reader who has dedicated time to do this.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

flyrite
09-22-2014, 03:39 PM
While I have little to practically nothing of experience in this sport, I have been competing in various sports and activities for 30+ years. 3. Handicaps. You have the raw scores and a handicap based on the performance of the plane flown. This could be done in a few ways:
* A Par like Golf. We know that X if flown almost perfectly will only get an 8 at best. So 8 is the Par for that plane on that maneuver.
* Handicap based on aircraft performance - Set. We know a Citabria would get a 20% bump in scores all the time. An MX would get 0%
* Handcap based on aircraft performance - Variable. We set the highest performance aircraft as 0% and work down from there. So if the highest performance plane was an 8KCAB, then it gets a 0% and the Citabria might get 5%.

So while my ideas may be stupid….. They are based on established practices in other sports, some of which I am pretty damn good at.



EXCELLANT SUGGESTIONS...WOW...I'm sure that there are all kinds of problems with what you've proposed ssmdive...{and I'm sure that someone will point them out}but gosh I wish I could see what they would be!!!!!

Wes, You seem to keep moving the goal post here...so now were worried about padding the rule book to much...It's been my observation over the years that the IAC lives to rulemake...Listen... I have been to a judges school in the last year & the majority of the discussion time between teaching segments was debate between the lady teaching it & the 2 or 3 present judges{1 an international judge & 1 her husband who is a judge}trying to decide on different opinions of what was a "zero or a hard zero" or what's "low or low low".... and these examples are just a couple that I could mention.

These are not things that the competitors are arguing..This is a body that loves to split hairs over issues that competitors care nothing about...Soooo, lets give them something to parce that would really bring the sport up to date with reality & BTW these debates were in a class room with all the time in the world to assimilate the information. Does anybody really think that the judges line is any less confusing?

And to the point Wes that you keep bringing up {that I thought I addressed above} that it will add to the CD's load & complicate the process for putting on a contest...Unless I am misunderstanding the way it works{good possibility} once the software has the judges scores with the all the information it does all the work...What extra work load would having the handicaps be once some tecno guy has loaded the handicaps in the system?

I truly don't mean to demean anybodies postion here guys...But can I from my perspective boil it down to what I think is the "black & white of the issue".....



Some are afraid that if rules are made to go back to the way it use to be & bring the "OBVIOUS ADVANTAGE" that some have bought in performance into place that we will lose that segment of competitors ...Eric eluded to that in one of the earlier posts when he said that we can't afford to lose any....................OK has everybody caught their breath after that brazen statement of truth.

But fellas I've talked to these guys & I'll bet you 90% wouldn't argue that they know that they have bought a big advantage, I had one of my fellow competitors who fly's a supership at sebring come up to me after the unknowns were handed out & apologized for the obvious disadvantage that he knew I was going to be at. It seems that the ones that are arguing for the status quo are the guys flying at a disadvantage or the guys in a lower category.....I truly just don't know what to say about that!!!

It's getting even worse with the adopting the concept of "Free Unknowns" in advanced just like unlimited{which was done at every S.E. contest as well as the nationals this year}....If you can't figure how that is going to put a guy in anything but a supership at a disadvantage then you might not have thought it through real good...But that puts us back to arguing what we have all at least come to some agreement on ....THERE IS A BIG DISPARITY....The real question is do we acknowledge it & try & do something about it or for fear of upsetting the status quo do we just leave things like they are????Take Care

Tony


PS...ssmdive, did I say how EXCELLANT your suggestion is....

ssmdive
09-22-2014, 05:05 PM
And to the point Wes that you keep bringing up {that I thought I addressed above} that it will add to the CD's load & complicate the process for putting on a contest...Unless I am misunderstanding the way it works{good possibility} once the software has the judges scores with the all the information it does all the work...What extra work load would having the handicaps be once some tecno guy has loaded the handicaps in the system?

And one of the benefits of a handicap is that you could give scores for raw and the adjusted scores. So lets say that I show up in my 7ECA and Tony shows up in his 1D and another guy shows up in an MX and we are all in Sportsman.

Tony could of flown his butt off and won the raw score, the MX guy could of flubbed, but still placed second, and my butt flew OK but mainly didn't crash. So Tony would of won the raw score, MX in second and me in Third. But after the XL sheet gets done Tony might have also won the raw, but maybe my OK performance was enough to best the MX guy that screwed up.

Having a handicap does not actually mean any more flights need to be flown. Having a handicap does not require a lot of work (once the handicap is designed). So for the sake of argument, lets say the MX gets zero modification, Tony gets 10% and the ECA gets 25%.

So lets say the raw scores are
Tony 3300
MX 2300
7ECA 2000

So there are the raw standings. On the handicap:
Tony 3630
7ECA 2400
MX 2300

Now, I am not close to qualified to say what that handicap might be or how it is calculated. One competition I used to compete in just took the score from the first round and used the top score as the base and figured what modification for the other scores was needed to par all the scores and used that for the rest of the meet…. Again, not claiming I know the answer, just putting out ideas.

I am a bigger fan of handicaps based on plane. Cassidys book had a pretty cool idea on how to calculate a performance standard based on things like roll rate…. But I am not skilled enough to discuss this area.

But the idea that it would create more work, is not true if it is done correctly. Once the handicap modifier is calculated it is a simple XL sheet away from a final answer.

The benefit to this type of system is it:
1. Rewards people for flying what they have to the best of THAT planes ability.
2. Allows people to just keep using raw score if they wish.

RetroAcro
09-22-2014, 09:30 PM
Obviously the idea of establishing API's {aerobatic performance index} for every mount was done for a reason & was used to rate what was legal for AWAC & what was not...I know because when I placed 6th out of 29 in advanced at the nationals in 02 that was the rules in place at the time...None of the guys flying the unlimiteds would have qualified to compete under the old rules then for the obvious reasons!

Whats your thoughts on my simple solution that's already been done & worked well ?

Tony, I'm not very familiar with the old AWAC rules - I thought it was a restriction on aircraft type and not a handicap system. I read Giles Henderson's article in this month's SA, and thought he was mostly right on. He describes sequences flyable for certain aircraft types that test skill, but with energy requirements more friendly to lower performing airplanes. I like that idea. Sorry, I just can't get interested in a handicap system. I wouldn't be interested in flying a contest with an Extra 300, etc. arbitrarily handicapped against my airplane. I don't think THAT'S necessarily fair. In any Advanced sequence, there are a number of figures for which our airplanes have just as much chance at scoring a 10 as do certain pilots in 6-cylinder carbon ships. And then there are figures, or combinations of figures where it's all you can do to get through it rather than have anything left for maximum technical merit. I can't even begin to wrap my head around a way to "fairly" apply a handicap, when a "fair" handicap (if there could possibly be such a thing) would vary sequence to sequence (Knowns and Unknowns). I still enjoy this sport even though there are a few pilots out there flying MXs and Extra 300s', etc. that will have a very real advantage against my airplane. We have both placed higher than lots of good "supership" pilots out there. I feel like my biggest nemesis is brainfarts and zeros - not carbon monoplanes.

Rather than handicapping, I'd be more interested in alternate (NOT additional) categories that have sequences designed with enough difficulty to be faithful to the Advanced (or whatever) category, but designed such that aircraft performance differences are minimized. It can be done. There are lots of ways to design figures and sequences that minimize aircraft performance differences. Alternate (non-CIVA) sequences could be designed and flown at the CD's discretion. Heck I should work on a sequence like this just for the helluvit. Regarding adding complexity and challenge as opposed to performance requirements, you could even bring in negative snaps into this 'alternate' Advanced category. I don't know of anyone flying an airplane in Advanced that's unsuitable for negative snaps. They're performance neutral.

I know 'ssmdive' disagrees, but I still don't see enough of an issue at the Sportsman level to consider handicapping. Decathlons have proven able to win at the National level, so we're really talking about making it "fairer" for the (literally) handful of Citabria pilots across the country who might actually come out of the woodwork because of a rule change. I just see it slighting 95% of Sportsman pilots in an attempt to make it "fairer" for the 5%. I don't see how that's in the interest of IAC. I do agree with Giles Henderson that the current Primary category is too dumbed down..."humiliatingly" so as he says. He doesn't mince words. I like that. And I like his idea of a Primary or "Classic" or "Grassrooots", etc. category that is not quite Sportsman-level energy but offers more than the current Primary category. Or on second thought, since there is currently so little difference between the Sportsman and Intermediate categories, Sportsman could be designed as more energy friendly without giving up the challenge. I think it could be made a lot more performance neutral, just like Advanced.

Look forward to seeing you at Morganton! You will be handicapping yourself so I'll have a chance right? :-)

Eric

ssmdive
09-23-2014, 06:52 AM
I know 'ssmdive' disagrees, but I still don't see enough of an issue at the Sportsman level to consider handicapping. Decathlons have proven able to win at the National level, so we're really talking about making it "fairer" for the (literally) handful of Citabria pilots across the country who might actually come out of the woodwork because of a rule change. I just see it slighting 95% of Sportsman pilots in an attempt to make it "fairer" for the 5%. I don't see how that's in the interest of IAC.

Well, I can say that if I was not able to buy a Pitts that I was done with competitions. And I know many people who have acro ships and when I tried to talk them into coming out to a contest expressed the exact same feeling I had at my first one…. Why show up in a 7ECA and have to compete against everyone else with a Pitts or better? It seems that SAME feeling happens at the higher levels as well.

Maybe the Citabria market share is not enough for anyone to warrant changing anything, but then we have to admit that we don't really care if they show up either. And I thought the interest of the IAC was to attract new people, it seems the IAC only cares about attracting people who can afford high dollar aircraft.

RetroAcro
09-23-2014, 07:36 AM
Well, I can say that if I was not able to buy a Pitts that I was done with competitions. And I know many people who have acro ships and when I tried to talk them into coming out to a contest expressed the exact same feeling I had at my first one…. Why show up in a 7ECA and have to compete against everyone else with a Pitts or better?

You have talked to "many" Citabria pilots who would otherwise show up if not for Pitts flying Primary and Sportsman? Shoot, I rarely come across many Citabria pilots who even roll the thing on a regular basis. In my experience, people can't be talked into coming to contests either because they're just not seriously into acro, or they have a bunch of misperceived ideas in their heads regarding what competition is about. In my experience, once you get them to do it...even those Citabria pilots, they have interest in continuing. Your attitude does not represent a large majority.


