Guys, stop the stupid talk please.
I suspect that the calendar put our ages higher than 16.
Thanks,
Wes
Nips
Printable View
Guys, stop the stupid talk please.
I suspect that the calendar put our ages higher than 16.
Thanks,
Wes
Nips
I tried today, and I couldn't fly the version of the Nats Advanced Unknown (that I thought most energy friendly) without taking an altitude break or busting the top of the box (Factory stock 180 hp Pitts S-1S). Only mod to my airplane is a 3-blade Catto prop which actually has very slightly less performance than a metal Sensenich. Unknown was 14 figures. Sammy definitely shows what a stock Pitts airframe can do, but it does help that he doesn't weigh anything, and has a pumped motor. If I could lose about 50 lbs (I'm not fat), and upgrade my standard compression pistons, I could have gotten through it. :-) Pat's airplane is modded quite a bit. Sammy will admit that there are sometimes figures he gets hurt a little on due to the performance limitations of the Pitts. The monoplanes absolutely do have an advantage in Advanced, pilot skill being equal. I don't see how that's even up for debate...though it's debatable how much the advantage is. And some care more about this edge than others. I understand where my friend Tony is coming from, I guess I'm just not quite as passionate on the subject. I will have to make an effort to submit more Unknowns.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyav8r
Eric Sandifer
What is missed here is that the contest is more than just 4 minutes in the box. Part of the competition is bringing enough airplane and enough $$. For better or worse, the complaint here is that the technology has moved beyond the biplanes. Maybe beyond the 1D. That is just a fact of life. You all are welcome in Intermediate.
Us biplane guys cling to our airplanes for a bunch of reasons, none of which have to do with our desire to reach the top of the competition ladder. It is unrealistic to ask the rest of the competition world to accomodate us.
As noted above, whining won't change anything. And frankly, those of us who take the time to understand how the current set up works, become Regional or National Judges, submit Known Program proposals to the Rules Committee every year, run contests and chapters, etc., are less than sympathetic to our friends who are great to drink beer with but won't follow up their ideas with time and effort. There is no sport out there that welcomes the behavior that has been demonstrated here.
So if Advanced is too hard, Intermediate welcomes you. But you should be warned that there are Extra's and Edges in Intermediate too. And I outscore them and maybe you, in my "lowly" S-2A.
Sheesh,
Wes
N78PS
I guess you know when a thread has reached the point of "profit to loss" based off the fact that nobodies getting any smarter on the subject...Original arguments that have already been dealt with reemerge & personal slights begin to creep in to the debate{I'm as guilty as anybody on the last issue} and to that point let me apologize to cyav8r if what I posted was perceived as an attack against his mount or his service to the club or him personally...Some of the best & most skilled competitors I know are decathelon pilots!
Having said all the above ...Wes...my argument is not with technology....I completely understand your side of the argument & I believe I understand how the system is setup{don't see how that's relative at all}to the dissussion ....I just can't tell you how strongly I disagree with it. I firmly believe that the club should require the guys buying an advantage in the lower categories to move up to the category that their mount was designed for ....or after a period of time have something to balance the obvious advantage they fly with...Wow ...after making the same point multiple times...the better it sounds{to me}! Be it in the form of sequence design in the unknowns{which by the way you'll notice is where the pitts guys fell out of contention at the nationals}... handicaps as was mentioned in earlier posts or as I've pointed out multiple times .... go back to what the club was doing up to the early 2000's in AWAC eliminate the planes with the higher API numbers in the lower categories...{which I notice for a guy with your historical knowledge of the sport you never address}The competitions really should be about "SKILLS NOT FRILLS".....My gosh Wes you amaze me at the lengths you'll go to defend the obvious!!!
I still hold out hope that Mike & maybe some of the board members will join in this discussion....Do I think anything is going to change even if they do...probably not...But it does the membership no service for the guys that are making the decisions on issues like this to insolate themselves & leave it up to guys like you to defend the obvious.
Let me again boil it down one more time to the 'BLACK & WHITE" of the issue...............Some folks {mostly lower category} will still make the argument that the guys flying the unlimited machines in advanced have no advantage in the category{if that's your contention then I have no more arguments for you} IMO...that's as Eric has said... is not even debatable... and I will not engage in anymore debate with anyone on that issue{won't waste your time nor mine}.
