Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Proposed Rule Changes for 2013

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Seattle, WA and Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    25
    Sure! 180hp Decathlons will do rolling circles all day long at 1 roll inside per 90º without exceeding AFM limits. (I've watched a friend, who has much better finesse than I, do outside rollers in his Decathlon. He says the airplane groans a little more than rolling to the inside. But maybe that was just him.)

    I don't want to hijack this important thread any further, so I'll start a separate one soon about making Intermediate more friendly to Super Decathlons.

    -Jim

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Seattle, WA and Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    25
    13-1: My support is close, but not identical, to DJ's: I'd keep the "start upward" figures 8.5.9.1 and 8.5.17.1. I've heard no carping about these from pilots flying lower performance airplanes; to my eye they look flyable in Super Decathlons. I'd probably keep 8.5.17.4 providing there's no more than a short time inverted before the figure begins. And I'd keep 8.5.19.3, as there's just a pull following the spin but no intrinsic G-LOC issue.

    Removing 8.5.11.3 and 8.5.12.3 would be acceptable. The rationale is, many Intermediate pilots I know don't consciously practice all possible Unknown figures. Rather, they show up at contests and expect to be able to fly whatever Unknown is put in front of them. To see one of these figures for the very first time in a contest Unknown might present a safety issue for the unsuspecting pilot.

    13-2: I support. Super Decathlons can handily fly these inside rollers. (I believe that the reference airplane [the Great Lakes] can do this, too, but have no direct knowledge.) In the future year, I'd like to see 180º turns with two rolls inside added, too.

    13-3: I support. Though infrequent, I've seen competitors who are very experienced in category forget to fly figures or just have a bad Known flight. It's too heavy-handed to mechanically disqualify them providing they're flying safely. I'm all for IAC having well-balanced rules that enhance safety. Today's 5.2.2 is not one of them.

    13-4: I support. This new language may state a practice that some chief judges employ today, but not all do so. Regardless, nowhere is there formal direction as to how to proceed once the CJ breaks the competitor; this language provides that. This addition also offers clear guidance to contest juries about how to resolve a protest related to a CJ-directed safety break.

    13-5: I've no opinion.

    13-6: I'm not sure this is the right direction to go. Setting wind limits is a bit like defining beauty. Surface wind limits are personal and often dependent more on pilot skill than airplane. DJ's comments reflect my thinking.

  3. #13
    Agree with all Rules Changes except 13-6.

  4. #14
    13-1 Disagree
    13-2 Agree
    13-3 no opinion
    13-4 Agree
    13-5 Strongly Disagree. IF you have the skills and have been evaluated by and Aerobatic Competency Evaluator to a level 2 SAC card...Then I don't see why you can't fly the 4 minute free...The rational for not allowing them could be used against Unlimited competitors Who don't have a current SAC card. I don't see the logic in the argument and strongly Disagree with this rule change.
    13-6 Disagree

  5. #15
    13.1: DISAGREE. Rule changes should be made to make Intermediate a more challenging category not an easier one. It is true that the consequence of this will be that some people will have to go back to Sportsman but Sportsman as well should be transformed in a more challenging category with a 6-7 figure unknown and 1300 ft box lower limit (Intermediate should feature 1000 ft box lower limit). Finally, Primary should become a real category with a 8-9 figure sequence including an hammerhead. If the concern is safety, why not having an aerobatic endorcement for pilots who want to fly in competition, the endorcement should foresee unusual attitude and spin recovery training. Basically I'm trying to remark that, in my opinion, aerobatic competition should not be for aerobatic beginner pilots.

    13.2: AGREE. same rationale provided for 13.1

    13.3: AGREE

    13.4: AGREE

    13.5: STRONGLY DISAGREE. As mentioned by Rob H. , whoever has the skill to fly the 4 minutes free and has been evaluated by a competent examiner should be allowed to fly. As matter of fact, if I was able to figure it out how submit a rule change (the IAC website is not user friendly), I would have proposed to transform the "4 minute free" in a completely separate competition, that is we should allow pilots to fly only this contest. In fact, there are several airshow pilots who don't fly anymore in competition, perhaps some of them could be interested in attending a contest, if they can arrive in the morning, register and fly the same day the 4 minute free. it is a different way to fly and there are pilots who are able to be very competitive in this speciality and not in the standard competition. Eventually, there could be one day contests only for 4 minute free, this kind of event could be much more interesting for people to watch.

