12 Attachment(s)
Proposed Knowns and Rules for 2012
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.
Feedback: Proposed Rules for 2012
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