. Then some will agree with the disparity {Wes} they just think you should suck it up & be willing to spend the $'s{IMO..that's what unlimited category is for} or move back to intermediate because technology has rendered your mount uncompetitive as it once was. And it's unreasonable to expect to be accommodated & the IAC is not going to keep up by implementing rules to keep the competitions as fair as possible.
I have already stated where I stand....But I really would like for the powers that be to state where they stand & as my director told me...get enough of the membership to bring it up & maybe you can get it changed
I struggle to see how to do that without bringing the debate up on forums such as this{which is the official IAC website} to get consensus for or against the status quo...If I could figure how post on the exploder I would invite anyone interested to join in the debate here.
I'd be interested to know Wes...If we were to put out a survey to the membership{ain't gonna happen I know} and asked the advanced guys flying in the category REGARDLESS OF THEIR MOUNTS this question... they must answer either "YES or NO" ...No trying to explain away the disparities with all manner of reasons...{I've heard'em all} We can argue the pro's & con's of what's fair about it or what's not after we get agreement on the basic issue..... just a simple yes or no.. just boil it down to this simple question.....
Do you think it's a fair fight between the unlimited mounts & the lower performance guys in the category...and if the majority were to answer no as Eric has ....would you still stick by your position?
Take care
Tony
My position is that we are competing. Its supposed to be hard. And a marine once said "if you show up for a fair fight, you are unprepared." I understand that the airplane, practice schedule, budget, and coaching that I can bring to the arena limits my ability to score points. I take my enjoyment in flying my best and posting a better score than my last contest. In golf, I know people who play with clubs they buy at the Sports Authority. Some other folks buy clubs that cost $1000 each. Tiger Woods likely pays $4K each for his custom equipment. We can admire it and know that if we could play with Tiger Woods' equipment we would likely have better scores. But we do not have Tiger Woods' budget so we settle for the score we can achieve.
I fly a Pitts S-2A. I know that John Morrissey won the IAC Advanced Championship in his S-2A. In I think 1984. I have no expectation of matching John's achievement in 2014 because the technology has moved beyond the best flown S-2A. That's life. I fly to the best score that I can achieve with my S-2A and if I can avoid brain farts and work the rules a little, I go home happy with the score I get. If I can organize a better budget, I will buy a Staudacher. But for now, I am not looking for anyone to change the rules to make it easier for me to post a high score. That would devalue my effort. I do not need artificial help. At every contest I go to, my monoplane friends look over their shoulder at me knowing that they can not relax. The big check that they wrote will not guarantee them a trophy. There is great satisfaction in being accorded that respect.
See you at the box,
Wes
N78PS
Quote:
Originally Posted by WLIU
Wes after giving your reasons for competition some thought....I must admit it makes perfect sense to me now....All the time & money I've spent practicing before a contest wasn't for nothing, I've just been looking at it wrong. I've just had the wrong philosophy about COMPETITION...
It's not about having a fair shot at winning... that would "devalue my efforts"..... Shoot, that contest{Warrenton competition} that I flew 1100 miles round trip to meet you at last year wasn't about COMPETITION...No..No...It's about learning life lesson's..It's about knowing that even if the COMPETITION ain't fair, The fact that it's HARD because of the disadvantage is the lesson.. it's about achieving my best up against unfavorable odds....
It's about keeping my "supership" buddies looking over their shoulder for fear of me overcoming the odds & beating them.....And really what your saying is... after all.. it's really not about COMPETITION.
I can make those long trips home HAPPY Knowing that I've done my best and I've earned the respect of the Supership guy's even if everybody knows it wasn't a fair COMPETITION!
I'm not sure ...But maybe we need to rethink what we call our contest's.....because the word contests implies COMPETITION???
Now that I have a marines perspective on war as a guide for my preparedness..... my philosophy has been reset....I'm good to go...I can now cancel all my self help classes about life's inequities cause I'm getting all the life lesson's I need by... COMPETETING IN THE DIFFERENT IAC PLAY DAYS!! I will no longer petition for "artificial help" to prop up my flying!
Take care
Tony
PS...Next time I dive in the box at the next "playday" I'll envision I'm a marine in a FA-18 fighting against overwhelming odd's......No wait...I'm sorry... the guys flying the Superships would be the marines in your scenario...cause their the most prepared by spending the $$$$...Sorry for the confusion, It might take me awhile to adapt to my new found "philosophy".:cool:
Tony, you need to figure out how to get a better airplane.