    13.6: AGREE

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    3
    13-1 don't agree
    13-2 agree
    13-3 do not agree
    13-4 do not agree
    13-5 strongly agree: The fact is this rule has been on the books for 1 year. With a zero participation rate of advanced category pilots. It has not served the purpose for which the rule is written. Several of the known individuals who would be qualified to take part don't. They have felt that this rule is detrimental to the IAC.

    What I can see is an individual who has flown 10 airshow flights of intermediate level aerobatics going to advanced, flying the four minute as low as 328' doing low altitude tumbles. If he can't do a level slow roll below 656' in the advanced unknown without penalty, why should he be allowed or even encouraged to do tumbles below that.

    13-6 do not agree

  7. #17
    RetroAcro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Posts
    135
    13-1 Disagree

    13-2 Strongly Agree

    13-3 Agree

    13-4 Agree

    13-5 Disagree. If the concern is regarding safety, I don't consider the simple fact that a pilot has entered a contest in the Unlimited category to be sufficient vetting by IAC of one's ability to safely fly the 4-min. Free. I'm not sure if IAC should get into the qualification business. IAC does not qualify Unlimited pilots to fly at 328' to begin with. If a SAC is required, then it should be required of Unlimited pilots as well. It seems those currently entering the 4-min. program self-qualify. Flying Unlimited either marginally or skillfully does not necessarily translate to the ability to fly tumbles at 328'.

    13-6 Disagree. 20KT is an arbitrary number considering the many aircraft types at a contest, all with different x-wind capabilities. I've been to a few contests where flying was stopped due to wind, and the decision was made among the competitors, all understanding that different airplanes and pilots have different limits and that nobody wants to see anyone bend anything.

    Eric Sandifer
    Last edited by RetroAcro; 10-29-2012 at 12:01 PM.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by RetroAcro View Post
    13-1 Disagree

    13-2 Strongly Agree

    13-3 Agree

    13-4 Agree

    13-5 Disagree. If the concern is regarding safety, I don't consider the simple fact that a pilot has entered a contest in the Unlimited category to be sufficient vetting by IAC of one's ability to safely fly the 4-min. Free. I'm not sure if IAC should get into the qualification business. IAC does not qualify Unlimited pilots to fly at 328' to begin with. If a SAC is required, then it should be required of Unlimited pilots as well. It seems those currently entering the 4-min. program self-qualify. Flying Unlimited either marginally or skillfully does not necessarily translate to the ability to fly tumbles at 328'.

    13-6 Disagree. 20KT is an arbitrary number considering the many aircraft types at a contest, all with different x-wind capabilities. I've been to a few contests where flying was stopped due to wind, and the decision was made among the competitors, all understanding that different airplanes and pilots have different limits and that nobody wants to see anyone bend anything.

    Eric Sandifer

    I understand your point however an individual who enters unlimited has not been vetted by a single individual, he has been vetted by the rank and file from primary on!

  9. #19
    RetroAcro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by pjdugan View Post
    I understand your point however an individual who enters unlimited has not been vetted by a single individual, he has been vetted by the rank and file from primary on!
    Yes, but not in their ability to fly a low-altitude airshow routine with all the usual gyro maneuvers. Likewise, the majority of airshow pilots (those not having a background in Unlimited IAC competition) do not have the skills to compete in Unlimited, but if they wanted to show up to a contest, fly Advanced and the 4-minute Free just for fun, it wouldn't make much sense to prohibit this. Yeah, I know this doesn't really happen, which I think is why IAC is proposing the rule change. I simply feel entry into one competition category or the other doesn't necessarily have much bearing on the the ability to safely perform (at low altitude) the style of flying typically associated with the 4-minute Free.
    Last edited by RetroAcro; 10-30-2012 at 07:57 AM.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    1,342
    There are a couple of problematical issues with the current rule about having Advanced competitors fly the 4 Minute Free.

    First, no one has taken advantage of the rule. And why do we have a rule that favors a small number of IAC members who in turn are not using it? Near as I can tell it is the only rule in the book tailored to what appears to a group of 5 or so individuals. Can I have a rule too?

    Second, what is the liability of IAC accepting a credential processed by a peer organization, where IAC has no input to the administration to that program. You and I know that these folks are OK, but if something goes horribly wrong at a contest, does this give a hostile attorney too large an opening for a lawsuit. My position would be different if the IAC was a formal partner in the ICAS accreditation program, but that is not where we are today.

    All food for though. What we want and what makes sense in the large world may be in conflict here.

    Regards,

    Wes
    N78PS

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •