Proposed Knowns and Rules for 2012

[Tom Adams]

I would like to address rules proposal 12-6, regarding the use of BRS aircraft recovery parachutes. My back groung on the sublect comes from 19 years of being on the Board of directors of BRS, Inc of South St Paul, Minnesota.
Here are some recorded statistics about the use of this type of unit:
1.) The FAA has issued Suplimental Type certificates for these units on, C-150 / 152, C-172, C-182,
Cessna "Skycatcher", Piper "Sport"( Both of which can be ordered as options) .
2.) The Cirus has had the BRS produced recovery system installad as standard equipment starting at the first production aircraft.
3,) The various units produced by BRS Inc. have been installed on many of the Kit A/C, LSA as well as ultri-lights as well as the Standard category aircraft previously mentioned.
4.) To date BRS inc.( the A/C recovery Parachute) has been responsable for saveing 268 ( as in two hundred sixty eight) lives by thier use.
5.) Some additional facts are: sucessfull deployments in in Supplimental certificated, experimental and ultra light A/C
are ..26 from surface to 100', 53 from 101' to 500' 14 between 501 and 1000'
the rest above 3000'.
Sucessful deployments in Cirus A/C are, 4 from 101' to 500', 11 from 501'
to 1000', and 13 above 3000'
6,) The rest of the saves were in the Ultra-Light family of aircraft which as we know do not often get very high
One remark was abought the units usefullnes during an aircraft fire. I agree and in all the deployments there has only been one fire. Scares the heck out of me as well. I guess I would rather land in trees or water under a BRS canopy than a personal chute. This rule change just gives us another option as far as safety is concerned. We can't have enough of those. You can easily google my stats on this
I got them from the founder and 1st president of the company..Hope it helps!
Tom Adams
IAC 1999
Director, SE

[John Housley]

12-11 (disqualification based on not achieving 60% score in the Known): I disagree with this proposal. The rationale says that even if flying safely, a pilot would be DQ'd with a score below 60% (possibly, but not necessarily, for flying figures in the wrong direction or order). The key is safety and fun. If someone is unsafe, then of course they need to stand down. If we decide they must also score well and be safe to fly in the category of their choice, that sounds like pressure/hassle/stress and less fun. Less fun = fewer competitors. Keep the emphasis on safety and fun and don't create more ways to get rid of the declining members we have.

[PittsPilot]

12-1 Agree
12-4 Agree
12-5 Agree
12-6 Agree
12-7 Agree
12-8 No – opinion. Does the FAA have anything to say about this subject?
12-9 No Opinion
12-10 Agree – This opens the field to lower performanceairplanes that are very entertaining to watch. Additionally, it provides a method of ‘informed feedback’ by judes for(mostly new) air show performers that can be used to improve their publicpresentations. One point, get thewording correct. The ICAS cannot issue ‘waivers’,they make recommendations to the FAA who issue ‘Statements of AerobaticCompetency’. There is no such thing asan “ICAS waiver”.
12-11 Disagree! Sincesafety is not the cited issue, who’s criteria determines if a competitor‘shouldn’t be in that category’? Forsome, the greater challenge and judges’ feedback of flying the higher categorycan improve their abilities at a greater rate than perfecting, say, theroundness of a loop in a lower category. Self-improvement can be a greater motivation than scoring high enough tobe ‘competitive.’ Don’t impose anartificial ‘competitive’ constraint on all competitors. Can we propose acontrary rule to require those who consistently score greater than, say, 80% inany category to move up to the next category?
12-12 no opinion
12-13 No opinion
12-14 Agree

[jetweb]

great proposal

[Lark]

Int C is my choice.

[RWBeyer]

12-9 Eliminating consistent process for order of flight: aswritten this is NOT a good proposal. Order of flight can have some effect onthe scores, with detriment to the very first few pilots. Established rules thatare NOT perceived as arbitrary decisions or inconsistent from one contest to theother are necessary. Leaving the decision of order of flight completely to thediscretion of each individual registrar may possibly create a perception ofunfairness in a category, particularly if more than just a few pilots compete. If 12 pilots are competing in the category eachin his airplane, how is the registrar going to chose order of flight if thisproposal goes into effect? 4.5.2 alreadyallows for the order of flight to be modified if needed for practicality and widelyused, so the use of one aircraft by multiple pilots is not a good reason toeliminate the prescribed process.
12-10 If this proposal goes into effect IAC would sanction anadvanced competitor doing a half-roll at 700 ft AGL as illegal but then laterin the day doing a tumble at 500 ft AGL legal?
12-11 I do not see a reason to support this proposal.

[whperman]

I vote for roposal number "P" as it is the best overall for intermediate.

[WLIU]

Today I went out and flew Intermediate Power proposals C and P in my Pitts S-2A. Like P a lot. For C I used all of the box altitude. I came away believing that the category reference airplane will not be able to do this program without taking a break. Putting a down fish-tail as the last figure, with point rolls on both down 45's, and making the last roll a 4x8, makes this sequence tougher than just a qualifying flight for the Intermediate category.

I vote FOR Intermediate P. I vote AGAINST Intermediate C.

Thanks,

Wes
N78PS

[Casey Ann Erickson]

I vote for Intermediate F (with P being not far behind). Both have adequate y correctors, and look to have good flow. I think F is a little better for two reasons, one it is not much of an altitude loser. figures 2 and 3 are the only real altitude burners, from figures 4 on one could/should be towards the bottom of the box, and if anything will gain a little altitude (after driving figure 5 to the bottom). I think this should allow for a good showing to the judges. Secondly proposal F figures 9-13 really flows well to set up the finally right in front of the judges, a snap roll....make or break time. yee haw.

I have to vote Against C as well due to figures 1 and 2 due to the possibility of sleepy time, like it has already been said above. C also only has one Y corrector towards the top and will be hard to keep in the box for those of us who deal with high x-box winds alot of the time. And that goes for L and H as well not enough y correction.

Proposal H has figures 7 to 10 basically setting up to end in either the far back corner, or far front corner (with judges craning their necks) and just doesn't seem like it would show as well as F or P.

Final Answer Proposal F.......but I could deal with P.

As far as the rules go, I Vote YES for every rule, with these exceptions:

12-6 I Vote NO, as primary has no penalties and sportsman the penalty is so minor, that I cant see this being a major factor. However, allowing a higher box altitude will make for lower quality judging as it is hard enough now to see the competitors at the top. Lets not make it harder for us to judge these categories for the very small amount of people this could potentially benefit.
12-8 I defer to those who know more than me, as I do not have enough knowledge of these systems
12-11 No bad idea. See comments above. I Cant agree more.

my 2 cents.....I hope everyone has a wonderful Winter holiday season.

Casey Erickson
South West Region

[schoneboomr]

Sportsman C
Intermediate L

Ross