It seems that SAME feeling happens at the higher levels as well.

I'm not sure how you've been able to gain so much perspective on IAC with so little (one Primary contest) experience. Nobody is being discouraged from flying Intermediate or Advanced in a Citabria because there are Pitts there. Decathlons can do well in Intermediate, but most are unwilling to snap them regularly, which is a requirement in Advanced. And I can't say I can remember any Pitts pilots who flew through Intermediate and were discouraged from moving to Advanced only because of monoplanes. Maybe there are a few out there. But since the majority of competitors will only ever play at the Regional level, all it takes is to point out that there's someone who still does well in Unlimited at the Regional level in a stock Pitts S-2B. Most Intermediate Pitts pilots I've known have not moved up due to the additional investment in time, training, and effort required. Many also don't care to get into hard negative G and beat their body up more. Some also don't want to beat their airplane up more.


Maybe the Citabria market share is not enough for anyone to warrant changing anything, but then we have to admit that we don't really care if they show up either. And I thought the interest of the IAC was to attract new people, it seems the IAC only cares about attracting people who can afford high dollar aircraft.

Again, so much judgment from so little experience. We have already discussed ways to bring in new people without having to slight the overwhelming existing Sportsman population for the sake of a handful of pilots across the country. If the future of IAC is dependent upon the 15 Citabria pilots across the country who might just now get involved, then there's no hope.

Believe me, I've tried to get lots of under-represented aircraft involved with IAC - RVs especially. I have not had much luck. I haven't even been able to drum up much interest in "one design" contests for RV and Decathlon types. There was a chapter who did one of these types of contests a few years ago. There wasn't much turnout. Regarding how hard it is to get RVers involved, in my experience it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that there are Pitts' or Extras flying in Sportsman. There are lots of reasons. That's a whole other topic of discussion. You can continue to believe the IAC governing body is a bunch of elitist, Extra 330 flying, down-nose looking, can't-be-bothered-with-little-guys group, but it's just not the case. You can keep playing the little guy with a chip on your shoulder, fighting the big tone-deaf oppressors, or you can get involved for some better perspective. There are lots of tough issues here.

Hope you decide to try a contest in the Pitts. I think you'll enjoy it.

ssmdive
09-23-2014, 09:31 AM
I'm not sure how you've been able to gain so much perspective on IAC with so little (one Primary contest) experience.

You are aware that both this and the other thread was started with someone with MUCH more experience than me, right? Is he also not experienced enough to have an opinion? Instead of trying to make it all about ME, you might decide to stay on the topic.

But since YOU brought me into this.... Who better to tell you how a NEW person feels when faced with this situation than a new person that is in that situation? When was the last time YOU showed up at your first contest in a plane that was clearly the lowest performing plane there?

Who better to explain why some people are turned off than a guy that was almost tuned off by what he ran up against?

Your belittling my opinion is not helping your cause, just validating my opinion that no one really cares about the new guy.


Again, so much judgment from so little experience.

Again so much belittling. You don't care about my opinion? Be honest and just say so...

You keep saying I should 'get involved' WTF do you think I am doing here? I have tried to get involved and express my concerns, I have offered solutions... And what I have gotten in return is you telling me I don't have enough experience to have an opinion.

RetroAcro
09-23-2014, 09:51 AM
You are aware that both this and the other thread was started with someone with MUCH more experience than me, right? Is he also not experienced enough to have an opinion? Instead of trying to make it all about ME, you might decide to stay in the topic.

You and Tony are not coming from the same place or making the same points for the same reasons.


Again so much belittling. You don't care about my opinion? Be honest and just say so...

You are making uninformed judgements about IAC and what they supposedly care or don't care about based on almost no experience with IAC or any interaction with those honorable folks who have been elected to lead IAC by volunteering their time. THAT'S what I'm saying. You can keep playing the victim all you want. If you make statements I feel are unfounded, I'm going to say so. It's disingenuous for you to equate this with "not caring about your opinion". I need to take my own advice in this thread that I suggested on that other thread you were involved in - to stop trying to engage in a discussion with you. I'm out. Tony, see you at the next contest buddy. Look forward to some beers and some friendly discussion!

ssmdive
09-23-2014, 11:56 AM
Edit: Meh, not worth the time/energy.

WLIU
09-23-2014, 01:33 PM
I will mention to Tony that our IAC President, Mike Heuer, is open to individual chapter's trying slightly different contest formats.

Which is to say that if you can come up with some set of scoring rule that you can fit into what the JasPer software does, you can organize your own contest using those rules. You will have to explain your scoring scheme in your contest sanction request and the IAC Competition Committee has to approve it. Mike H exchanged some e-mails with my chapter about the contest we are planning and then told us to go forward. Now the only requirement is that you have to fly the current year's Known Program first. You will likely want to fly a Free and an Unknown too. You could organize a contest where only one category is flown if you like. That is what we are doing.

As I have said before, if you think you want to try to understand and change the way IAC contests work, you should step up and volunteer to be a contest director. Lots of folks ask about doing, but few actually step forward and make thinks happen. I encourage you to be one of the latter individuals. As you know, organizations are built on doing, not just talking.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

flyrite
09-24-2014, 02:01 PM
As I have said before, if you think you want to try to understand and change the way IAC contests work, you should step up and volunteer to be a contest director. Lots of folks ask about doing, but few actually step forward and make thinks happen. I encourage you to be one of the latter individuals. As you know, organizations are built on doing, not just talking.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

Wes I completely agree....Some folks that play{compete} in the sport just want to gripe about what's wrong with the way things are done rather than jump'n in & try to change things from the inside out....Then you got some that don't even play that complain......I fancy myself one of the guys that loves to show up & compete.... help where I can while there & then I'll load up & go home....WOW did I just admit how selfserving I truly am?

I guess I could defend myself with all kinds of reasons of why I would never be interested being anymore involved than I am or have been since 97....But having admitted to the shortcomings in my character as to why I would allow others to put all the labor in on my behalf ...I will say this...We should be interested as a club in keeping the competitions as fair as possible. Especially if we want the guys that love to show up{majority of the club} and give reason to all that unpaid labor that guys like you provide!

And if there are observations of obvious disparities that are pointed out by "anyone" regardless of active participation in the sport...Don't you think that is good for the sport....The innuendo's of.... If your not actively involved behind the scenes of CD'ing or laboring in some capacity{basically eliminates most competitors} you should keep your suggestions to yourself{Now I know you haven't said that ...but the inference has been made a few times}. I provide my support of the club by participating at contests that I enjoy attending depending on the fellowship in different locations.....WOW did I just admit to another selfserving statement...I keep admitting to how selfish & shallow I am ain't nobody gonna have me at their contests!

I will also point out again that the majority of the active competitors in the club are low life's like me that just want to show up...have as fair a shot at winning as possible & go home! I would never ask them to do it .....But I'll bet most CD's at the contests that I have attended will remember me catching them at a quite moment just to tell them how much I sincerely appreciate all that they have done on my behalf{well... they also will remember my redneck personality...as well as the fact that I only got one eye} But mostly I would hope they remember my appreciation. Again not trying to defend my lack of stepping up myself & if I have made a wrong assumption about what I perceive in statements such as the one above .....Then I apologize for the error....either way...Please know I really do notice the labor of guys like you & the many others that give of themselves just for the joy of the sport on my behalf.

Take care
Tony

WLIU
09-25-2014, 07:24 AM
I appreciate the long discussion and I won't ever speak negatively of the folks like yourself who might not have the time or the budget to get more involved in making the contests and the club go. That said, there are lots of good ideas out there that never get their fair exploration simply because many of the guys with the idea are unable to carry them forward themselves. That is just one aspect of how the world works.

But I will suggest that just because any one of us is unable to implement an idea in the next week, that does not mean that you should not poke at the mechanics of how to try your thoughts out as you have time and budget. It might take some months to figure out how to make it practical and then sell it to your local IAC chapter to try. Most, if not all, of us will be here next year and we are all looking for excuses to go fly. So if you think that you have an alternative that is worth trying, write down how it will work, download the JasPer scoring software onto your computer and see how you can get it to handle your scoring scheme, and talk to your IAC chapter. If folks think that you have an idea worth trying out, you might not have to do the heavy lifting to make a contest that uses your idea happen.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

flyrite
09-25-2014, 04:35 PM
Should this second Free Unknown count for National Champion titles? Perhaps.
That would be a Board decision and involve a change to our IAC Policy &
Procedures manual (see policy 504). We can discuss that in November. We
will be flying two Unknowns in Advanced next year for the team selection for
the 2016 WAAC.

Mike Heuer



Taken from Mike Heuers posts on the Acro exploder bout the nationals....If the advanced guys flying the 4cly small winged stuff don't see how this is gonna work to the 'Unlimited machines" advantage ...just ask me & I'll break it down for ya.....BTW..most of the regional contests seem to want to mimic what the AWAC's doing{certainly has in the S.E.}...Yehaawww....Let CIVA rule....

Tony

cyav8r
09-27-2014, 01:00 PM
IAC should open a cheese store to go with all the whining in this thread.

And if you don’t like the unknowns you are getting at contests, draw a bunch that you can fly and submit them to Brian Howard. He’s always looking for more.

flyrite
09-27-2014, 02:30 PM
Wow....cyav8r...What an original argument you have put forth.....your perspective has has already been dealt with....please give respect to the guys that would disagree with you & read all the posts that have been made directly dealing with your argument in this thread. THEN COMMENT.

Or I could just copy & post what I've already said that deals with your position & stop typing anything new!

BTW.. I would love for Sammy & Pat to give their opinions as to whether they think it's a fair fight with the "Lifers in advanced flying the unlimited mounts" ...Why don't you give me their e-mail & I'll ask them to join in this discussion.


Tony

cyav8r
09-27-2014, 04:05 PM
Yea, I probably have no credibility

flyrite
09-27-2014, 05:45 PM
What category do ya fly in that decatha-slug Paul?

Tony

WLIU
09-27-2014, 07:09 PM
Guys, stop the stupid talk please.

I suspect that the calendar put our ages higher than 16.