That said, my crunchy granola friends would offer some advice that you have likely heard before - Its not the destination, its the journey that is important.
Peace,
Wes
N78PS
Wes, The wife's done said NO to more acro expense!Quote:
Originally Posted by WLIU
So I thought I'd try & get some of my buddies like you to make me more competitive by helping me change the rules....thought it would be easier & cheaper than divorce!:(
OH well I guess it's time for a new plan. Thanks for the debate.
Take care
Tony
I'd say the thread is done when people start to hurl insults.... Not you Tony.Quote:
I guess you know when a thread has reached the point of "profit to loss" based off the fact that nobodies getting any smarter on the subject...
But it seems the IAC has a proposal right now about this..... PROPOSAL 2015-07
:
And just for fun.... I tried to fly the 2014 Sportsman known in my 7ECA this weekend. Starting at 3500 feet (I was told I could cheat with such a big airplane on the high side, but the 'low' would go against me since it would look lower than a smaller plane) I was unable to complete the sequence without stopping or busting the 1500 foot hard deck (actually both, once I found myself below 1500, I stopped and climbed). I repeated the Sportsman sequence in my Pitts and had no issue staying above the hard deck even starting at 3,000. Now, I am sure a better pilot could of pulled off the whole sequence in the 7ECA, but in this case the SAME pilot was unable to do it.Quote:
Over the IAC’s history we have seen a steady decline in the number of contestants as the performance and cost of our aircraft have dramatically increased. There were 51 Sportsman and 135 total competitors at the IAC Championships at Fond du Lac, WI, in 1975. The average Aerobatic Performance Index (API) calculated from the horsepower/weight ratio, maximum speed, and roll rate of the 1975 competitors was 27. In 2005 (the most recent year for which I have statistics), the average API was 62
The future of our sport is highly dependent on attracting and retaining our entry level competitors (Editors note: Which is something I was trying to express and am not seeing in these threads from some of the posters). During the early years of IAC, Sportsman pilots were flying low-performance aircraft, many without inverted fuel or oil systems. In recent years, we have seen most of these early classics sitting on the sidelines and replaced in the box by high performance monoplanes. Most of our current Sportsman competitors are flying such aircraft. The up-ramping of the energy requirements for the Sportsman sequence, aircraft performance, and cost has gradually excluded a great many aerobatic-capable aircraft and pilots.
The first-level (now called “Primary”) category has the potential of attracting entry level competitors and providing a home for the classic, as well as RV, and other modern aircraft capable of light aerobatics. However, it's hard to justify the cost of attending a regional contest to fly three aerobatic figures. Many standard aerobatic flight training programs are now of the 10-hour variety concluding with an aerobatic sequence approximately 75% the difficulty of the present Sportsman Known. For these pilots, the Primary category, at its present level of difficulty, is a step backwards. Moreover, for those few that are attracted to
IAC and fly Primary with a low API aircraft, the quantum jump in difficulty excludes many from advancing to Sportsman (ED: Which is what I tried to convey as a new person facing this situation). The transition from Primary to Sportsman currently has a more than 300% increase in K-value. The other rungs of our competition ladder are more uniformly spaced with an average increase of about 140% in the K-values of their respective Knowns. Indeed, past studies have revealed that few of the Primary pilots in a given year continue in subsequent years or advance to higher levels (ED: Again, what I tried to convey). For the experienced pilot flying a low API aircraft, the current Primary sequence is dumbed down to a humiliating level and certainly not serving its intended function.
There is little we can do to affect the health our nation’s economy or the costs of fuel, hanger, insurance, and maintenance, all of which have and will take a significant toll on general aviation and our sport. We can, however, improve our entry-level competition environment (ED: Which is what I was trying to start a discussion about... I did include the jump from Primary to Advanced as 'entry level'). In recent years there has not been a good home for the low-performance aircraft (API < 20). The low-performance aircraft has insufficient energy to fly recent Sportsman sequences (ED: This is where I get the information that a 7ECA will not do well in sportsman), the Primary sequence is too easy for the experienced pilot and too short to be cost-effective given the costs of attending a contest. Our challenge is then to construct a first-level sequence that will encourage and retain new participants and provide a home for the low-performance aircraft with a sequence that measures airmanship rather than API values. In order to address the issues discussed above, the sequence should target a K-value of perhaps 80 or 100. The most fundamental consideration for a well-designed sequence that meets our criteria is energy flow. The low-API aircraft requires careful energy management with the right hand, not the left. The pilot must expend a finite amount of altitude rather than more horsepower on kinetic energy. In my view, fair competition can exist between aircraft of widely different API providing the sequence gives the low-performance aircraft access to its potential energy. If a given figure has a critical minimum energy requirement, there must be an opportunity to convert altitude into speed in the preceding figure. A sequence at this level will provide sufficient challenge to attract and retain new participants, provide a home for the low-performance aircraft, and a much more reasonable platform to advance to Sportsman.
