Proposed Knowns and Rules for 2012

[IAC News]

Hello IAC Members~

Attached are files collectively containing the proposed rule changes and Known sequences, Sportsman and Intermediate only, for 2012.
The Unusual Attitudes Forum will be the ONLY place for members to make official comment on these proposed rules and knowns.

[Steve Johnson]

I would suggest picking Sportsman Power Proposal C. The other proposed sequences have either two 45 degree lines on the same line, or have a 45 degree up line on a downwind line. Both of these situations will cause Sportsman pilots to work harder to stay in the box or take an out. The C sequence does not have either of the above flaws, and will allow Sportsman pilots to better concentrate on flying good figures without worrying as much about outs. The 2011 Sportsman Known had a 1/2 cuban 8, followed by a pull humpty, and then a reverse 1/2 Cuban 8. This combination of figures was on the downwind line, which required the pilots to decide if they would take an out or a break. At the Sportsman level, pilots should not have this added burden, which does occur in the other proposed Sportsman sequences.
Steve Johnson
IAC 20081
IAC Safety Chair

[WLIU]

As an Intermediate competitor I vote for Intermediate proposal "P" (the last one). The program has the competitor demonstrate an Intermediate level of competency, has some flow, let you see all four corners of the box, and appears to be flyable in the Intermediate benchmark aircraft.

Wes Liu
N78PS

[Craig Gifford]

Steve - I agree re advantage of Sportsman not thinking about box break vs out (I've always thought that was probably the reason for equivalent penalties in Sportsman) and that the 2011 known guaranteed an out or a break, the down 45 in sequence C seems likely to cause the Decathlons to have to consider an altitude break. I like proposal A because it will allow Decathlons to get through it without altitude break (more important of a decision for Sportsman to not have to make in my view than the out consideration), and will obviate the need for the 4000 ft box top proposal (good grief, I can barely see the Decathlons as it is!)

as long as I'm commenting - I support the 200meter Advanced floor proposal for the reasons specified (as a biplane pilot I concur with the need for a bit more room for energy). I don't support the loop criteria proposal - though it sounds objective, I don't believe judges can any more accurately determine the radii of quarter loops than judgmentally evaluating the loop shape - most judges have predetermined personal scores they use for various loop shapes that effectively represent the variation in quarter loop radii without adding false appearance of measurement precision.

Craig.

[Jim Ward]

All,

Some feedback for your consideration re, the proposed 2012 rule changes.


12-1 (box heights for Advanced): Fine reasoning about aligning with CIVA. Support.
12-4 (alternate means of compliance to become a Regional judge): More fine reasoning. Support.
12-5 (common re-fly requirements for sequence abort for meteorological and tech issues): This simplification is welcome. Support.
12-6 (raise box ceiling for Primary and Sportsman): Judges already strain to assess maneuvers flown at 3,500'; raising the ceiling will make it even harder to accurately grade figures, especially for small aircraft like the S-1. Given that quality grading is what makes a contest relevant I do not support this change. (Also, I've observed no safety issues with today's 3,500' limit.)
12-7 (remove direction of start for Known sequences): The proposal makes Known construction more flexible and gives up nothing. Support.
12-8 (remove personal chute requirement if aircraft is equipped with BRS): I don't know enough about the safety nuances behind this change, so won't weigh in.
12-9 (simplify order of flight selection): The flexibility proposed is desirable. Support with the proviso that the Registrar is directed to randomize the order to the extent possible if he or she manually selects the order of flight.
12-10 (allow Advanced competitors to fly the 4-minute Free program if they hold an ICAS 250' waiver): I defer to the more knowledgable among us on this one.
12-11 (disqualification based on not achieving 60% score in the Known): Today's disqualification rule (5.2.2) projects the wrong attitude to competitors; this change would make the rule even more harsh. We have safety valves elsewhere (1.5(h), 4.2.3) that require judges to assess a competitor's flying and, if found to be unsafe, disqualify him or her. We do not need to mandate disqualification just because a competitor flies a sloppy (but perfectly safe) sequence. (This happens from time to time with competitors new to the sport or to a category – especially when moving to Advanced or Unlimited. Let's not send them home – or to a lower category, which has every bit as much sting – just because they had a crummy flight.) So, I do not support this change. I do support inclusivity in all aspects of our sport; 5.2.2 – whether as written today or with this change – does not.
12-12 (motorglider clarifications): Makes sense. (I originally proposed the concept; Brian is behind the language. This change stems from the recent entry of a motorglider in a power contest.) Support.
12-13 (part-loop grading criteria): This specific language oversimplifies the problem, given that judges are still required to attempt to assess radius changes in 1/8 and 1/4 loops. (Not that it's always easy!) Further, many judges also deduct for flat spots – which, admittedly, do produce a radius change – though some of us would prefer to account for them separately. In the end, I'd prefer we stay with today's "develop a system and use it consistently" mantra until we can articulate a more complete set of criteria. So, I do not support this change.
12-14 (removes the requirement for a pilot holding a foreign pilot certificate to hold an FAA medical): Excellent. Anything that encourages our Canadian brethren to fly in U.S. contests curries favor in my house. Support.

Thanks to all who contributed these proposals and to Brian Howard and the Rules Committee for putting them together in this excellent, readable form.

I'm happy to discuss any of my positions here on this forum or privately, if you prefer.

Your turn.

Jim Ward

[WesJones]

Shouldn't the rule for 12-10 read "hold an ICAS 250' or lower waiver"?

[sburks]

I like Proposal "D".

[RetroAcro]

I also vote for Intermediate Proposal "P", which has good variety, challenge, and flow. Proposal "C" has the exact same first two figures as the '08 Known, and folks seemed to complain about going to sleep during the 3/4 loop down that followed (3) negative lines. Regarding Proposal "F", energy flow into and out of the figure 12 Immelman is not good. Proposal "H" energy flow into the figure 5 hammer with 1/4 roll up is not ideal. Second choice would be Proposal "L" due to better energy flow, and a lower-speed roller, but overall it seems less interesting, with less variety than "P".

The only rule changes I take issue with are 12-6 and 12-11. I have not seen a need (either practical or safety related) to raise the box height to 4,000' for Primary and Sportsman (12-6). As mentioned, this presents judging challenges. I strongly disagree with the 60% rule associated with 12-11. Its criteria do not seem clearly defined. Is there a min. number of zeros that will negate the 60% rule? This is obviously proposed for the safety of the competitor. But in my experience, the Chief Judges are experienced enough to call someone down if they see a flagrant inability to fly the sequence safely. I have seen a Chief Judge make this call for good reason. I think this responsibility should remain the Chief Judge's, based solely on his/her judgement and not based on a hard score that may have been flown perfectly safely. We have had unusual aircraft fly Primary or Sportsman just for fun, not caring about scores. They did not always score 60%, but they flew perfectly safely. This keeps things fun at a contest, and I would hate to see this discouraged or prevented.