Thanks,

Wes
Nips

RetroAcro
09-27-2014, 07:54 PM
This thread started with the premise that 4-cylendar mounts are not able to compete with high power monoplanes in the Advanced unknowns. After sitting in the Texas sun for the past week, judging advanced, that theory is crap. The winning pilots simply made fewer mistakes and got some lucky breaks from judges who missed things. Horsepower, roll rate, or the cost of the machine were not a deciding factor in picking the winners.

I tried today, and I couldn't fly the version of the Nats Advanced Unknown (that I thought most energy friendly) without taking an altitude break or busting the top of the box (Factory stock 180 hp Pitts S-1S). Only mod to my airplane is a 3-blade Catto prop which actually has very slightly less performance than a metal Sensenich. Unknown was 14 figures. Sammy definitely shows what a stock Pitts airframe can do, but it does help that he doesn't weigh anything, and has a pumped motor. If I could lose about 50 lbs (I'm not fat), and upgrade my standard compression pistons, I could have gotten through it. :-) Pat's airplane is modded quite a bit. Sammy will admit that there are sometimes figures he gets hurt a little on due to the performance limitations of the Pitts. The monoplanes absolutely do have an advantage in Advanced, pilot skill being equal. I don't see how that's even up for debate...though it's debatable how much the advantage is. And some care more about this edge than others. I understand where my friend Tony is coming from, I guess I'm just not quite as passionate on the subject. I will have to make an effort to submit more Unknowns.

Eric Sandifer

WLIU
09-28-2014, 05:06 AM
What is missed here is that the contest is more than just 4 minutes in the box. Part of the competition is bringing enough airplane and enough $$. For better or worse, the complaint here is that the technology has moved beyond the biplanes. Maybe beyond the 1D. That is just a fact of life. You all are welcome in Intermediate.

Us biplane guys cling to our airplanes for a bunch of reasons, none of which have to do with our desire to reach the top of the competition ladder. It is unrealistic to ask the rest of the competition world to accomodate us.

As noted above, whining won't change anything. And frankly, those of us who take the time to understand how the current set up works, become Regional or National Judges, submit Known Program proposals to the Rules Committee every year, run contests and chapters, etc., are less than sympathetic to our friends who are great to drink beer with but won't follow up their ideas with time and effort. There is no sport out there that welcomes the behavior that has been demonstrated here.

So if Advanced is too hard, Intermediate welcomes you. But you should be warned that there are Extra's and Edges in Intermediate too. And I outscore them and maybe you, in my "lowly" S-2A.

Sheesh,

Wes
N78PS

flyrite
09-28-2014, 07:03 AM
I guess you know when a thread has reached the point of "profit to loss" based off the fact that nobodies getting any smarter on the subject...Original arguments that have already been dealt with reemerge & personal slights begin to creep in to the debate{I'm as guilty as anybody on the last issue} and to that point let me apologize to cyav8r if what I posted was perceived as an attack against his mount or his service to the club or him personally...Some of the best & most skilled competitors I know are decathelon pilots!

Having said all the above ...Wes...my argument is not with technology....I completely understand your side of the argument & I believe I understand how the system is setup{don't see how that's relative at all}to the dissussion ....I just can't tell you how strongly I disagree with it. I firmly believe that the club should require the guys buying an advantage in the lower categories to move up to the category that their mount was designed for ....or after a period of time have something to balance the obvious advantage they fly with...Wow ...after making the same point multiple times...the better it sounds{to me}! Be it in the form of sequence design in the unknowns{which by the way you'll notice is where the pitts guys fell out of contention at the nationals}... handicaps as was mentioned in earlier posts or as I've pointed out multiple times .... go back to what the club was doing up to the early 2000's in AWAC eliminate the planes with the higher API numbers in the lower categories...{which I notice for a guy with your historical knowledge of the sport you never address}The competitions really should be about "SKILLS NOT FRILLS".....My gosh Wes you amaze me at the lengths you'll go to defend the obvious!!!

I still hold out hope that Mike & maybe some of the board members will join in this discussion....Do I think anything is going to change even if they do...probably not...But it does the membership no service for the guys that are making the decisions on issues like this to insolate themselves & leave it up to guys like you to defend the obvious.

Let me again boil it down one more time to the 'BLACK & WHITE" of the issue...............Some folks {mostly lower category} will still make the argument that the guys flying the unlimited machines in advanced have no advantage in the category{if that's your contention then I have no more arguments for you} IMO...that's as Eric has said... is not even debatable... and I will not engage in anymore debate with anyone on that issue{won't waste your time nor mine}.
. Then some will agree with the disparity {Wes} they just think you should suck it up & be willing to spend the $'s{IMO..that's what unlimited category is for} or move back to intermediate because technology has rendered your mount uncompetitive as it once was. And it's unreasonable to expect to be accommodated & the IAC is not going to keep up by implementing rules to keep the competitions as fair as possible.

I have already stated where I stand....But I really would like for the powers that be to state where they stand & as my director told me...get enough of the membership to bring it up & maybe you can get it changed

I struggle to see how to do that without bringing the debate up on forums such as this{which is the official IAC website} to get consensus for or against the status quo...If I could figure how post on the exploder I would invite anyone interested to join in the debate here.

I'd be interested to know Wes...If we were to put out a survey to the membership{ain't gonna happen I know} and asked the advanced guys flying in the category REGARDLESS OF THEIR MOUNTS this question... they must answer either "YES or NO" ...No trying to explain away the disparities with all manner of reasons...{I've heard'em all} We can argue the pro's & con's of what's fair about it or what's not after we get agreement on the basic issue..... just a simple yes or no.. just boil it down to this simple question.....


Do you think it's a fair fight between the unlimited mounts & the lower performance guys in the category...and if the majority were to answer no as Eric has ....would you still stick by your position?

Take care
Tony

WLIU
09-28-2014, 06:19 PM
My position is that we are competing. Its supposed to be hard. And a marine once said "if you show up for a fair fight, you are unprepared." I understand that the airplane, practice schedule, budget, and coaching that I can bring to the arena limits my ability to score points. I take my enjoyment in flying my best and posting a better score than my last contest. In golf, I know people who play with clubs they buy at the Sports Authority. Some other folks buy clubs that cost $1000 each. Tiger Woods likely pays $4K each for his custom equipment. We can admire it and know that if we could play with Tiger Woods' equipment we would likely have better scores. But we do not have Tiger Woods' budget so we settle for the score we can achieve.

I fly a Pitts S-2A. I know that John Morrissey won the IAC Advanced Championship in his S-2A. In I think 1984. I have no expectation of matching John's achievement in 2014 because the technology has moved beyond the best flown S-2A. That's life. I fly to the best score that I can achieve with my S-2A and if I can avoid brain farts and work the rules a little, I go home happy with the score I get. If I can organize a better budget, I will buy a Staudacher. But for now, I am not looking for anyone to change the rules to make it easier for me to post a high score. That would devalue my effort. I do not need artificial help. At every contest I go to, my monoplane friends look over their shoulder at me knowing that they can not relax. The big check that they wrote will not guarantee them a trophy. There is great satisfaction in being accorded that respect.

See you at the box,

Wes
N78PS

flyrite
09-29-2014, 07:07 AM
My position is that we are competing. Its supposed to be hard. And a marine once said "if you show up for a fair fight, you are unprepared." I understand that the airplane, practice schedule, budget, and coaching that I can bring to the arena limits my ability to score points. I take my enjoyment in flying my best and posting a better score than my last contest. In golf, I know people who play with clubs they buy at the Sports Authority. Some other folks buy clubs that cost $1000 each. Tiger Woods likely pays $4K each for his custom equipment. We can admire it and know that if we could play with Tiger Woods' equipment we would likely have better scores. But we do not have Tiger Woods' budget so we settle for the score we can achieve.

I fly a Pitts S-2A. I know that John Morrissey won the IAC Advanced Championship in his S-2A. In I think 1984. I have no expectation of matching John's achievement in 2014 because the technology has moved beyond the best flown S-2A. That's life. I fly to the best score that I can achieve with my S-2A and if I can avoid brain farts and work the rules a little, I go home happy with the score I get. If I can organize a better budget, I will buy a Staudacher. But for now, I am not looking for anyone to change the rules to make it easier for me to post a high score. That would devalue my effort. I do not need artificial help. At every contest I go to, my monoplane friends look over their shoulder at me knowing that they can not relax. The big check that they wrote will not guarantee them a trophy. There is great satisfaction in being accorded that respect.

See you at the box,

Wes
N78PS


Wes after giving your reasons for competition some thought....I must admit it makes perfect sense to me now....All the time & money I've spent practicing before a contest wasn't for nothing, I've just been looking at it wrong. I've just had the wrong philosophy about COMPETITION...

It's not about having a fair shot at winning... that would "devalue my efforts"..... Shoot, that contest{Warrenton competition} that I flew 1100 miles round trip to meet you at last year wasn't about COMPETITION...No..No...It's about learning life lesson's..It's about knowing that even if the COMPETITION ain't fair, The fact that it's HARD because of the disadvantage is the lesson.. it's about achieving my best up against unfavorable odds....

It's about keeping my "supership" buddies looking over their shoulder for fear of me overcoming the odds & beating them.....And really what your saying is... after all.. it's really not about COMPETITION.

I can make those long trips home HAPPY Knowing that I've done my best and I've earned the respect of the Supership guy's even if everybody knows it wasn't a fair COMPETITION!


I'm not sure ...But maybe we need to rethink what we call our contest's.....because the word contests implies COMPETITION???


Now that I have a marines perspective on war as a guide for my preparedness..... my philosophy has been reset....I'm good to go...I can now cancel all my self help classes about life's inequities cause I'm getting all the life lesson's I need by... COMPETETING IN THE DIFFERENT IAC PLAY DAYS!! I will no longer petition for "artificial help" to prop up my flying!


Take care

Tony

PS...Next time I dive in the box at the next "playday" I'll envision I'm a marine in a FA-18 fighting against overwhelming odd's......No wait...I'm sorry... the guys flying the Superships would be the marines in your scenario...cause their the most prepared by spending the $$$$...Sorry for the confusion, It might take me awhile to adapt to my new found "philosophy".:cool:

WLIU
09-29-2014, 11:40 AM
Tony, you need to figure out how to get a better airplane.

