||Proposed Rule Change
||Remove certain figures from the list of legal Intermediate power Unknown figures.
||Appendix 3, Intermediate, Family 8
||Remove 8.5.9.x thru 8.5.19 (vertical 5/8th loops) from Appendix 3, Intermediate.
||The downward figures all require a transition from negative or zero g loading to high sustained positive g- loading, raising a safety concern. And the upward figures require significant aircraft performance to avoid stalling over the top looping portion.
||Adds a rolling turn to the list of legal Intermediate Unknown figures for both power and glider.
||Appendices 3 & 4, Intermediate, Family 2
||Add the 188.8.131.52, “90-degree, 1 roll to the inside” rolling turn to the list of legal figures for both power and glider Intermediate categories.
||This figure has now been used for multiple years in Intermediate Knowns without issue and it is a common figure used in Intermediate glider Free programs. The figure presents no undue stress on either the pilot or the aircraft and increases the options for Intermediate Unknown sequences to transition between axes.
||Deletes the 75% figure completion rule.
||Delete 5.2.2 in its entirety:
In addition, competitors who do not complete 75% of the figures (by either not flying the figure or receiving a grade of zero for a figure flown) in their Known compulsory will be disqualified from that category. This does not mean that competitors who receive zeros for figures flown in the wrong direction will be disqualified solely for this error.
|Charging the chief and grading judges with assessing whether each competitor is flying safely is the most robust safety tool in our bag. Tacking on a mandatory disqualification due solely to a poor score adds no value to contest safety; and serves only to procedurally eliminate competitors who, while flying safely, have a bad Known Program flight. It stands to reason that dismissing a competitor per 5.2.2 lessens the likelihood that we'd see him/her again at a future contest.
||Provides the Chief Judge with the explicit right to interrupt a flight at any point if the Chief believes the competitor is unsafe.
||Add new subparagraph:
4.2.4 The Chief Judge may direct a competitor to interrupt the sequence at any time if, in the Chief Judge’s opinion, that competitor is demonstrating an inability to safely control the aircraft during any part of the flight program. Following the direction to interrupt, the Chief Judge will immediately conference with the grading judges.
(a) If a majority of grading judges agree that the competitor is demonstrating unsafe flight, the Chief Judge will disqualify the competitor from further flight at the contest per rule 4.2.3.
(b) If the majority of grading judges do not agree that the competitor is demonstrating unsafe flight, there will be no penalty for the interruption and the sequence may be resumed in accordance with the procedures found in rule 4.20.4(b).
|The current rules do not include “safety” as one of the reasons a Chief Judge may interrupt a flight in progress. This change provides a real-time check of the ability of a competitor to safely execute the sequence and defines the consequences of being found either “safe” or “unsafe” by the grading judges.
||Deletes the eligibility of Advanced pilots to fly the 4-Minute Free program.
||5.6.1 The contest Director may schedule this special trophy event for any Unlimited category competitor. or Advanced category competitors who also hold at least a current ICAS 250-foot waiver. All 4-Minute Free competitors must have completed the scheduled competition flight programs in their respective category.
||1) The current rule (changed in 2012) was intended to encourage greater participation in the 4-Minute Freestyle, but the benefit to the organization is small to nonexistent and regardless, there are very few Advanced pilots who qualify.
2) The ICAS waiver is NOT designed to test skills that are required to fly a competent 4-Minute Freestyle. In fact, it is entirely possible to obtain a 250 foot waiver by simply demonstrating competence in flying an Intermediate-level sequence at lower altitudes.
3) The IAC’s established method of a controlled escalation of increasing figure complexity and exposure to lower altitudes has undoubtedly contributed to our excellent safety record. Changing the requirements for the 4-Minute Freestyle is a major departure from that proven approach and adds no benefit to the overwhelming majority of members.
4) From a legal standpoint the IAC is accepting the financial and ethical responsibility for any accident or incident that may occur due to granting eligibility to pilots approved by an organization (ICAS) over which the IAC has no control or say as to certification requirements.
5) The IAC charter has an emphasis on safety. Prominent in our organization’s purpose is “A Commitment and Responsibility to Safety and Excellence in every aspect of our Sport.” The current rule flies in the face of our stated purpose and goals. Why risk that record for little to no benefit to the overall organization?
||Clarifies the maximum wind speed rule.
||Contest flight will not be conducted if the cross wind component for the active runway exceeds 20 knots or the total wind velocity at the surface exceeds 25 knots from any direction.
||The current rule is open to many interpretations due to its lack of defined specifics. This change addresses the safety aspect of takeoff and landing operations in high winds and sets the maximum total surface wind at approximately the well-proven CIVA limit. Further, it takes the Jury out of the equation. It is not unusual to have several jury members who are not pilots and thus not equipped to appreciate the safety aspects of high wind operations.