Eric Sandifer

[mlforney]

12-6 (raise box ceiling for Primary and Sportsman) I support.
A judge must adequately see the aircraft. Factors in order of importance – imho.
- Size of aircraft
- Distance from judges (both X and Y axis)
- Paint color of aircraft
- The direction and quality of the light (looking into the sun, sun filtered by clouds, …)
- The background (clear sky, thin bright clouds, dark clouds, …)
- Viewing angle
- Altitude

Aircraft must not have a competitive advantage from altitude is no longer a factor. With the variation of aircraft performance in a category, competitive advantage is no longer a serious consideration. (Selecting a known is a different question). A Stearman in Sportsman may be high but clearly visible. Why call him out high, encourage him start lower, and take more breaks to climb back up? It is up to him to know what altitude is visible to the judges and to accept the positioning grade lower because of being higher.

A competitor should not be encouraged to start lower. It is better to start higher than to end up low. This is true even with an unlimited pilot in an Extra 330 SC. Let the pilot decide what is safe. This may result in a lower positioning score but this is something the competitor can live with.

It is much more accurate for judges to decide low (and unsafe) than to judge out high. Visibility is a bigger factor than altitude in judging out high (imho). If out high is important then we need to present both the low lines and high lines to be fair to all competitors. If we are judging out high based on visibility as well as altitude then we should change the rules.

Optimal visibility is important. This means just the right angle and distance. Some competitors seem to over simplify this to “closer and lower is better”. Over the top of the judges is not better. I think there should be a visibility downgrade on each figure grade. Why give an L shaped loop over the judges (as a judge we must give it a 10) a better grade than the same loop viewed at a 45 degree angle? A four minute free at 328 feet is not better than 500. Half way between the near side of the box and the judges is not better than in the box.

[Aaron McCartan]

I'll support most of the rule change proposals with exception of:

12-6: Playing the top of the box is fine, but we're already craning our necks juding the lower categories. With exception of conditions such as high Density Altitude, I don't see any major altitude/energy issues with Primary or Sportsman at this time. Having flown both categories in Decathlon, Super-D and Pitts S-1; I don't see any issue with energy management. If you haven't mastered energy management, it's not major penalty at that level to take a break, re-position and resume. That's part of the 'game' of aerobatic, knowing when to interrupt for energy if you can't keep it off the floor. I can think of a handfull of competitors using clipped wing J-3 cubs, Sonex, Cassut Racers, Bulldogs, etc., with some success in these categories.

12-8: Don't have enough data on the reliability or resilliency of those recover chutes. Can they truly save an LSA from any flight attitude? Reliable enough to replace a 'known' recovery system (personal emergency parachute)? Need more expertise to weigh in.

12-11: The scoring judges and chief judge for the category may be giving poor scores but can surely assess the flight as 'safe' or 'unsafe'. Having personally zeroed several figures during a sequence once (wrong direction) and scored low marks on the flight, I'm glad that they didn't disqualify me. I certainly didn't win, but did have quite good scores on the subsequent flights. Just had a bit of confusion on the first sequence. I don't think it would be a fair metric to disqualify a competitor for scoring poorly on the known Compulsory. Now at contests where pilots have exhibited lack of control over their craft or inability to fly 'safely' in the eyes of the judges/chief judge/jury members, a disqualification is warranted.

12-12: I am not qualified nor experienced with those type of aircraft to present any valid assessment.

I'll weigh in on Sequence selections later - wanted to get an opinion posted regarding rules.

[jrr0820]

Only two of the proposed rule changes give me real heartburn. One is the 60% rule. Let's say a "newbie" shows up, pays his $125 or more entry fee and signs up for his/her first contest in primary. Although this new competitor is enthusiastic, has gone to judging school, and volunteers for every job at the contest, he hasn't had much practice or critiqueing, and scores less than 60% on his first contest flight ever. So he is told to "Go home! You can't compete! We don't want you here." Way to be inclusive. That would have happened to three competitors in just the Southeast Region so far this year.
The other problem I have is with the BRS proposal. I don't think I'd want to pull the red handle in a flaming dope and fabric airplane. Also, in an experimental aircraft, there are no required paarameters for such a system. No inclusion in the aircraft type certificate data sheet. No TSO.You could tie a red bandana to the tailwheel of a Sukhoi and call it a ballistic recovery chute.

[WLIU]

Rules change proposals:

12-1 looks reasonable. I vote YES.

12-4 looks reasonable. I vote YES.

12-5 makes sense. I vote YES.

12-6 I vote NO. I have enough problem judging an S-1 at the top and back of the 3500' box. If they fly any farther away I will have to start giving zero for the positioning/presentation score and "A" for all of the figure scores.

12-7 I vote NO. I observe a lot of Sportsman pilots who have very under-developed wind correction skills. I also observe that many pilots begin competing in the Sportsman category. I believe that downwind starts should begin to appear in the Intermediate category at the earliest.

12-8 I vote YES. Modern ballistic recovery parachutes have demonstrated that they can be successfully deployed at lower altitudes than you or I can successfully manually climb out of the cockpit, pull a ripcord, and get an open parachute from. The hang-glider and ultralight guys have a surprisingly good record of using them. And now we are starting to see some pretty startling reports of full size airplanes deploying them successfully.

12-9 I vote YES. Our contest always has a number of pilots sharing one or two Decathlons and out Primary and Sportsman orders of flight are always juggled to avoid stalling the contest by having two pilots sharing one airplane fly back-to-back.

12-10 I vote NO. ICAS has their own rules and administrative procedures and IAC has no input into the operation, administration, or integrity of the ICAS processes. I also suspect that if an Advanced competitor has the skills to fly a 4 Minute Free, they can choose to fly in the Unlimited category. This appears to be a solution to a non-problem.

12-11 I vote NO. I believe that the adoption of this rule proposal will knock almost all of the airplanes that have no inverted systems out of Sportsman. We see very skilled pilots score well in some of these airplanes, but we also see entry level pilots fly safely, but make pinched and hurried figures that can not honestly be given good scores.