That said, my crunchy granola friends would offer some advice that you have likely heard before - Its not the destination, its the journey that is important.

Peace,

Wes
N78PS

flyrite
09-29-2014, 11:53 AM
Tony, you need to figure out how to get a better airplane.

That said, my crunchy granola friends would offer some advice that you have likely heard before - Its not the destination, its the journey that is important.

Peace,

Wes
N78PS

Wes, The wife's done said NO to more acro expense!

So I thought I'd try & get some of my buddies like you to make me more competitive by helping me change the rules....thought it would be easier & cheaper than divorce!:(

OH well I guess it's time for a new plan. Thanks for the debate.

Take care

Tony

ssmdive
09-29-2014, 12:22 PM
I guess you know when a thread has reached the point of "profit to loss" based off the fact that nobodies getting any smarter on the subject...

I'd say the thread is done when people start to hurl insults.... Not you Tony.

But it seems the IAC has a proposal right now about this..... PROPOSAL 2015-07



:


Over the IAC’s history we have seen a steady decline in the number of contestants as the performance and cost of our aircraft have dramatically increased. There were 51 Sportsman and 135 total competitors at the IAC Championships at Fond du Lac, WI, in 1975. The average Aerobatic Performance Index (API) calculated from the horsepower/weight ratio, maximum speed, and roll rate of the 1975 competitors was 27. In 2005 (the most recent year for which I have statistics), the average API was 62

The future of our sport is highly dependent on attracting and retaining our entry level competitors (Editors note: Which is something I was trying to express and am not seeing in these threads from some of the posters). During the early years of IAC, Sportsman pilots were flying low-performance aircraft, many without inverted fuel or oil systems. In recent years, we have seen most of these early classics sitting on the sidelines and replaced in the box by high performance monoplanes. Most of our current Sportsman competitors are flying such aircraft. The up-ramping of the energy requirements for the Sportsman sequence, aircraft performance, and cost has gradually excluded a great many aerobatic-capable aircraft and pilots.

The first-level (now called “Primary”) category has the potential of attracting entry level competitors and providing a home for the classic, as well as RV, and other modern aircraft capable of light aerobatics. However, it's hard to justify the cost of attending a regional contest to fly three aerobatic figures. Many standard aerobatic flight training programs are now of the 10-hour variety concluding with an aerobatic sequence approximately 75% the difficulty of the present Sportsman Known. For these pilots, the Primary category, at its present level of difficulty, is a step backwards. Moreover, for those few that are attracted to
IAC and fly Primary with a low API aircraft, the quantum jump in difficulty excludes many from advancing to Sportsman (ED: Which is what I tried to convey as a new person facing this situation). The transition from Primary to Sportsman currently has a more than 300% increase in K-value. The other rungs of our competition ladder are more uniformly spaced with an average increase of about 140% in the K-values of their respective Knowns. Indeed, past studies have revealed that few of the Primary pilots in a given year continue in subsequent years or advance to higher levels (ED: Again, what I tried to convey). For the experienced pilot flying a low API aircraft, the current Primary sequence is dumbed down to a humiliating level and certainly not serving its intended function.

There is little we can do to affect the health our nation’s economy or the costs of fuel, hanger, insurance, and maintenance, all of which have and will take a significant toll on general aviation and our sport. We can, however, improve our entry-level competition environment (ED: Which is what I was trying to start a discussion about... I did include the jump from Primary to Advanced as 'entry level'). In recent years there has not been a good home for the low-performance aircraft (API < 20). The low-performance aircraft has insufficient energy to fly recent Sportsman sequences (ED: This is where I get the information that a 7ECA will not do well in sportsman), the Primary sequence is too easy for the experienced pilot and too short to be cost-effective given the costs of attending a contest. Our challenge is then to construct a first-level sequence that will encourage and retain new participants and provide a home for the low-performance aircraft with a sequence that measures airmanship rather than API values. In order to address the issues discussed above, the sequence should target a K-value of perhaps 80 or 100. The most fundamental consideration for a well-designed sequence that meets our criteria is energy flow. The low-API aircraft requires careful energy management with the right hand, not the left. The pilot must expend a finite amount of altitude rather than more horsepower on kinetic energy. In my view, fair competition can exist between aircraft of widely different API providing the sequence gives the low-performance aircraft access to its potential energy. If a given figure has a critical minimum energy requirement, there must be an opportunity to convert altitude into speed in the preceding figure. A sequence at this level will provide sufficient challenge to attract and retain new participants, provide a home for the low-performance aircraft, and a much more reasonable platform to advance to Sportsman.

Should this proposal be adopted, a new name for this category which more accurately reflects its purpose would be desirable. However, that’s an editorial change which can be addressed later.

Table 1. Some representative API values.
Citabria 3
Clipped Wing Cub 4
150 hp Decathlon 8
180 hp Great Lakes 9
Super Decathlon 10
Skybolt 23
Pitts S-2A 36
Extra 200 41
Pitts S-1S 48
Pitts S-2B 51
Extra 300 76
Edge 540 94

And just for fun.... I tried to fly the 2014 Sportsman known in my 7ECA this weekend. Starting at 3500 feet (I was told I could cheat with such a big airplane on the high side, but the 'low' would go against me since it would look lower than a smaller plane) I was unable to complete the sequence without stopping or busting the 1500 foot hard deck (actually both, once I found myself below 1500, I stopped and climbed). I repeated the Sportsman sequence in my Pitts and had no issue staying above the hard deck even starting at 3,000. Now, I am sure a better pilot could of pulled off the whole sequence in the 7ECA, but in this case the SAME pilot was unable to do it.

And the proposed sequence actually looks fun:
1. Reversed sharks tooth
2. Immelmann turn
3. 1 turn spin
4. Hammerhead
5. 1/2 Cuban
6. Roll

On the other hand..... The proposal for the sportsman sequences... Yeah, that seems much more difficult than even the current sequence in a lower performing plane. For example it has a 2X4 on the 45 upline of the reverse sharks tooth and another one AFTER an Immelmann turn. I don't see how my 7ECA would be able to even do the one after the Immelmann turn. Another one has a roll on a 45* upline then leading into a level roll.... Yeah, I can't see pulling that off in a 7ECA. Maybe someone else can, but it would turn me away from competing. And it has a roll on the top of a loop... Don't really see that one working either.

flyrite
09-29-2014, 01:18 PM
Hey ssmdive, Bring that Pitts up to Morganton N.C. 10/24 for the "Blue Ridge Hammerfest" You won't find a finer more helpful group of "acronuts" anywhere.
And to your point on the new proposals...I myself don't see how you could be competitive in the 7ECA with the new proposed sequence designs...not that somebody couldn't possably get through it....But like Eric said in an earlier post bout some of the advanced sequences, your not gonna have energy enough for any technical points after some of the figures compared to some of your competition!

Rare is it that any one pilot has 2 mounts in the hanger to do real world comparisons on any given sequence back to back. Thanks for the post.

Take care

Tony

ssmdive
09-29-2014, 02:27 PM
Rare is it that any one pilot has 2 mounts in the hanger to do real world comparisons on any given sequence back to back. Thanks for the post.

I only have about 140 hours in the Citabria and I only have about 15 hours in the Pitts. I did place 2nd in Primary with the Citabria when I had 50 hours in it in Fall 2013. And to be fair, neither was flown in front of a judge in a real box. So I guess it is possible that the flight with the 7ECA that I have nine times more experience with scored better than my new Pitts..... But I doubt it.

With the 7ECA if I could make it through the 1/2 Cuban without busting out low, I could get the loop in. But the second half of the wedge made be bust out low each time. Also, after the Immelmann turn it was impossible to get enough speed to do the roll without diving. Roll speed is listed as 120 and WOT level I am not going to make it much better than 110 and that is giving the plane time to speed up, not trying to speed up and do a roll in 3000M. While I could start the roll slower when the engine died when inverted the roll rate slowed considerably and with all the drag from all the down elevator and all the drag from full aileron deflection and rudder deflection to try and not lose altitude the plane dished out and ended up in a bit of a dive at the end of the roll. In the Pitts, I just keep the throttle full and sped up with plenty of box left to roll the plane.

Again, if the judge was Mr Magoo or a judge that has a soft spot for Citabria's and hates Pitts.... I guess the ECA could have scored better. But I would not hang my hat on that.

Mike Heuer
09-29-2014, 02:50 PM
Well, I am here -- after several days at the US Nationals, I came home exhausted and with tons of e-mails to answer and phone calls to make. IAC is a very intense business -- not that I am complaining. It's an honor to be your President and the Nationals was really good this year and a pleasure to meet and talk to many friends and members.

I don't have many comments on this discussion thread right now as it requires more thought with a rested brain. The problem of competitors feeling disadvantaged because of the aircraft they own and want to fly in a particular category is not a new one. I remember when a Pitts S-1S was considered a "super ship" by early members of IAC and they didn't like those flying in certain categories either. It's a discussion as old as IAC.

I can tell you this -- my priorities as President (and even long before I took over on 1 August) are to increase our membership and increase participation in competition. Simply put, more pilots + more contests = good. That must be the focus of all your Officers and Directors. If this can be done through rules proposals, such as we have on the table this year, then they should be seriously considered. Generally, you will find me opposed to any proposal that may result in a decrease in competition activity and there have been some of those floated in the past.

We did have a lot of experience over several years of trying to restrict aircraft at the World Advanced Aerobatic Championships -- through regulating the makes and models that could participate. It didn't end well and eventually all restrictions were dropped. Handicap systems have been informally discussed before but a workable proposal from one or more of our members is yet to be approved by the Board. Exchanging ideas is fine and necessary -- putting those conversations to actual rules proposals and submitting them to our Rules Chairman, Brian Howard, is the next step and not quite as easy, as those of you know who have ever prepared complex proposals in the past.

My personal opinions do not matter here. As President, I don't have any personal opinions -- whatever I say will be construed as not coming from me personally but rather as some sort of official IAC viewpoint and there is none at this point in time. But what has always been challenging and exciting about working with our organization's fine membership is there are always lots of interesting discussions and views which can lead to a better IAC. I have watched it happen over our 44 year history and it can be very rewarding.