Should this proposal be adopted, a new name for this category which more accurately reflects its purpose would be desirable. However, that’s an editorial change which can be addressed later.
Table 1. Some representative API values.
Citabria 3
Clipped Wing Cub 4
150 hp Decathlon 8
180 hp Great Lakes 9
Super Decathlon 10
Skybolt 23
Pitts S-2A 36
Extra 200 41
Pitts S-1S 48
Pitts S-2B 51
Extra 300 76
Edge 540 94
And the proposed sequence actually looks fun:
1. Reversed sharks tooth
2. Immelmann turn
3. 1 turn spin
4. Hammerhead
5. 1/2 Cuban
6. Roll
On the other hand..... The proposal for the sportsman sequences... Yeah, that seems much more difficult than even the current sequence in a lower performing plane. For example it has a 2X4 on the 45 upline of the reverse sharks tooth and another one AFTER an Immelmann turn. I don't see how my 7ECA would be able to even do the one after the Immelmann turn. Another one has a roll on a 45* upline then leading into a level roll.... Yeah, I can't see pulling that off in a 7ECA. Maybe someone else can, but it would turn me away from competing. And it has a roll on the top of a loop... Don't really see that one working either.
Hey ssmdive, Bring that Pitts up to Morganton N.C. 10/24 for the "Blue Ridge Hammerfest" You won't find a finer more helpful group of "acronuts" anywhere.
And to your point on the new proposals...I myself don't see how you could be competitive in the 7ECA with the new proposed sequence designs...not that somebody couldn't possably get through it....But like Eric said in an earlier post bout some of the advanced sequences, your not gonna have energy enough for any technical points after some of the figures compared to some of your competition!
Rare is it that any one pilot has 2 mounts in the hanger to do real world comparisons on any given sequence back to back. Thanks for the post.
Take care
Tony
I only have about 140 hours in the Citabria and I only have about 15 hours in the Pitts. I did place 2nd in Primary with the Citabria when I had 50 hours in it in Fall 2013. And to be fair, neither was flown in front of a judge in a real box. So I guess it is possible that the flight with the 7ECA that I have nine times more experience with scored better than my new Pitts..... But I doubt it.Quote:
Rare is it that any one pilot has 2 mounts in the hanger to do real world comparisons on any given sequence back to back. Thanks for the post.
With the 7ECA if I could make it through the 1/2 Cuban without busting out low, I could get the loop in. But the second half of the wedge made be bust out low each time. Also, after the Immelmann turn it was impossible to get enough speed to do the roll without diving. Roll speed is listed as 120 and WOT level I am not going to make it much better than 110 and that is giving the plane time to speed up, not trying to speed up and do a roll in 3000M. While I could start the roll slower when the engine died when inverted the roll rate slowed considerably and with all the drag from all the down elevator and all the drag from full aileron deflection and rudder deflection to try and not lose altitude the plane dished out and ended up in a bit of a dive at the end of the roll. In the Pitts, I just keep the throttle full and sped up with plenty of box left to roll the plane.
Again, if the judge was Mr Magoo or a judge that has a soft spot for Citabria's and hates Pitts.... I guess the ECA could have scored better. But I would not hang my hat on that.
Well, I am here -- after several days at the US Nationals, I came home exhausted and with tons of e-mails to answer and phone calls to make. IAC is a very intense business -- not that I am complaining. It's an honor to be your President and the Nationals was really good this year and a pleasure to meet and talk to many friends and members.
I don't have many comments on this discussion thread right now as it requires more thought with a rested brain. The problem of competitors feeling disadvantaged because of the aircraft they own and want to fly in a particular category is not a new one. I remember when a Pitts S-1S was considered a "super ship" by early members of IAC and they didn't like those flying in certain categories either. It's a discussion as old as IAC.