12-12 No opinion. We do not see any gliders or motorgliders at our contests.

12-13 I vote YES. The current grading criteria for loops is sufficiently vague that we see surprisingly high scores awarded to loops that are far from round. This will help guide Judges who are currently scoring a loop flown as an "e" as an 8 instead of a 4.

12-14 The explanation makes sense. I vote YES.

Thanks.

[clyde.cable]

I

[clyde.cable]

i vote for spt c,it is practical and allows the pilot to fly instead of having 2 45' in one line.

[Fourwindsaviation]

I vote for Intermediate Proposal "P". It appears to offer a challenge to the competitor and appears to have good flow.

Rule change 12-6 I am not real sure of reasoning. Do we really have a safety issue with Primary and Sportsman? I don't think we do and I have students flying both categories in a Super Decathlon. Rule change 12-11, I disagree with the 60% rule. This decision should be left to the Chief Judges as they have the experienced to call someone out of the box if they see an inability to fly the sequence safely. The rest of the proposed rule changes seem logical, but I'm not totally comfortable with the aircraft recover chute. I will have to divert to Parachute experts here. When you think about the time it takes to Egress from a disabled aircraft and compare that to the time it takes to deploy a Airframe Recovery System, if that airframe recovery system functions at some very unusual aircraft attitudes, I guess I can see the logic. I recall a recent video of the pilot overseas, I believe Italy, where the wing folded up on his LSA during acro and he successfully deployed the airframe chute, so if that is the basis for the proposed rule, I guess I'm ok with it. I just have to ask how many acro incidents have there been where an airframe chute saved the pilot? We need more than "ONE" to establish a baseline. The personal parachute is still my option, airframe recover chute or not...

Dave Honaker
Four Winds Aviation
McKinney Texas

[Philliscold]

Rule Changes:

12-1 Support. Advanced flying is clearly headed the way of international competition and we should fully coordinate our rules with CIVA's. A larger box will be a benefit and for newbie ADV pilots who don't want to fly that low, they don't have to!

12-4 Support, as long as there would be no appreciable impact on judging pool.

12-5 Support

12-6 (box height increase to 4K for P and S) DO NOT support. Hard to see planes, longer climb times. Fitting certain sequences in is a challenge, but that's part of the game, and it is not impossible. Also, this proposed change is justified on "leveling the playing field" performance wise. That won't work. We are all operating with the limitations of our particular aircraft, for better or worse. It is also justified based on providing a greater emergency cushion. If a competitor is not safe with a 3500 ceiling, he will not be safe at 4000. Then when someone augers in from 4K, we'll raise it to 4.5 and so on and so on. Infinite altitude is no substitute for pilot skill. Stability in rules and expectations is more desirable than attempting to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

12-7 (Downwind start for S and I). DO NOT support. Agree with previous comments about Sportsman being an introductory category, there is no need, and Sportsman can fly two free's of their own design if they are bored...or move up. As to Intermediate, this would only impact the K flight, since a free and unknown could start downwind or crosswind. The intermediate repertoire can be effectively expanded by careful addition of figures, not direction of flight.

12-8 (BRS chutes in lieu of personal parachute). DO NOT support. Standards and verification unclear. The personal parachute rule is a good one and is not the least bit onerous or unreasonable. There is no need to deviate from a long established norm. In addition, this could be an endorsement of these systems by IAC, in the legal sense, so why would we want to convince a jury that we got rid of a long standing, sensible rule?

12-9 Support

12-10 (250 ICAS Waiver allows for ADV competitors to fly 4 minute free). DO NOT SUPPORT. Why not let Intermediate's do it too? Its a slippery slope and I agree with previous comments that ICAS is not IAC. Different missions, different purpose and I do not think that IAC should set a standard based on another organization. The four minute free is the residual nod to the Lockheed Trophy from the 1950's, which was deemed to be too subjective. Unlimited is a different and special class and should remain so. If competition flying is not fun enough, go fly airshows (I'm sure we've all thought about it). If you want to fly a free, you must leave primary to go to sportsman or higher, if you want to fly an unknown, you must leave sportsman to fly Intermediate. If you want to fly for a team, you must leave Intermediate to fly Advanced or higher and if you want to fly the 4 minute free, you must fly Unlimited. Its a good system with lots of thought and natural progression built in. Why change it?

12-11 (new disqualification standards, based on scores) DO NOT SUPPORT. I'm grateful to our CD's and Safety committees. They have a tough job. This seems like a way to DQ people and hide behind numbers. We are an organization that lives by mentoring, relationships and the generosity of our members, so I would leave it to the safety committee/jury and CD as well as mentors and competitors in higher categories to intervene and try to help the individual. The attitude of the individual is a lot more important than the performance, per se. If a person is having trouble and can be reasoned with, we have an opportunity to help that person, whereas a person who will not listen and continues to do dangerous things is beyond help from a rule. Bottom line, low performing and dangerous situations require human intervention, not a rule.

12-13 (new loop judging criteria) DO NOT SUPPORT. Seems to assume first quarter will be performed well. Overall loop is what is being graded. Judging methodology is not as important as consistency across all competitors, which the fair play system should take care of. Also, this is a subjective sport no matter what anybody says and the rest of the world doesn't try to break every figure into little units, they look at the art. Our judging is (supposedly) technical enough already.

12-14 (do not require foreign license holder to have FAA Medical). Support. CAVEAT: might want to run through legal or change wording to simply say something like, "must be legal to perform the duties of pilot in command in accordance with FAR's." As long as someone is legal to fly, I don't know why we are getting so specific about these requirements.


SEQUENCES

Intermediate:

I realize that this is the most difficult category to frame, and we continue to struggle with setting the difficulty level appropriately between Sportsman and Advanced. (To me) 3 years ago Intermediate looked like a stretch, now it looks too easy, and this is how it should be, but in the past two years it seems that high G maneuvers have often taken the place of figures that require skill (namely the full snap on the 45 up line and simple rolling turns). I am happy to see the rolling turn in 4 out of the 5 released proposals, but think the full snap on the 45 upline needs to be included. It is naturally grouped with the avalanche, 45 down full snap, and the two full level-line snaps, upright to upright and inverted to inverted starting from a positive loading (from the unknown appendix). Perfecting these full snaps is the foundation for beginning to explore and build competency in the fractional flicks, so why is the full snap on the 45 upline excluded?

Proposal C: Avalanche type figure last two years and square loop from two years ago. Too many basic figures.