So keep discussing ideas about how to get more pilots involved -- and more competitions organized out there. And also forward your ideas about how to keep our non-competition members happy, too. We get a lot of feedback on how we have to look out for the other 3,000 members who are not involved in flying at contests.

flyrite
09-29-2014, 03:15 PM
Also, after the Immelmann turn it was impossible to get enough speed to do the roll without diving. Roll speed is listed as 120 and WOT level I am not going to make it much better than 110 and that is giving the plane time to speed up, not trying to speed up and do a roll in 3000M. While I could start the roll slower when the engine died when inverted the roll rate slowed considerably and with all the drag from all the down elevator and all the drag from full aileron deflection and rudder deflection to try and not lose altitude the plane dished out and ended up in a bit of a dive at the end of the roll. In the Pitts, I just keep the throttle full and sped up with plenty of box left to roll the plane. .

As you've already found out...Much more stick-n-rudder skills required to fly a nice roll in the 7ECA than the pitts...in competition on the judges line it's still called a "slow roll" even if a whizzzbang mono-wing is doing it....But when your doing it in the 7ECA it really is a "slooooow roool":cool:

flyrite
09-29-2014, 03:25 PM
I don't have many comments on this discussion thread right now as it requires more thought with a rested brain. The problem of competitors feeling disadvantaged because of the aircraft they own and want to fly in a particular category is not a new one. I remember when a Pitts S-1S was considered a "super ship" by early members of IAC and they didn't like those flying in certain categories either. It's a discussion as old as IAC.

I can tell you this -- my priorities as President (and even long before I took over on 1 August) are to increase our membership and increase participation in competition. Simply put, more pilots + more contests = good. That must be the focus of all your Officers and Directors. If this can be done through rules proposals, such as we have on the table this year, then they should be seriously considered. Generally, you will find me opposed to any proposal that may result in a decrease in competition activity and there have been some of those floated in the past.

We did have a lot of experience over several years of trying to restrict aircraft at the World Advanced Aerobatic Championships -- through regulating the makes and models that could participate. It didn't end well and eventually all restrictions were dropped. Handicap systems have been informally discussed before but a workable proposal from one or more of our members is yet to be approved by the Board. Exchanging ideas is fine and necessary -- putting those conversations to actual rules proposals and submitting them to our Rules Chairman, Brian Howard, is the next step and not quite as easy, as those of you know who have ever prepared complex proposals in the past. .

Thanks so much for joining in Mike...and thanks for the years of service to the club on behalf of guy's like me...I've got every issue of "sport aerobatic's" all the way back to the beginning...I told you that because I want you to know I've read every one of the articles written by you & your Dad through the years and the contributions & some of the sacrifices that you & your family have made for the sport.

I really look forward to anything you might add to this debate in the future...& please don't be a stranger here.

Tony

Mike Heuer
10-14-2014, 04:06 PM
Not sure I am "rested" yet and smart enough to make a good contribution here, but will give it a try. Tony wrote me privately and has shamed me into it.

We will never know how many pilots are scared away by what they regard as competition that they believe is tilted in favor of those who can afford high-performance, high-cost aircraft. Something I have learned the hard way is that no matter what you have in the rules and how perfectly you administer those rules at a contest, people come away with impressions and perceptions. Those perceptions become reality. If IAC members who are thinking about becoming involved in competition feel they cannot make a decent showing, they may not come and we will never know it.

A recent membership survey done by IAC VP Doug McConnell has generated a lot of excellent feedback on where IAC is today, where it's going, and how we can change to ensure a future for sport aerobatics and our club. I have been impressed by the quality and quantity of the good ideas and we will discuss them in our Board meeting in Oshkosh on 12-13 November. As anyone will tell you in business, if you don't pay attention to your customers, you will whither and die.

While there has not been any feedback on creating "handicap" systems in the dozens of ideas and proposals we received, there is are underlying themes to many of the messages and letters. That is, competition has to be more attractive and we have to get away from "category creep" which chases people away. Some have called for a total realignment of the categories in terms of difficulty. One writer enthusiastically and articulately stated a case for divorcing ourselves from the CIVA sequences and to simplify Advanced and Unlimited to attract more pilots. One writer from California said the "bonus system" introduced some years ago at Unlimited level (you have to have been around a while to remember it as it was discontinued) damaged Unlimited and we have not recovered since. There are a lot of opinions out there -- no shortage in that department -- and the Board is tasked with doing what is good for the sport. One of the other questions I always ask is, "Will this proposal grow aerobatics (or contests) or shrink it?" If the answer is shrinkage or decline, I am not in favor. End of story.

I invite you to look at the rules proposals that I posted on the IAC website and which are now under review by the IAC Rules Committee (under the direction of its chairman, Brian Howard). Their report will be coming in soon and I will announce it here on this forum. Comments from members will be encouraged. You will see some proposals in there regarding Primary (see proposal 2015-07). Here is the link to the proposals: https://www.iac.org/news/2014-09-28-rules-and-known-proposals-2015-available

The rationale behind 2015-07 bears study and reading. What is impressive about proposals like this, to me anyway, is that members are always thinking of how to improve our rules and get more people involved. I will say again, "More Pilots + More Contests = Good". I appreciate what Tony has brought up here. But I also admit, I do not have the answers. If a workable handicap system could be derived, I would be in favor of it -- if it meant that more pilots would come to contests and feel they were treated fairly -- after all, "unfair" was the title of this thread and Tony feels we are not doing a good job of ensuring fairness at contests -- then this discussion is useful and positive.

So everyone, give it some more thought. Keep the messages, posts, and ideas flowing. You have a receptive ear here.

Mike

flyrite
11-09-2014, 12:13 PM
Well after finishing the season up @ Keystone & Morganton I had the opportunity to discuss the issue of this thread with a lot of different pilots.....At Keystone all my fellow competitors were flying unlimited mounts except for 1 in a 202 & he's already moved up to an MX, It was down for service or he would have been flying it [there was 5 in the category].

I had good conversations with 4 of the guys...who btw are good friends of mine & I have known & competed against most all since the late 90's...let me relay the conversations over food & drink on the issue.
All agreed with me that their is a big disparity, But didn't know what to suggest as a solution...many points were made on both side's of the issue, But none deny they are flying with a big advantage! All agreed to join this thread.....Hmmmm......Don't know what happen to that commitment.....I can only assume like another advanced lifer flying an unlimited machine said on another thread relating to this issue[knowns for 15]....And I quote...I've managed to avoid getting involved on this!!

Now to Morganton...All that flew there were flying 4 cyl's except for a 2B, We had a good round table discussion & several good idea's were floated...All there also agreed that there was a big disparity, One of the guy's had a good idea [from his perspective] was to allow a break for the 4cyl guy's & I like it ...Don't think it will happen...But It was a good debate.

I wouldn't want to speak for anybody...I can only assume that the guy's flying unlimited's year after year in advanced are afraid of debating the issue in public or like a lot of folk just shy away from controversy. I will leave it at this......YOU GUYS KNOW WHO YOU ARE...Quit letting the lower category guy's argue your point for you. Take care
Tony

Craig Gifford
11-09-2014, 04:24 PM
Tony - that guy flying the 4 cyl 202 - I've seen him fly it a little. On more than one continent. He's better in it than he is in the MX. And when he's "on", he's hard to beat in Advanced, period. Did you notice that 4 of the top 10 in Advanced at 2014 Nationals were "4 cyl guys"? and they finished ahead of Extras, a Cap and an MX? They are great pilots and it shows in their scores.

As for the disparaging "advanced lifer" terminology you've associated with me in a couple posts, for what it's worth, I've only been flying aerobatics for 8 years - apparently you've been in the sport twice as long as me.

flyrite
11-09-2014, 06:58 PM
Tony - that guy flying the 4 cyl 202 - I've seen him fly it a little. On more than one continent. He's better in it than he is in the MX. And when he's "on", he's hard to beat in Advanced, period. Did you notice that 4 of the top 10 in Advanced at 2014 Nationals were "4 cyl guys"? and they finished ahead of Extras, a Cap and an MX? They are great pilots and it shows in their scores.

As for the disparaging "advanced lifer" terminology you've associated with me in a couple posts, for what it's worth, I've only been flying aerobatics for 8 years - apparently you've been in the sport twice as long as me.

Craig , So glad to have you join the debate...The guy your talking about is Marty & no doubt he's a great stick...He's also one of the guy's that I quoted that won't argue that the unlimited machine's fly with a big advantage over the 4 cyl's guy's in the category...And to the 4 that placed at the nationals you'll also notice that they fell out of contention in the unknown's which is where most 4 banger's struggle against guys like you..especially on a hot day...Go back & read the previous post's...you can practice away the disparity in the known's & the free's , But the unknown's are a different matter!

And regardless of the ability to practice away the disadvantage in the known's & free's you still have the disparity of presentation that guy's like you have in being able to start so much lower in those flight's & put the flight in the performance zone. Now to your perception that I have disparaged you by using the term..."Advanced Lifer's"...Please believe me when I say I mean nothing personal when I use the phrase...But guy's like you that have demonstrated the skill's {you've made the AWAC team 2 time's] As well as the finance's to afford an unlimited machine...Don't you think it's time to move up & quit using the advantage you have in a lower category against the guy's who are still flying the lower performance mount's ...I have watched your flying, You have the skill's..You have the machine...Move up & use the mount you have in the category it was designed for...There is a reason that the regional contest's have no real unlimited participation.

And to the time spent in the sport...Go back & reread the post's in this thread as well "Fair Unknown's" & you'll see that I to have only been in advanced for 3 year's total....I really don't think it has anything to do with the time in the category so much as demonstrated skill's. Take Foster who just won the national's in advanced...I think this was his first year in the category, But he's demonstrated the skill's so he either need's to move up with the extra he's flying or move back in mount's if he want to park in the category as some do, Not to continue to use an advantage he has bought over his fellow competitors!
Again, Thank you for joining in this debate & please don't take anything I have pointed out as a personal attack...

Take care
Tony

Craig Gifford
11-09-2014, 07:46 PM
the 4 that placed at the nationals you'll also notice that they fell out of contention in the unknown's which is where most 4 banger's struggle against guys like you.