I can tell you this -- my priorities as President (and even long before I took over on 1 August) are to increase our membership and increase participation in competition. Simply put, more pilots + more contests = good. That must be the focus of all your Officers and Directors. If this can be done through rules proposals, such as we have on the table this year, then they should be seriously considered. Generally, you will find me opposed to any proposal that may result in a decrease in competition activity and there have been some of those floated in the past.
We did have a lot of experience over several years of trying to restrict aircraft at the World Advanced Aerobatic Championships -- through regulating the makes and models that could participate. It didn't end well and eventually all restrictions were dropped. Handicap systems have been informally discussed before but a workable proposal from one or more of our members is yet to be approved by the Board. Exchanging ideas is fine and necessary -- putting those conversations to actual rules proposals and submitting them to our Rules Chairman, Brian Howard, is the next step and not quite as easy, as those of you know who have ever prepared complex proposals in the past.
My personal opinions do not matter here. As President, I don't have any personal opinions -- whatever I say will be construed as not coming from me personally but rather as some sort of official IAC viewpoint and there is none at this point in time. But what has always been challenging and exciting about working with our organization's fine membership is there are always lots of interesting discussions and views which can lead to a better IAC. I have watched it happen over our 44 year history and it can be very rewarding.
So keep discussing ideas about how to get more pilots involved -- and more competitions organized out there. And also forward your ideas about how to keep our non-competition members happy, too. We get a lot of feedback on how we have to look out for the other 3,000 members who are not involved in flying at contests.
As you've already found out...Much more stick-n-rudder skills required to fly a nice roll in the 7ECA than the pitts...in competition on the judges line it's still called a "slow roll" even if a whizzzbang mono-wing is doing it....But when your doing it in the 7ECA it really is a "slooooow roool":cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by ssmdive
Thanks so much for joining in Mike...and thanks for the years of service to the club on behalf of guy's like me...I've got every issue of "sport aerobatic's" all the way back to the beginning...I told you that because I want you to know I've read every one of the articles written by you & your Dad through the years and the contributions & some of the sacrifices that you & your family have made for the sport.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Heuer
I really look forward to anything you might add to this debate in the future...& please don't be a stranger here.
Tony
Not sure I am "rested" yet and smart enough to make a good contribution here, but will give it a try. Tony wrote me privately and has shamed me into it.
We will never know how many pilots are scared away by what they regard as competition that they believe is tilted in favor of those who can afford high-performance, high-cost aircraft. Something I have learned the hard way is that no matter what you have in the rules and how perfectly you administer those rules at a contest, people come away with impressions and perceptions. Those perceptions become reality. If IAC members who are thinking about becoming involved in competition feel they cannot make a decent showing, they may not come and we will never know it.
A recent membership survey done by IAC VP Doug McConnell has generated a lot of excellent feedback on where IAC is today, where it's going, and how we can change to ensure a future for sport aerobatics and our club. I have been impressed by the quality and quantity of the good ideas and we will discuss them in our Board meeting in Oshkosh on 12-13 November. As anyone will tell you in business, if you don't pay attention to your customers, you will whither and die.
While there has not been any feedback on creating "handicap" systems in the dozens of ideas and proposals we received, there is are underlying themes to many of the messages and letters. That is, competition has to be more attractive and we have to get away from "category creep" which chases people away. Some have called for a total realignment of the categories in terms of difficulty. One writer enthusiastically and articulately stated a case for divorcing ourselves from the CIVA sequences and to simplify Advanced and Unlimited to attract more pilots. One writer from California said the "bonus system" introduced some years ago at Unlimited level (you have to have been around a while to remember it as it was discontinued) damaged Unlimited and we have not recovered since. There are a lot of opinions out there -- no shortage in that department -- and the Board is tasked with doing what is good for the sport. One of the other questions I always ask is, "Will this proposal grow aerobatics (or contests) or shrink it?" If the answer is shrinkage or decline, I am not in favor. End of story.
I invite you to look at the rules proposals that I posted on the IAC website and which are now under review by the IAC Rules Committee (under the direction of its chairman, Brian Howard). Their report will be coming in soon and I will announce it here on this forum. Comments from members will be encouraged. You will see some proposals in there regarding Primary (see proposal 2015-07). Here is the link to the proposals: https://www.iac.org/news/2014-09-28-...2015-available
The rationale behind 2015-07 bears study and reading. What is impressive about proposals like this, to me anyway, is that members are always thinking of how to improve our rules and get more people involved. I will say again, "More Pilots + More Contests = Good". I appreciate what Tony has brought up here. But I also admit, I do not have the answers. If a workable handicap system could be derived, I would be in favor of it -- if it meant that more pilots would come to contests and feel they were treated fairly -- after all, "unfair" was the title of this thread and Tony feels we are not doing a good job of ensuring fairness at contests -- then this discussion is useful and positive.