Proposal F: Lots of truly intermediate figures here, all of which are safe and require a decent amount of skill to be competitive at: full roll on 45 upline, 2 pt roll on top of loop, mild push on shark, rolling turn, 12 to 13 has plane accelerating into snap from low speed.

Proposal H: I believe there would be energy issues for the reference aircraft. 4 to 5 puts lower performance aircraft at an extreme disadvantage, not a measure of skill.

Proposal L: nice dynamic snap, altitude and energy requirements are good and placement of roller at end is good. Might want to change figure 7, teardrop, to a hump, but doesn't seem to be required.

Proposal P: Spin is a bit late, square loop and avalanche are repeats from years past, altitude might be an issue for lower performance aircraft.



Sportsman:

Proposal A: 180 degree turn (figure 3) to 1 1/4 Spin will slow the flow of the sequence. I continue to oppose 1 1/4 spins in Sportsman.

Proposal C: Good flow, requires thought to center the performance, early spin, good energy throughout.

Proposal D: similar to C, but energy flow is better in C and vertical figures/rolls are earlier in C, providing a greater altitude cushion for those figures.

Proposal E: again, C flows better and is more balanced.

[DJ Molny]

First of all, thanks to everyone who has contributed time and effort to creating the Proposed Knowns and Rule Changes.


Sportsman Sequences
I am opposed to the 1/2-Cuban with a 2x4 roll (Proposals C and E) for safety reasons. In a 7KCAB, it is nearly impossible to execute a vanilla 1/2-Cuban without exceeding Vne. The 2x4 roll guarantees an overspeed.


Intermediate Sequences
I'm opposed to Proposal C Figure 2: an inverted 45 downline followed by a 7/8 loop. This is a real energy-burner, and again raises the possibility of an overspeed. In Proposal F, the roller/90-turn/Immelman combo (Figs 10, 11, 12) is going to be difficult if not impossible for aircraft like the 8KCAB and Great Lakes. On paper, Proposal H looks like it will consume a lot of energy, and may not be practical for aircraft with moderate performance. Proposals L and P look good.


Rule Changes
12-1: Abstain. Pros: As stated in the Rationale. Cons: Makes the rule book more complex in return for a marginal benefit.
12-4: Support.
12-5: Support. Simpler is gooder.
12-6: Support. Although the smallest aircraft can be difficult to see at 4000' AGL, I believe this change promotes safety and inclusiveness.
12-7: Support.
12-8: Abstain. I don't know how BRS stacks up against a personal parachute -- if it's the same or better, then fine. I imagine that it would be difficult to squeeze into -- or get out of! -- some LSAs while wearing a conventional chute.
12-9: Support, with Jim Ward's well-articulated proviso regarding randomization.
12-10: Support. Unfortunately the number of pilots who qualify under this new rule can probably be counted on one hand -- and the number of contests that offer a 4-minute Free is also pretty darned small. How about opening up the 4-minute to all Advanced pilots with a 200m floor, and Unlimited pilots with a 100m floor? Or perhaps a 200m floor for all.
12-11: Oppose. Again, I'm with Jim Ward on this one, and would prefer to see Rule 5.2.2 eliminated altogether. Score has very little to do with it. I've seen many flights that were sloppy but safe, and I've seen accomplished competitors sent home for scaring the crap out of the judges. And while we're at it, 5.2.2 excuses competitors for flying in the wrong direction but doesn't provide any guidance on how zeroed figures should or shouldn't figure into the 75% cut-off.
12-12: Support.
12-13: Oppose. As a Judges School instructor, I am regularly asked why judges must make up their own criteria for downgrading imperfect radii. I say that much as we'd all love a simple and consistent set of criteria, there are a great many ways to screw up a radius! Using the first 1/4 radius as the standard is problematic because 1) it assumes that the first 1/4 radius is perfect, and 2) we must also grade 1/8 radii (i.e., 45-degree attitude changes). Flat spots, as Jim Ward pointed out, are another potential defect, as are "segmented" radii. It would be great to eliminate this glaring exception to our otherwise objective rules, but this proposal just doesn't go far enough. Nor am I sure that we'd have a workable set of rules if we specified deductions for all the possible faults.
12-14: Support.

[sburks]

Sorry, I meant Sportsman "D".

Thanks

[pjdugan]

Hello All

12-1 I support. Bringing the advanced box into alignment with CIVA is beneficial not only for the team members or aspiring members. As for the energy issue. They seem to do just fine without the box increase but it would benefit them also.

12-2 I dont support. The fact is the current rule places no real hardship on individuals getting the required # of assists.

12-5 I support

12-6 I Do not support. Haven't seen a problem with this. Have seen a decathlon or a great lakes dominate sportsman for several years though. The idea of 500' being some increase in the safety factor is a falsehood. This assumes that the hammer or the spin is in the beginning of the sequence allowing the time and vertical space to effect and appropriate response and recovery.

12-7 I do not support. Many choose to fly Sportsman as their introductory level. Complicating the issue for these people only adds a layer of stress to them. In sportsman an accomplished competitor can design their own free. They should be encouraged to do so, if they are seeking more variety.

12-8 I do not support. If in the event of some unknown structural event that hampers or incapacitates the BRS ability to deploy then what???

12-9 on the fence... frankly there are a possibility that an individual could "control" the start order. If the process is random at the registrars level the adjustments are made for shared airplanes or safety pilot duties that is whats going on now. Having been wind dummy at one contest for all 3 flights makes a person wonder.

12-10 DO NOT SUPPORT. First off there is no rationale for the rule change so why do it? I suspect that an individual who is competitive in advanced and a 250' card could also fly unlimited and therefore should just move up. Secondly We could end up with individuals who have cards, move up to advanced just to fly the 4 minute. Know we are going to allow a person who just last year flew a 1200' floor, start pushing down to 328'. Not a recipe for safety in my eyes and we ALL have lost too many friends. This is an aerobatic competition not an air show and should remain as such.

12-11 DO NOT SUPPORT. We have all had a bad flight, but now we are going to send a person home or down because they had a bad flight. I know of several highly accomplished competitors that would have been sent because they changed a couple of figures in there free and didn't up date their sequence card to match the paper work submitted.

12-12 Support

12-13 Do Not Support. If the judge apply's his criteria objectively and consistently then his scores will reflect the quality of the figure.