Actually, 3 of the 4 improved their position in the Unknown, the fourth only dropped 2 slots and it had nothing to do with energy (he was downgraded for a very odd spin), and one of the four scored higher than me.

flyrite
11-09-2014, 08:06 PM
Actually, 3 of the 4 improved their position in the Unknown, the fourth only dropped 2 slots and it had nothing to do with energy (he was downgraded for a very odd spin), and one of the four scored higher than me.


How about this...You have flown other mount's & now have the benefit of flying your present mount....Let's not talk around the issue by trying to debate minutia...Do you agree that it's a big advantage having the H.P. & wing area in the category over the lower performance mount's...Yes or No?

flyrite
11-10-2014, 05:41 PM
how about this...you have flown other mount's & now have the benefit of flying your present mount....let's not talk around the issue by trying to debate minutia...do you agree that it's a big advantage having the h.p. & wing area in the category over the lower performance mount's...yes or no?

bump>>>craig

flyrite
11-22-2014, 12:54 PM
Over 5000 views in just over 2 month's.....I have no idea why .......Ahhhh....Probably just a lot of people waiting on a good argument to be made .....[Me to].....Or some may be wondering if the guy who started the thread will continue to stir the pot....Hmmmm....I know that guy & he is an unruly sort of fellow.

Come on fella's...If ya gone fly'em ....Don't be ashamed to defend'em....I'm willing to be seen as the "spoiled sport" that need's the rule's to prop me up, So where's the fear on your part ? I thought there was at least one guy that was gonna defend the code on the other side. Interesting that none of the guy's flying the unlimited's in advanced for years will jump in on this thread......I know you guy's are visiting here...Don't be scared of this "little ole debate" :P


Take care
Tony

DJ Molny
11-23-2014, 10:21 AM
Tony -

I get detailed analytics for several web sites, and it's very common for web crawlers (Google, Bing, et al) to generate far more "reads" than humans do on low-traffic sites. Just sayin'.

As to why nobody's commenting... Seriously, what else is there to say? Every point and counter-point was expressed within the first few posts of this protracted thread.

Regards,
DJ

flyrite
11-23-2014, 11:43 AM
Tony -

I get detailed analytics for several web sites, and it's very common for web crawlers (Google, Bing, et al) to generate far more "reads" than humans do on low-traffic sites. Just sayin'.

As to why nobody's commenting... Seriously, what else is there to say? Every point and counter-point was expressed within the first few posts of this protracted thread.

Regards,
DJ

DJ, Trust me, The "advanced lifers" flying the unlimited machine's are visiting here...And if I can encourage some of them feller's to quit "Cheat'n"...Well, Then I'm all about pushing those member's to continue to develop their skill's & "MOVE UP" to the category that their mount's were designed for...[Don't you think the unlimited category need's it]But really.. don't you find it interesting that none of them guy's will argue for themself's!
It's obvious that the powers that be [IAC] are not going to address this & as you've pointed out "Every point & counter Point has been made".

And to your point of the interest in this thread being more about "web crawler's" than actual real people visiting.....I bow to your knowledge of this medium...But believe me when I say there is a lot of interest on this issue in the sport.


Thanks for the explaining why the view's just keep increasing...[ I do find it curious that the other topic's don't enjoy the same increase in views]...But me & the "Official IAC forum" will continue to enjoy the exposure provided by the crawler's. ;)

Take care

Tony

flyrite
11-30-2014, 11:35 AM
5500.............&................counting........Director's, tell me......is it folk wondering about the "Redneck" continuing to stir the pot...[ them pesky web crawler's]...Or... could there be a true interest in the issue ?

Take care

Tony

Tom Adams
11-30-2014, 04:49 PM
Tony,
You asked me to jump in on this thread so here goes.I guess I need to approach this ”unfair” thread you started as both your Regional director and as as an individual IAC member.
I’ll have to switch hats.


You wanted my opinion on your “unfair” thread as your Director. Well, as a director I don’t have one. As a director it is my job to vote at a board meeting in a manner that has been indicated to me by the membership. If I do not have enough input from the membership to give me an indication as to what they want, I use my judgment keeping in mind what I feel is best for the club. My primary concern is the health of the club.


You claim that this “Unfair” situation is responsable for driving people away from or out of the IAC. Obviously, thats something we do not want. Your thread spoke of doing some thing to even the playing field. Handicapping was mentioned and limitations were hinted at.
If you are serious about this subject you need to switch from being pro-vocal to being pro-active. When we spoke you asked me, “ Am I supposed to contact each member personally?”.
well, yes, that’s how I would go about it. The thread you started, as it is, won’t get the job done. In seven pages on line you only had seven people responding to you. I wouldn’t use the “Exploder”, it would do just that..explode. If I were you I would write an article for SA to touch each member. You would need to explain the problem as you see it and what you feel should be done to rectify it. In it refer the membership to your thread. I’m sure Reggie would print it if it were well written. I have no doubt it would be well done,after reading your thread it’s evident you know your way around a key board. You express yourself well.


Once you start getting responses form a committee. Have the group formulate the rule or rule change it feels well rectify the problem you wish to solve. When you come up with a proposal make sure it includes:
1) The problem as your committee sees it.
2) The old rule if there is one.
3) If there is no rule to modify ,where in the rules book should your new rule be placed.
4) Should your rule touch or effect other rules within the book state how those need
to be modified.
5) What your committee feels the new rule will accomplish.
The proposed change has to go to Brian ( rules chair) for publication to get the member comments. It well be voted on at the next Fall Board meeting in Oshkosh.
Simple! If it is on the agenda at that meeting and I am on the Board,I will vote for it if there is indication that the large majority of members want it passed.
As your Director I wish you luck with your new callange.


Now, Speaking as IAC member #1999, I can say I don’t completely agree with you. Yes, I see that the Single wing high horsepower A/C has some advantage. That advantage, however, can be a two headed snake. Advantages like higher speeds,more vertical penetration, longer lines,and 420*/sec. roll rate. I’ve had these advantages work against me on numerous occasions.The faster speeds eat the box,the long lines means more exposure to the judges.
I will however fly the higher performance machine because you don’t have to work as hard.


Our judges are taught to judge the roundness of a loop not how large it is. The 1 for 5* rule applies to all types of A/C but the most exposure to judges goes to the Hi powered machines. It’s much easier for the judge to see uneven lines or off vertical lines on those long ones.
Tony, Im sure you see where I’m going with this but let me tell you, the system isn’t broke. Our judges are the best in the world, trust me. I have been doing this sport sense 1972. That’s 42
years. During that time I averaged 6 regional and 1 National contest each year. I can honestly say that during that entire time, THE BEST PILOTS TOOK HOME THE TROPHIES. Tony, it made no difference who made the plane at the bottom of the stick or how big the engine was at the end of the throttle cable..... The best pilots won!


If you make a rule that dictates to me how many years I am allowed to fly my plane in a category before I have to change either the plane or category, you’ll only see me on a golf course. If you do something like that, and I feel thats what you are hinting, this Club will disappear. The sport won’t but the club will.
My suggestion to you is to move up to a high priced high powered monoplane. After all Tony,
it’s the American way.


Tom

flyrite
12-04-2014, 05:21 PM
Tony,
You asked me to jump in on this thread so here goes.I guess I need to approach this ”unfair” thread you started as both your Regional director and as as an individual IAC member.
I’ll have to switch hats.


You wanted my opinion on your “unfair” thread as your Director. Well, as a director I don’t have one. As a director it is my job to vote at a board meeting in a manner that has been indicated to me by the membership. If I do not have enough input from the membership to give me an indication as to what they want, I use my judgment keeping in mind what I feel is best for the club. My primary concern is the health of the club.


You claim that this “Unfair” situation is responsable for driving people away from or out of the IAC. Obviously, thats something we do not want. Your thread spoke of doing some thing to even the playing field. Handicapping was mentioned and limitations were hinted at.
If you are serious about this subject you need to switch from being pro-vocal to being pro-active. When we spoke you asked me, “ Am I supposed to contact each member personally?”.
well, yes, that’s how I would go about it. The thread you started, as it is, won’t get the job done. In seven pages on line you only had seven people responding to you. I wouldn’t use the “Exploder”, it would do just that..explode. If I were you I would write an article for SA to touch each member. You would need to explain the problem as you see it and what you feel should be done to rectify it. In it refer the membership to your thread. I’m sure Reggie would print it if it were well written. I have no doubt it would be well done,after reading your thread it’s evident you know your way around a key board. You express yourself well.


Once you start getting responses form a committee. Have the group formulate the rule or rule change it feels well rectify the problem you wish to solve. When you come up with a proposal make sure it includes:
1) The problem as your committee sees it.
2) The old rule if there is one.
3) If there is no rule to modify ,where in the rules book should your new rule be placed.
4) Should your rule touch or effect other rules within the book state how those need
to be modified.
5) What your committee feels the new rule will accomplish.
The proposed change has to go to Brian ( rules chair) for publication to get the member comments. It well be voted on at the next Fall Board meeting in Oshkosh.
Simple! If it is on the agenda at that meeting and I am on the Board,I will vote for it if there is indication that the large majority of members want it passed.
As your Director I wish you luck with your new callange.


Now, Speaking as IAC member #1999, I can say I don’t completely agree with you. Yes, I see that the Single wing high horsepower A/C has some advantage. That advantage, however, can be a two headed snake. Advantages like higher speeds,more vertical penetration, longer lines,and 420*/sec. roll rate. I’ve had these advantages work against me on numerous occasions.The faster speeds eat the box,the long lines means more exposure to the judges.
I will however fly the higher performance machine because you don’t have to work as hard.


Our judges are taught to judge the roundness of a loop not how large it is. The 1 for 5* rule applies to all types of A/C but the most exposure to judges goes to the Hi powered machines. It’s much easier for the judge to see uneven lines or off vertical lines on those long ones.
Tony, Im sure you see where I’m going with this but let me tell you, the system isn’t broke. Our judges are the best in the world, trust me. I have been doing this sport sense 1972. That’s 42
years. During that time I averaged 6 regional and 1 National contest each year. I can honestly say that during that entire time, THE BEST PILOTS TOOK HOME THE TROPHIES. Tony, it made no difference who made the plane at the bottom of the stick or how big the engine was at the end of the throttle cable..... The best pilots won!


If you make a rule that dictates to me how many years I am allowed to fly my plane in a category before I have to change either the plane or category, you’ll only see me on a golf course. If you do something like that, and I feel thats what you are hinting, this Club will disappear. The sport won’t but the club will.
My suggestion to you is to move up to a high priced high powered monoplane. After all Tony,
it’s the American way.


Tom



Thanks so much Tom for your thoughtfull post.....I've been holding off my response cause I've been assured by 2 more director's by e-mail that they would be posting a response also.....Would love for the remaining director's to at least give their perspective on this issue.....:cool:

Take care
Tony

flyrite
12-11-2014, 02:00 PM
Oh well, So much for more director's joining in....But moving on, Again Tom thanks so much for your post. I truly appreciate my director being responsive to my concerns even if he doesn't share them. You responded by wearing your 2 hats as a director & then as a member, Let me address both of you.....

Tom the Director said this below....
If you are serious about this subject you need to switch from being pro-vocal to being pro-active. When we spoke you asked me, * Am I supposed to contact each member personally?*.
well, yes, that*s how I would go about it. The thread you started, as it is, won*t get the job done. In seven pages on line you only had seven people responding to you.

Tom on being pro-active I wrote a letter to the magazine back 10-25-13 that I put a copy of on this forum called "Fair Unknowns" that address's this very topic from the perspective of designing sequences that would keep the "little guy" in a fair fight...I'm still waiting for a recognition that it was even recieved.
I do plan to make another attempt & do what you suggested by inviting participation in this thread. Hopefully I'll get a response this time.

As to the limited reponses to this thread you referenced ...I myself wish more of the membership was more pro-active to the issues they are aware of regardless of their position. I just assume it's kinda like the elections for the directorships each time ....only a handful of members even respond...Not because they don't have opinions...But I would venture that the views & responses to this obscure thread by percentage surpasses participation in the election ballots that are sent to every member!

Now to the forming of a commitie to accomplish my desire for the club to address what is an obvious disparity...No problem, I've been contacted by several members that have good ideas & suggestions. If after I can get Reggie to put something in the magazine I'll go about doing the commitie thing....Although I do wonder if every rule change that you guys do requires a commitie to get it done.

Now to ...Tom the fellow club member said this below ...

Now, Speaking as IAC member #1999, I can say I don*t completely agree with you. Yes, I see that the Single wing high horsepower A/C has some advantage. That advantage, however, can be a two headed snake. Advantages like higher speeds,more vertical penetration, longer lines,and 420*/sec. roll rate. I*ve had these advantages work against me on numerous occasions.The faster speeds eat the box,the long lines means more exposure to the judges.
I will however fly the higher performance machine because you don*t have to work as hard.

AAhhhhhh, The old to much performance is a disadvantage defense...You know of all the argument's that I have heard I guess this one is probably the best one that someone flying an unlimited mount year after year in advanced can come up with...But Tom...I appreciate that in the end you are honest that all things in the seat being equal..... the guy flying the higher API'ed mount is not working nearly as hard.....And is flying with a big advantage....and for the record you must fly the little small winged 1D at the same speeds as the unlimiteds to get any performance because of the limited wing area...Its just steady losing altitude the whole time.

You also said.....
Tony, Im sure you see where I*m going with this but let me tell you, the system isn*t broke. Our judges are the best in the world, trust me. I have been doing this sport sense 1972. That*s 42
years. During that time I averaged 6 regional and 1 National contest each year. I can honestly say that during that entire time, THE BEST PILOTS TOOK HOME THE TROPHIES. Tony, it made no difference who made the plane at the bottom of the stick or how big the engine was at the end of the throttle cable..... The best pilots won!

I never have said the system is broken....What I have said is that the IAC has not kept up with the category creep as well as equipment advancement by adopting rules to keep the "Legacy mount's" that are still advanced capable in a fair fight with the guys that like to use their pocketbook to buy more performance & park that performance in a lower category.

Now to the Best Pilots taking home the trophies regardless of mounts they are flying .....Would you seriously argue that 2 guys of equal skill flying 2 mounts with such differing API's will have a consistant result that is not BIASED to the higher API mount.....Tom there are always "Exceptions to the rules" but the rule remains regardless of the exceptions.....I.E. The guy flying a higher performance mount will win the majority of the time [skills being equal] regardless of the quality of the judges.
If for no other reason than presentation advantage of putting the flight in the performance zone.... and... if the members submiting the unknowns are mostly flying the unlimited mounts how can any reasonable person argue that the best pilots are winning the competitions?


Your last point below.....
If you make a rule that dictates to me how many years I am allowed to fly my plane in a category before I have to change either the plane or category, you*ll only see me on a golf course. If you do something like that, and I feel thats what you are hinting, this Club will disappear. The sport won*t but the club will.
My suggestion to you is to move up to a high priced high powered monoplane. After all Tony,
it*s the American way.

Now were getting to the real root of why were unlikely to change anything and where I appreciate your honesty. No doubt alot of the brethren would probably collect their toys from the sandbox and go home if their advantages in advanced were minimized.....rather than move up & play in the sandbox their toy was designed for. And Tom , You like another brother in an earlier post have proven its about the money your willing to spend more than the skills you have to be competitive in the category.

Because I believe I stand a better chance of getting something done by petitioning to get some fairness in sequence design to minimize the disparity as was the point of Giles Hendersons article a couple of magazines back as well as my original point in the "Fair Unknowns thread" thats where my efforts will be placed.
Besides Tom I prefer to be an underdog ....after all its the american way.:rollseyes:

Take care
Tony

flyrite
01-06-2015, 05:02 PM
6719 views ......Dang them peskey web crawlers.........:cool:

RetroAcro
01-07-2015, 08:10 AM
6719 views ......Dang them peskey web crawlers.........:cool:

More like popcorn eaters Tony. ;-)

flyrite
01-07-2015, 05:05 PM
:rollseyes::rollseyes::rollseyes::rollseyes::rolls eyes::rollseyes:

ssmdive
01-08-2015, 06:58 AM
Anyone really think a 7ECA can do a good two point roll? They suck at a regular roll and now they want you to stop in the middle while the engine dies.

Byron J. Covey
01-08-2015, 07:55 AM
Life isn't fair. Success goes to the people with the best combination of intelligence, hard work and willingness to put success as a top priority.

Aerobatic competition isn't fair. Success goes to the people with the best combination of airplane, skills, hard work and willingness to put success as a top priority.

If you can't accept that, then go sit in a corner and sulk, but quit complaining.


BJC

ssmdive
01-08-2015, 09:42 AM
Life isn't fair. Success goes to the people with the best combination of intelligence, hard work and willingness to put success as a top priority. Aerobatic competition isn't fair. Success goes to the people with the best combination of airplane, skills, hard work and willingness to put success as a top priority. If you can't accept that, then go sit in a corner and sulk, but quit complaining. BJC What a great speech to attract new people to the sport!

flyrite
01-08-2015, 01:49 PM
What a great speech to attract new people to the sport!

Hey ssmdive, Don't let the snipers spin you up....The silly arguments that are put up regarding this issue border on comical. :P

Ignore guys who offer nothing but more "self help classes on life's inequities" to defend the obvious.

Hope to meet you at the contest in feb. in Dunellon....Till then lets go to our respective corners [yours being an advanced skydiver champion] and mine being 2013 Advanced N.E. Champion & sulk as well as ponder our lack of success in our respective successes...Cause we obviously know nothing of prioritizing...hard work....or even having the intelligence to get where WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN!!!!!

Tony

P.S. maybe some of these self help guys will show up at some of the S.E. contests in person and demonstrate their superior skills in the contest arena.......YeeeHawwww:cool::cool::cool:

RetroAcro
01-08-2015, 02:05 PM
and mine being 2013 Advanced national champion

Dang Tony, you sure have aged since then. I remember a 40-something blond haired guy winning Advanced Nats in '13. :)

flyrite
01-08-2015, 02:28 PM
Yea I caught and fixed that Eric....N. E. ------N.E.-------N.E.------N.E. Advanced champion.....But ma wife sez I'm as handsome as that guy....Heh..Hehh...

But I'm convinced...Had I gone to Texas me & my 1D could have lost with the best of'em....:eek:

"Dowst it" I can't get away with nothin

ssmdive
01-08-2015, 03:17 PM
Hey ssmdive, Don't let the snipers spin you up....The silly arguments that are put up regarding this issue border on comical. :P Ignore guys who offer nothing but more "self help classes on life's inequities" to defend the obvious. Till then lets go to our respective corners yours being an advanced skydiver champion and mine being 2013 Advanced N.E. national champion & sulk as well as ponder our lack of success in our respective successes...Cause we obviously know nothing of prioritizing...hard work....or even having the intelligence to get where WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN!!!!! To be fair, in 2014 I also got a Silver medal in Open 8 way and Open 16 way. So not just "Advanced". In Skydiving, "Open" is the highest class. I also won Advanced in 2003, in skydiving, once you win you have to move up for 5 years, I moved up a bit longer than that - In fact till 2013. But I placed in the top 10 in Open in 1998, 2002, 2004, 2005, (2006 got 11th DAMN IT), and 2007. Come to think of it.... I also: Won Silver in Open 8 way not just 2014, but also in 2006. In Open 16 way: Silver in 2009, 2010 (World Record), 2013 and 2014. In Open 10 way: Silver in 2009, 2013 and Bronze in 2010, and 2011. Plus a bunch of Int medals I don't care to track down to list. Some of those as a coach. But I mean what would I know about "skills, hard work and willingness to put success as a top priority"...... Right?
Hope to meet you at the contest in feb. in Ocala.... I plan on going to... Well, a bunch of competitions this year since I quit my fully sponsored, salaried skydiving team..... You know dropping one PAID hobby to focus on another - Does that count as, "willingness to put success as a top priority"???? Nah, I am sure he is correct and I know nothing about Competition and what it takes.

flyrite
01-08-2015, 03:28 PM
To be fair, in 2014 I also got a Silver medal in Open 8 way and Open 16 way. So not just "Advanced". In Skydiving, "Open" is the highest class. I also won Advanced in 2003, in skydiving, once you win you have to move up for 5 years, I moved up a bit longer than that - In fact till 2013. But I placed in the top 10 in Open in 1998, 2002, 2004, 2005, (2006 got 11th DAMN IT), and 2007. Come to think of it.... I also: Won Silver in Open 8 way not just 2014, but also in 2006. In Open 16 way: Silver in 2009, 2010 (World Record), 2013 and 2014. In Open 10 way: Silver in 2009, 2013 and Bronze in 2010, and 2011. Plus a bunch of Int medals I don't care to track down to list. Some of those as a coach. But I mean what would I know about "skills, hard work and willingness to put success as a top priority"...... Right? I plan on going to... Well, a bunch of competitions this year since I quit my fully sponsored, salaried skydiving team..... You know dropping one PAID hobby to focus on another - Does that count as, "willingness to put success as a top priority"???? Nah, I am sure he is correct and I know nothing about Competition and what it takes.


