Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 94

Thread: unfair

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    81
    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
    Last edited by flyrite; 11-25-2014 at 07:53 PM.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    1,342
    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

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    161
    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.
    1996 Quad City Challenger CWS w/503 - Sold
    1974 7ECA Citabria - Sold
    1986 Pitts S1S

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    1,342
    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
    Last edited by WLIU; 09-22-2014 at 01:10 PM.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by ssmdive View Post
    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....
    Last edited by flyrite; 11-25-2014 at 07:54 PM.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    161
    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.
    1996 Quad City Challenger CWS w/503 - Sold
    1974 7ECA Citabria - Sold
    1986 Pitts S1S

  7. #27
    RetroAcro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by flyrite View Post
    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
    Last edited by RetroAcro; 09-22-2014 at 09:41 PM.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    161
    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.
    1996 Quad City Challenger CWS w/503 - Sold
    1974 7ECA Citabria - Sold
    1986 Pitts S1S

  9. #29
    RetroAcro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by ssmdive View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ssmdive View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ssmdive View Post
    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.
    Last edited by RetroAcro; 09-23-2014 at 07:44 AM.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    161
    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.
    Last edited by ssmdive; 09-23-2014 at 09:51 AM.
    1996 Quad City Challenger CWS w/503 - Sold
    1974 7ECA Citabria - Sold
    1986 Pitts S1S

Posting Permissions

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