12-14 Support

[Tony Johnstone]

I would suggest picking Sportsman Power Proposal C. The other proposed sequences have either two 45 degree lines on the same line, or have a 45 degree up line on a downwind line. Both of these situations will cause Sportsman pilots to work harder to stay in the box or take an out. The C sequence does not have either of the above flaws, and will allow Sportsman pilots to better concentrate on flying good figures without worrying as much about outs. The 2011 Sportsman Known had a 1/2 cuban 8, followed by a pull humpty, and then a reverse 1/2 Cuban 8. This combination of figures was on the downwind line, which required the pilots to decide if they would take an out or a break. At the Sportsman level, pilots should not have this added burden, which does occur in the other proposed Sportsman sequences.
Steve Johnson
IAC 20081
IAC Safety Chair


I would agree with Steve, the downwind 45 adds an unnecessary difficulty at the Sportsman level, proposal C for Sportsman Power looks best

Tony Johnstone IAC 16578

[Tom Adams]

I would like to address rules proposal 12-6, regarding the use of BRS aircraft recovery parachutes. My back groung on the sublect comes from 19 years of being on the Board of directors of BRS, Inc of South St Paul, Minnesota.
Here are some recorded statistics about the use of this type of unit:
1.) The FAA has issued Suplimental Type certificates for these units on, C-150 / 152, C-172, C-182,
Cessna "Skycatcher", Piper "Sport"( Both of which can be ordered as options) .
2.) The Cirus has had the BRS produced recovery system installad as standard equipment starting at the first production aircraft.
3,) The various units produced by BRS Inc. have been installed on many of the Kit A/C, LSA as well as ultri-lights as well as the Standard category aircraft previously mentioned.
4.) To date BRS inc.( the A/C recovery Parachute) has been responsable for saveing 268 ( as in two hundred sixty eight) lives by thier use.
5.) Some additional facts are: sucessfull deployments in in Supplimental certificated, experimental and ultra light A/C
are ..26 from surface to 100', 53 from 101' to 500' 14 between 501 and 1000'
the rest above 3000'.
Sucessful deployments in Cirus A/C are, 4 from 101' to 500', 11 from 501'
to 1000', and 13 above 3000'
6,) The rest of the saves were in the Ultra-Light family of aircraft which as we know do not often get very high
One remark was abought the units usefullnes during an aircraft fire. I agree and in all the deployments there has only been one fire. Scares the heck out of me as well. I guess I would rather land in trees or water under a BRS canopy than a personal chute. This rule change just gives us another option as far as safety is concerned. We can't have enough of those. You can easily google my stats on this
I got them from the founder and 1st president of the company..Hope it helps!
Tom Adams
IAC 1999
Director, SE

[John Housley]

12-11 (disqualification based on not achieving 60% score in the Known): I disagree with this proposal. The rationale says that even if flying safely, a pilot would be DQ'd with a score below 60% (possibly, but not necessarily, for flying figures in the wrong direction or order). The key is safety and fun. If someone is unsafe, then of course they need to stand down. If we decide they must also score well and be safe to fly in the category of their choice, that sounds like pressure/hassle/stress and less fun. Less fun = fewer competitors. Keep the emphasis on safety and fun and don't create more ways to get rid of the declining members we have.

[PittsPilot]

12-1 Agree
12-4 Agree
12-5 Agree
12-6 Agree
12-7 Agree
12-8 No – opinion. Does the FAA have anything to say about this subject?
12-9 No Opinion
12-10 Agree – This opens the field to lower performanceairplanes that are very entertaining to watch. Additionally, it provides a method of ‘informed feedback’ by judes for(mostly new) air show performers that can be used to improve their publicpresentations. One point, get thewording correct. The ICAS cannot issue ‘waivers’,they make recommendations to the FAA who issue ‘Statements of AerobaticCompetency’. There is no such thing asan “ICAS waiver”.
12-11 Disagree! Sincesafety is not the cited issue, who’s criteria determines if a competitor‘shouldn’t be in that category’? Forsome, the greater challenge and judges’ feedback of flying the higher categorycan improve their abilities at a greater rate than perfecting, say, theroundness of a loop in a lower category. Self-improvement can be a greater motivation than scoring high enough tobe ‘competitive.’ Don’t impose anartificial ‘competitive’ constraint on all competitors. Can we propose acontrary rule to require those who consistently score greater than, say, 80% inany category to move up to the next category?
12-12 no opinion
12-13 No opinion
12-14 Agree

[jetweb]

great proposal:)

[Lark]

Int C is my choice.

[RWBeyer]

12-9 Eliminating consistent process for order of flight: aswritten this is NOT a good proposal. Order of flight can have some effect onthe scores, with detriment to the very first few pilots. Established rules thatare NOT perceived as arbitrary decisions or inconsistent from one contest to theother are necessary. Leaving the decision of order of flight completely to thediscretion of each individual registrar may possibly create a perception ofunfairness in a category, particularly if more than just a few pilots compete. If 12 pilots are competing in the category eachin his airplane, how is the registrar going to chose order of flight if thisproposal goes into effect? 4.5.2 alreadyallows for the order of flight to be modified if needed for practicality and widelyused, so the use of one aircraft by multiple pilots is not a good reason toeliminate the prescribed process.
12-10 If this proposal goes into effect IAC would sanction anadvanced competitor doing a half-roll at 700 ft AGL as illegal but then laterin the day doing a tumble at 500 ft AGL legal?
12-11 I do not see a reason to support this proposal.

[whperman]

I vote for roposal number "P" as it is the best overall for intermediate.

[WLIU]

Today I went out and flew Intermediate Power proposals C and P in my Pitts S-2A. Like P a lot. For C I used all of the box altitude. I came away believing that the category reference airplane will not be able to do this program without taking a break. Putting a down fish-tail as the last figure, with point rolls on both down 45's, and making the last roll a 4x8, makes this sequence tougher than just a qualifying flight for the Intermediate category.

I vote FOR Intermediate P. I vote AGAINST Intermediate C.

Thanks,

Wes
N78PS

[Casey Ann Erickson]

I vote for Intermediate F (with P being not far behind). Both have adequate y correctors, and look to have good flow. I think F is a little better for two reasons, one it is not much of an altitude loser. figures 2 and 3 are the only real altitude burners, from figures 4 on one could/should be towards the bottom of the box, and if anything will gain a little altitude (after driving figure 5 to the bottom). I think this should allow for a good showing to the judges. Secondly proposal F figures 9-13 really flows well to set up the finally right in front of the judges, a snap roll....make or break time. yee haw.

I have to vote Against C as well due to figures 1 and 2 due to the possibility of sleepy time, like it has already been said above. C also only has one Y corrector towards the top and will be hard to keep in the box for those of us who deal with high x-box winds alot of the time. And that goes for L and H as well not enough y correction.