Well shoot...you obviously don't have what it takes to succeed, I'm sure you won't do well in the IAC without the rules to prop you up....Look forward to meeting you at one of the up coming contests.
BTW...Keep a look out for an article in one of the up coming issues of Sport Aerobatics magazine... I'll be looking to guys like you to make suggestions for future rules proposals.
Some of the points you have make to much sense to ignore...Look forward to working with you on future issues.


Take care
Tony

flyrite
02-14-2015, 06:49 PM
Thought I might add an update to this drawn out thread. I have through the months that this has been going on tried as best I could through personal e-mails as well as phone calls to get the rest of the directors to involve themselves [on the official IAC forum] just to get their perspective [regardless of what that is]. So that the people who elected them would at least know what their perspective on the issue is. That has been fruitless, It amazes me that some of the folks that make the decisions for the membership are willing to isolate & insolate themselves as they have done. I truly appreciate Tom Adams as well as our President [Mike] for at least being willing to give "Voice" to their perspective.

I do want to make sure that all the Directors know that I really am grateful for their sacrifice, I understand that it is a thankless as well as payless position....BUT, I would assume that you if you ran for the office you were willing to serve. I would then assume that that service would allow you to give opinions on current issues such as Mike & Tom have.

For the record, The only representatives that would even answer my calls were Mike, Tom, Michael, Bruce, The rest were left several voicemails as well as e-mails.


Take care

Tony

flyrite
03-26-2015, 03:45 PM
Bump>>>>>>>>>>>>>bump>>>>>>>>>>>>bump>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stay tuned after the next issue of the magazine!!

Take care
Tony

Eric Anderson
04-20-2015, 06:52 AM
I read the article "Unlimited...limited" and mostly agreed with Tony. So I hijacked the idea and posted a paraphrased version on the Biplane Forum where I thought it would receive a favorable following. But before I relate the gist of the responses there, here's where I'm coming from: Warrenton, VA '13 was my first contest. The first time I ever saw a box was there with Eric Sandifer on the handheld coaching me through the Sportsman Known. My first volunteer job was to record for Tony later that day. I just don't see myself flying Advanced. At my age and negative G tolerance, Intermediate offers more than enough to keep me on my toes. So I don't know why I care. But I do. Maybe it's because I still appreciate that four minutes of coaching from Eric and now want to watch him compete and thrive in his new category. The same holds true for Jason Flood, my first and best friend in this sport. I see real logic in carving out Advanced as the pinnacle of 4 cylinder competition and Unlimited as the pinnacle of competition overall. Without this wall between the two, the idea of international Advanced competition seems oddly wasteful to me. It's basically spending hundreds of thousands of dollars sending two teams flying the same same planes to do basically the same sequences. But that's just me. Having limited my tailslides and outside snaps to 4000 AGL maybe I just don't appreciate the giant chasm between the categories.

As for the response over at the biplane forum, it was surprisingly hostile to Tony's idea. The resistance boiled down to:
1. It's the pilot, not the plane that competes.
2. If you are in it for the trophy, you're in it for all the wrong reasons.
3. Limiting or handicapping unnecessarily complicates an already low attendance sport.

Eric Anderson
04-20-2015, 06:53 AM
So my reply is this (copied and pasted from elsewhere, sorry):

If this idea can't win over a forum of biplane pilots it will obviously never have a hope of attracting more than a small fraction of the IAC--especially given that similar restrictions have been tried and dropped before.

How about this (the trial balloon ascends...):

Design each Known and Unknown (for applicable categories) with a particular type(s) in mind. Something like

Primary = Citabria
Sportsman = Decathalon
Intermediate = Pitts S-2A
Advanced = Giles 202, 1D
Unlimited = Unlimited

The benchmark types will be published in the Contest Rules each year and all finalist sequence submissions will be test-flown in the appropriate type.

WLIU
04-20-2015, 07:15 AM
This guidance already exists, but it is the IAC Policy and Procedures doc(s) which very few members read. On the IAC web site. And I have no idea why it is buried in the P&P.

You are welcome to submit a rules change proposal in advance of the July 1 deadline that offers an edit to the rule book to move that text over from the P&P. Please send to Brian Howard, Chair of the Rules Committee.

Thanks for engaging in the discussion.

Best of luck,

Wes

Eric Anderson
04-20-2015, 10:59 AM
Hi Wes, I did as you suggested above on that (shhh!) other forum. It's a rough draft and I wouldn't dare consider submission without talking to friends who, unlike me, actually have a history competing. Plus it has the potential of undercutting Tony so I want to avoid any overstep on my part.

ssmdive
04-20-2015, 12:22 PM
As for the response over at the biplane forum, it was surprisingly hostile to Tony's idea. The resistance boiled down to:
1. It's the pilot, not the plane that competes.
2. If you are in it for the trophy, you're in it for all the wrong reasons.
3. Limiting or handicapping unnecessarily complicates an already low attendance sport.

You just boiled this whole thread down as well.

allan f
04-22-2015, 11:12 PM
This is sounding a lot like the arguments that went on in the late ‘90s when the S-1S was being driven out of Unlimited by the unstoppable desire of would-be World Team members to fly CIVA-style sequences at regional contests. As a veteran of those wars, I think the same thing is likely to happen to Advanced. If you really want to keep Advanced safe for four cylinder airplanes, now is the time to fight that battle, before most of them are gone from the category and there’s no one left to fight for them.

I’d like to address the argument that you can always compete in Intermediate if Advanced requires more performance than your plane can muster. I think most competition pilots fall on a linear scale. At one extreme are those who want sequences that can be flown easily in their airplane so they can put in a dozen practice flights to get to where they see minimal errors from inside the plane and are ready to do what they really like - going to contests where they love competing and the social and volunteering aspects of the sport. At the other extreme are pilots such as myself, who like practicing. For practicing to be fun for 40+ flights a year there must be some real challenge to the sequences. Contests are fun too, of course, but mainly they’re for checking your flying progress and competing. The social aspects aren’t enough better than a fly-in breakfast to justify going to a competition.

For most of the past 14 years I’ve been flying unlimited sequences in my modified S-1S for the challenge of it. There’s been no point at all in going to a contest, because of the likelihood of an unflyable Unknown. Practicing Advanced wouldn’t have been enough fun for me to bother keeping on flying aerobatics. While the numbers were small, there is no doubt that people on my side of the scale were driven out of competition by the demise of affordable airplanes in Unlimited. When affordable airplanes are driven out of Advanced, I predict the pilots who can’t get what they want out of the sport by dropping down to Intermediate will be a more substantial loss to the sport.

There’s another type of loss to the sport that’s less visible and difficult to measure, but potentially involves larger numbers of pilots. For someone with the innate talent to fly Unlimited or what Advanced is becoming, it takes two or three years to get through Sportsman and Intermediate in a basic airplane. Pilots on my side of the scale need the challenge of difficult-for-them sequences to stay in the sport. When the step up to Advanced comes to require a $100,000 airplane, the number of people who will make that step instead of quitting the sport will be much smaller than if a $35,000 Pitts is all they need.

wyoranch
04-23-2015, 12:58 PM
Well said!

WLIU
04-23-2015, 02:00 PM
There is a rules proposal brewing elsewhere that would incorporate FAI sporting code section 6, part 1 4.2.2.2.e into IAC rules. That might help our Advanced competitor friends.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

jtoml
04-24-2015, 01:58 PM
I saw Tony's article in Sport Aerobatics, and have just joined the forum. Lots of comments, and I haven't read them all. I'm a regional judge and one time competitor.

I think the easiest way to have the lower performing airplanes score better in the higher categories is to change the scoring rules. I think the interruption penalties should be fairly nominal, or eliminated altogether. A lower performance airplane can climb for some extra height without taking a big scoring hit. Yes, a flight looks better without interruptions, and the proper place for it is in the presentation score.

AndyM
04-26-2015, 04:57 PM
In this age of entitlement, how fitting that Tony has his article published in SA about how he is entitled to win Advanced in a mid-twentieth century technology airplane.

I have three recommendations for you Tony:

1. Train harder.
2. If you are not at your ideal weight for your height - push your lazy chair away from the table. You'll gain substantial aircraft performance if you've been carrying a load of fat with you in the box.
3. Make performance improvements to your airplane if you can't afford a better performing one.

You are not entitled to win any category, Tony. Ever. Work harder and give up trying to lower the bar. Your article guarantees you a whole audience of people who now view you with the disdain of a sore loser.

WLIU
04-26-2015, 06:17 PM
It would be best to keep this discussion about the issues rather than the personalities. If Tony's input provokes some reasoned discussion that engages a bunch of the IAC membership then the result can be constructive. I know of a couple of very reasonable proposals formulated on another forum that are likely to be submitted to IAC.

Reasonable people do not create progress. And I can make the general statement that aerobatic competitors are not reasonable people. The challenge is to pull the great ideas out of the internet noise.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

sburks
04-29-2015, 06:22 AM
I am glad to see the proposals being made for this problem. Science and engineering will prove that the 4 cylinder aircraft can't match the performance of the 6 cylinder machines. I do believe the pilot makes the difference. One only has to watch Tony fly his 1D to understand what I mean. Leveling the field by setting the Advanced Standard aircraft and allowing an optional break is a start.

Stan Burks
N105DR

sburks
05-03-2015, 06:32 PM
I just found another thread about an alternate advanced, has there been any more discussion on that avenue?

SB