Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 57

Thread: Proposed Knowns and Rules for 2012

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    IAC News
    Guest

    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.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #2
    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

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    1,342
    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

  4. #4
    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.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Seattle, WA and Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    25

    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
    Last edited by Jim Ward; 10-13-2011 at 11:11 PM. Reason: language cleanup

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Annapolis MD
    Posts
    2
    Shouldn't the rule for 12-10 read "hold an ICAS 250' or lower waiver"?

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Winfield, KS
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Johnson View Post
    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

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Johnstone View Post
    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

  9. #9
    I

  10. #10
    i vote for spt c,it is practical and allows the pilot to fly instead of having 2 45' in one line.

Posting Permissions

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