Proposal H has figures 7 to 10 basically setting up to end in either the far back corner, or far front corner (with judges craning their necks) and just doesn't seem like it would show as well as F or P.

Final Answer Proposal F.......but I could deal with P.

As far as the rules go, I Vote YES for every rule, with these exceptions:

12-6 I Vote NO, as primary has no penalties and sportsman the penalty is so minor, that I cant see this being a major factor. However, allowing a higher box altitude will make for lower quality judging as it is hard enough now to see the competitors at the top. Lets not make it harder for us to judge these categories for the very small amount of people this could potentially benefit.
12-8 I defer to those who know more than me, as I do not have enough knowledge of these systems
12-11 No bad idea. See comments above. I Cant agree more.

my 2 cents.....I hope everyone has a wonderful Winter holiday season.

Casey Erickson
South West Region

[schoneboomr]

Sportsman C
Intermediate L

Ross

[AerobaticGirl]

I like INT C

[smutny]

When will the IAC decisions be published? The CIVA Meeting info is out and their meeting was after the IAC one....

[WLIU]

As a chapter president, I just got an e-mail from my regional director reporting that the board meeting rejected all of the candidate programs and there is a committee chartered to formulate better ones. We wait to see what the result is.

Regards,

Wes
N78PS

[Pitts2go]

Proposed Rule 12-10 (ICAS) Delete the "ICAS waiver" requirement in the proposal and allow Advanced competitors to fly a freestyle if they desire. Some "airshow" performers probably couldn't pass the proposed 60% rule (#12-11) or much less handle the judging at the Advanced level. IAC competition is a great learning arena for doing airshow work, but ICAS does nothing that I can see for the betterment of IAC competitors.

Proposed Rule 12-11 (60% Rule) Scoring should not be equated to safety! You can be 100% safe and zero a figure or two or..... Pity the poor first time Sportsman pilot who never has flown in the box or been critiqued - score below 60% and be asked to leave. Wow! that really sends a message and encourages him (or her) to come back! Put this one in the round file! NO!

[Panama Red]

Rule 12-11 Disagree. For 15 years I have been one of those sportsman pilots that CDs hope would come to their contest. One of these days I might, but if I know I am going to be sent home in my first contest because I did not score 60% then just put it in the rules:

"no one who has not previously scorced 60% allowed to enter."

This will save my time, fuel, money and frustration. As long as I have been a member of the IAC, I have always felt unwelcomed, this is another example of how to exclude new competitors from the contests.

I can't believe someone actually proposed this as a rule, I thought these were amateur contests, not professional for money contests. If this rule was meant for higher categories, then say that!!!! If you don't want first time competitors to enter the unlimited category then say that!!!!

Bob

[WLIU]

Well, got a new update and the Board wound up approving Sportsman Known Proposal A and Intermediate Known Proposal P. The 60% proposal was defeated as was the higher box proposal. The ICAS proposal passed. I am surprised that the results have not been posted here by one of our directors.

Panama Red doesn't have the 60% excuse to not compete.

See you at the box.

Wes
N78PS

[RetroAcro]

As long as I have been a member of the IAC, I have always felt unwelcomed...

I have a framed, calligraphied invitation for you. Send mailing address. :-)

[soldanr]

The glider Sportsman would be a lot better without a spin there. Our ASK-21 can't spin. :-(

Hammerheads will be fun!

Any glider intermediate proposals?

Klein mentioned that the IAC may add glider advanced in 2012. Is that something that has been talked about?

Cheers,
Rafael

[Gman]

I agree with both Tony and Steve. I flew sportsman proposal C three times today in my 160HP Decathlon without a problem. I started the first maneuver at 3,000' and finished at 1,700' with good long down-lines. A very fun and challenging sequence.


I would agree with Steve, the downwind 45 adds an unnecessary difficulty at the Sportsman level, proposal C for Sportsman Power looks best

Tony Johnstone IAC 16578

[DJ Molny]

I'm told that Sportsman Proposal A and Intermediate Proposal P were adopted.

[sburks]

It looks to me that the majority of comments favored Proposal "C" for Sportsman. Why did the board decide to use Proposal "A"?

Just asking.

SB

[WLIU]

My educated guess is that if you compare 2012 Sportsman Proposal A to the 2011 Sportsman Known, you will find it way too similar. One sub-plot of the design of the Sportsman Known Programs is providing a framework where the Sportsman pilots will master the full range of foundation skills, not just the figures, required to post a good score at a contest. Flying different combinations of figures each year is a small step towards that goal.

You should try writing up new sequence cards with different combinations of figures for each flight, or every small series of practice flights, but the topic of how to practice to build your skills is too lengthy for now. :)

Regards,

Wes
N78PS

[rphillips]

I have a framed, calligraphied invitation for you. Send mailing address. :-)

Can I get one of these for the Green Mountain Acrobatic Contest. Showed up and watched one day of practice and one day of competition and no one to ask questions of outside the "Authorized Personnel" only fence.

[WLIU]

Many folks do not realize that there is a sort of aptitude test. Its not formal and no one actually grades it. You did not find anyone to ask questions of at the Green Mountain Aerobatic Contest because everyone was either competing or administering the contest. It takes a LOT of volunteers to make a contest happen. I will also note that just like any other competitive sport, when it is nearing your time to fly, you get your game face on, you up your level of focus to block out everything but your upcoming 4 minutes of fult tilt boogie in the box, and your world starts to shrink down to your airplane.

All of that said, the aptitude test is YOU mustering the hutzpa to walk into the office where the paperwork is flying, or stepping past the fence, and asking a question of one of the participants. I have every expectation that any question that you have will be enthusiastically answered unless you happen to pick the pilot next up into the box. But YOU have to ask. For better or worse, aerobatics competition is a sport for outgoing motivated people. That appears to be the type of pilot who thinka that pulling +6G and pushing -3G in front of a jury of their peers is fun. You are welcome to include yourself in that group. All that is required is to step past the fence. In spite of the sign. No one is holding you back.

Casual aerobatics is a somewhat different activity. Lots of fun, but different from the contest world. There are a larger population of folks who do an occaisional loop or roll or spin. Our IAC chapter hosts aerobatic practice days where everyone gets some time in the box and there are no medals or trophies or egos at stake. You are welcome to go to the chapter web site to see that schedule and then stop by. Much more relaxed. But you will still have to step past the fence.

Not sure where you are based, but the Green Mountain Aerobatic Contest is MY contest. As the outgoing President of IAC Chapter 35, I invite you to stop by a chapter meeting, or step past the fence, and ask all of the questions that you have. The club is inclusive at all levels. You just have to include yourself.


Regards,

Wes
N78PS :)

[RetroAcro]

Many folks do not realize that there is a sort of aptitude test. Its not formal and no one actually grades it. You did not find anyone to ask questions of at the Green Mountain Aerobatic Contest because everyone was either competing or administering the contest. It takes a LOT of volunteers to make a contest happen. I will also note that just like any other competitive sport, when it is nearing your time to fly, you get your game face on, you up your level of focus to block out everything but your upcoming 4 minutes of fult tilt boogie in the box, and your world starts to shrink down to your airplane.

All of that said, the aptitude test is YOU mustering the hutzpa to walk into the office where the paperwork is flying, or stepping past the fence, and asking a question of one of the participants. I have every expectation that any question that you have will be enthusiastically answered unless you happen to pick the pilot next up into the box. But YOU have to ask. For better or worse, aerobatics competition is a sport for outgoing motivated people. That appears to be the type of pilot who thinka that pulling +6G and pushing -3G in front of a jury of their peers is fun. You are welcome to include yourself in that group. All that is required is to step past the fence. In spite of the sign. No one is holding you back.

Casual aerobatics is a somewhat different activity. Lots of fun, but different from the contest world. There are a larger population of folks who do an occaisional loop or roll or spin. Our IAC chapter hosts aerobatic practice days where everyone gets some time in the box and there are no medals or trophies or egos at stake. You are welcome to go to the chapter web site to see that schedule and then stop by. Much more relaxed. But you will still have to step past the fence.

Not sure where you are based, but the Green Mountain Aerobatic Contest is MY contest. As the outgoing President of IAC Chapter 35, I invite you to stop by a chapter meeting, or step past the fence, and ask all of the questions that you have. The club is inclusive at all levels. You just have to include yourself.


Regards,

Wes
N78PS :)

Exactly right. Excellent post.

Eric

[tomrhodes]

As an Intermediate competitor I vote for Intermediate proposal "P"

[WLIU]

Uh, You are in good company. The IAC Board voted to select P a couple of weeks ago. Some folks have already started practicing.

See you at the box.

Wes
N78PS

[jrr0820]

The glider Sportsman would be a lot better without a spin there. Our ASK-21 can't spin. :-(

Hammerheads will be fun!

Any glider intermediate proposals?

Klein mentioned that the IAC may add glider advanced in 2012. Is that something that has been talked about?

Cheers,
Rafael

That ASK spin restriction was pointed out to the Board before the vote. Their decision is a "dog whistle" that they hope no one can hear. They obviously don't want "your kind" as the Prez put it at the 2010 Nationals. Probably too many furriners for their jingoistic tastes. I don't know why you guys put up with this neverending garbage.

[WLIU]

Well, if you think that the rules should be changed, you should become one of us guys and make your voice heard in a forum more relevant than a web thread. I have personally had a few valuable exchanges with Brian Howard, chairman of the IAC Rules Comittee, over the years and like any organization, you get out what you put in. I will note that the rules about the awarding of medals and trophies at Nationals, to foreign national pilots, were modified this year after input from the membership. So if you are an IAC member, I encourage you to become active in your chapter. If you are not an IAC member, I encourage you to become one.

As far as the glider aerobatics rules, I think that the Competition Committee folks have a valid concern that any ship that is placarded against spins has a lower safety margin doing aerobatics at competition altitudes. Blowing a figure into a spin during a competition flight is exciting in a fully aerobatic ship. I can only imagine how awful it would be seeing a hammer blown into a spin in a ship placarded against spins. We all go out there planning to fly a perfect flight, but we hardly ever do, and the glider aerobatic flights that I have Judged at Nationals have shown me that gliders have enough handicaps in the box that I am surprised that pilots out there want to add flying a non-spinnable ship to the list. And all of the power pilots have to spin, so IAC is not discriminating against the glider pilots in general. Its a competition and your showing up with the right equipment is part of the competition.

Hope this logic makes sense.

Wes
N78PS

[WesJones]

Hope this logic makes sense.
Wes
N78PS

It did to me. One of the reasons the IAC enjoys such a great record at contests is the overarching commitment to safety from the rules to tech inspections to the design of sequences. Even the first time, Power Primary category competitor has the expectation of being able to safely perform a spin in whatever they brought to the contest. I personally think there's a reason for that which is that being proficient at spins is a foundational skill every single acro pilot must have to safely fly any acro at all!

Hopefully most will see this for what it is - a safety prerequisite to join the ranks of responsible aerobatic pilots. The NTSB database is full of pilots who put off their spin/upset training and/or flew acro in planes not specifically designed for it.

[jrr0820]

So I guess the glider Sportsman Known sequences in 2009, 2010 and this tear were unsafe aberrations, as was the glider Intermediate for this year, since none of them had a spin. With this line of thinking, we should put a vertcal up snap roll in the Sportsman Known? And competitors can be responsible for bringing equipment that can do it. No, this sequence was drawn , IMO, with the specific intent of eliminating one group who the powers to be perceive as a thorn in their collective side. They were told in 2010 not to bother coming to Nationals any more, and in 2011 they didn't. The Board has now eliminated half of its glider flying membership from competition. Joe Arpaio would be so proud.

[soldanr]

Well, if you think that the rules should be changed, you should become one of us guys and make your voice heard in a forum more relevant than a web thread. I have personally had a few valuable exchanges with Brian Howard, chairman of the IAC Rules Comittee, over the years and like any organization, you get out what you put in. I will note that the rules about the awarding of medals and trophies at Nationals, to foreign national pilots, were modified this year after input from the membership. So if you are an IAC member, I encourage you to become active in your chapter. If you are not an IAC member, I encourage you to become one.

As far as the glider aerobatics rules, I think that the Competition Committee folks have a valid concern that any ship that is placarded against spins has a lower safety margin doing aerobatics at competition altitudes. Blowing a figure into a spin during a competition flight is exciting in a fully aerobatic ship. I can only imagine how awful it would be seeing a hammer blown into a spin in a ship placarded against spins. We all go out there planning to fly a perfect flight, but we hardly ever do, and the glider aerobatic flights that I have Judged at Nationals have shown me that gliders have enough handicaps in the box that I am surprised that pilots out there want to add flying a non-spinnable ship to the list. And all of the power pilots have to spin, so IAC is not discriminating against the glider pilots in general. Its a competition and your showing up with the right equipment is part of the competition.

Hope this logic makes sense.

Wes
N78PS

I just want to make sure I clarify my previous post. Our ASK-21 CAN spin with a Spin-Kit that adds weight to the tail. There are no placards against it, however aerobatics are prohibited with the kit installed. :(

I am glad to hear that Category Trophies can also be handed out to non-citizens at Nationals. I was informed that only medals would be handed out.
Best,
Rafael

[WLIU]

"unsafe aberations" - Based on some interactions that I have had in the past year with the IAC Board, my guess is that the members who believe that competition should make each pilot demonstrate the full range of skills prevailed in the discussion over the inclusion of the spin. Those folks likely believe that omitting the spin was indeed an "unsafe aberation". Like it or not, the Competition Comittee seems to believe that each year's Known Program should put the competitiors in the position of demonstrating that they posess, or are developing (sometimes under duress) the full range of flying skills expected at each level.

Its a competition, not a fly in. I will offer the proposition that the pilot who brings equipment that can do all of the figures including the spin, and then demonstrates the ability to fly all of those figueres well, should receive a higher score than the pilot who, for perhaps good reasons, can not meaure up to that scale. Many of us fly each contest. Only a few go home with trophies.

One unspoken facet of aerobatic competition at all levels is that to be successful you must organize and fund equipment and training and time to bring your skills up to a high level. And to do that, you have to organize other parts of your personal life and priorities. The moment that you dive into the contest box is only the culmination of all of that preparation.

All of that said, just about all of us have demands on our time and $$ that compete with aviation. Not having the best equipment on contest day doesn't make you a less skilled or talented pilot, just a guy with perhaps less means. Enjoy flying the heck out of the ship that you have. Be successfull in your non-aviation life and you will find a way to fly that super-ship.

Regards,

Wes
N78PS

[Jim Ward]

I just want to make sure I clarify my previous post. Our ASK-21 CAN spin with a Spin-Kit that adds weight to the tail. There are no placards against it, however aerobatics are prohibited with the kit installed. :(

I am glad to hear that Category Trophies can also be handed out to non-citizens at Nationals. I was informed that only medals would be handed out.
Best,
Rafael

Rafael,

I think that Wes misspoke (miswrote?)... as you might have heard elsewhere, all Nationals participants are eligible to win flight medals; only U.S. citizens are eligible to win category trophies. This is per the current P&P (503, I think).

Jim

[WLIU]

Merry Christmas,

Since Jim has provided a nudge to see if my imperfect middle aged recollection was correct, I went digging for the real data.

I will first point out that my actual statement was "I will note that the rules about the awarding of medals and trophies at Nationals, to foreign national pilots, were modified this year after input from the membership." I am pretty sure that the point I was trying to make was that we should all participate in the process and that the IAC Board is not just an elite group of acro snobs that ignores all of us great unwashed out here in the hinterlands.

So I went digging on the IAC web site to see what had been published. If you have not spent any time in the Members section, the IAC rulebook, Policy and procedures, contest results, and Board Meeting Minutes are published there. Soooo.... I did not find anything new in the Policy and Procedures (the IAC is often slow in updating this stuff anyway), but I found the discussion that I remembered in the minutes of the recent IAC Board meeting. The meeting minutes state


"Doug Bartlett asked that the Board address the issue of the nationality eligibility requirement for the various awards given at Nationals. As decided last year, only US citizens are eligible to be National Champions but everyone is eligible for individual flight medals. However, there are many other awards given that should be defined. The following determinations were suggested:
• Non-flying awards: Any IAC member
• Curtis Pitts Memorial Trophy: Unrestricted award
• Safety Award: Any US Nationals pilot or volunteer (determined by Contest Director, not necessary to
award every year).
• “Old Buzzard” Award: Any pilot but can only be won once
• Chapter Team Trophy: Any IAC chapter (no restriction on nationality of pilots)
• Grassroots Award: Any pilot flying a plane that qualifies
• First-time Sportsman Award: Any pilot flying his or her first sportsman contest ever
• L. Paul Soucy Aerobatic Award: Any IAC pilot regardless of nationality
• John Serafin Trophy: Any glider pilot
• Bob Schnuerle Trophy: The status of the winner of the four-minute free will changed to National Champion
of the Four-Minute Free. Therefore, US citizens only.
• Goodrich Trophy: non-US citizens
• Mike Murphy Cup: US citizen only because this trophy is awarded to the Unlimited National Champion
• Betty Skelton Trophy: US woman only
• MT-Propeller Trophy: US citizen because this trophy is awarded to the Advanced National Champion (this is a change in wording)
• Fred Leidig Trophy: US citizen because this trophy is awarded to the Intermediate National Champion"

Since I have always been a US Citizen, I have to admit that I previously thought that non-citizens were not eligible for ANY awards, so the policy articulated above looks like an upgrade to me. But then, I also think that folks who are not yet US citizens ought to follow in he path of Sergei Boriak, the new US Advanced Champion. Its not instant gratification, but then neither is competition.

Regards,

Wes
N78PS

[soldanr]

Thanks for the clarification Jim. I could not find any additional changes.

Like Wes mentioned: It is a matter of showing up with all the "right stuff"... Well, I only have 4 more years to go for Citizenship to have the right stuff.

Regardless of several trophies offered out there: If you compete in aerobatics your goal is to WIN, otherwise we wouldn't be competitors. I think there is really only one trophy that we are all after. So regardless of the medals, trophies, awards and a good job tap on the back nothing really changed.

I know a few of the board members myself and I respect the decision they have reached so far. Yes, it is very discouraging to only a few of US but like every other competition rules need to be followed and respected. I am a supporter, and I vote that U.S Citizens and U.S residents should be legible for obvious reasons.

Until then it is hard to justify going to the Nationals. The only thing I can do is keep counting the days.

[WLIU]

I would offer the observation that if you show up and fly, no matter whether or not the officials hand you a trophy, your peers will know who the best pilot of the day is. I recall that once upon a time Leo Loudenslager competed for the world championship and was not awarded the first place trophy. If I recall correctly, there might have been some politics involved. Anyway, my imperfect recollection is, after the official awards ceremony, the Russian team took Leo aside and presented him with a model airplane. Their statement was something to the effect that "We know who the best pilot here is."

So I would encourage you to show up and fly. If you can post a score better than the individual who is handed the first place trophy, your peers will note that. And you, the person who counts most, will know.

Regards,

Wes
N78PS