So everyone, give it some more thought. Keep the messages, posts, and ideas flowing. You have a receptive ear here.
Mike
Well after finishing the season up @ Keystone & Morganton I had the opportunity to discuss the issue of this thread with a lot of different pilots.....At Keystone all my fellow competitors were flying unlimited mounts except for 1 in a 202 & he's already moved up to an MX, It was down for service or he would have been flying it [there was 5 in the category].
I had good conversations with 4 of the guys...who btw are good friends of mine & I have known & competed against most all since the late 90's...let me relay the conversations over food & drink on the issue.
All agreed with me that their is a big disparity, But didn't know what to suggest as a solution...many points were made on both side's of the issue, But none deny they are flying with a big advantage! All agreed to join this thread.....Hmmmm......Don't know what happen to that commitment.....I can only assume like another advanced lifer flying an unlimited machine said on another thread relating to this issue[knowns for 15]....And I quote...I've managed to avoid getting involved on this!!
Now to Morganton...All that flew there were flying 4 cyl's except for a 2B, We had a good round table discussion & several good idea's were floated...All there also agreed that there was a big disparity, One of the guy's had a good idea [from his perspective] was to allow a break for the 4cyl guy's & I like it ...Don't think it will happen...But It was a good debate.
I wouldn't want to speak for anybody...I can only assume that the guy's flying unlimited's year after year in advanced are afraid of debating the issue in public or like a lot of folk just shy away from controversy. I will leave it at this......YOU GUYS KNOW WHO YOU ARE...Quit letting the lower category guy's argue your point for you. Take care
Tony
Tony - that guy flying the 4 cyl 202 - I've seen him fly it a little. On more than one continent. He's better in it than he is in the MX. And when he's "on", he's hard to beat in Advanced, period. Did you notice that 4 of the top 10 in Advanced at 2014 Nationals were "4 cyl guys"? and they finished ahead of Extras, a Cap and an MX? They are great pilots and it shows in their scores.
As for the disparaging "advanced lifer" terminology you've associated with me in a couple posts, for what it's worth, I've only been flying aerobatics for 8 years - apparently you've been in the sport twice as long as me.
Craig , So glad to have you join the debate...The guy your talking about is Marty & no doubt he's a great stick...He's also one of the guy's that I quoted that won't argue that the unlimited machine's fly with a big advantage over the 4 cyl's guy's in the category...And to the 4 that placed at the nationals you'll also notice that they fell out of contention in the unknown's which is where most 4 banger's struggle against guys like you..especially on a hot day...Go back & read the previous post's...you can practice away the disparity in the known's & the free's , But the unknown's are a different matter!Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Gifford
And regardless of the ability to practice away the disadvantage in the known's & free's you still have the disparity of presentation that guy's like you have in being able to start so much lower in those flight's & put the flight in the performance zone. Now to your perception that I have disparaged you by using the term..."Advanced Lifer's"...Please believe me when I say I mean nothing personal when I use the phrase...But guy's like you that have demonstrated the skill's {you've made the AWAC team 2 time's] As well as the finance's to afford an unlimited machine...Don't you think it's time to move up & quit using the advantage you have in a lower category against the guy's who are still flying the lower performance mount's ...I have watched your flying, You have the skill's..You have the machine...Move up & use the mount you have in the category it was designed for...There is a reason that the regional contest's have no real unlimited participation.
And to the time spent in the sport...Go back & reread the post's in this thread as well "Fair Unknown's" & you'll see that I to have only been in advanced for 3 year's total....I really don't think it has anything to do with the time in the category so much as demonstrated skill's. Take Foster who just won the national's in advanced...I think this was his first year in the category, But he's demonstrated the skill's so he either need's to move up with the extra he's flying or move back in mount's if he want to park in the category as some do, Not to continue to use an advantage he has bought over his fellow competitors!
Again, Thank you for joining in this debate & please don't take anything I have pointed out as a personal attack...
Take care
Tony
Actually, 3 of the 4 improved their position in the Unknown, the fourth only dropped 2 slots and it had nothing to do with energy (he was downgraded for a very odd spin), and one of the four scored higher than me.Quote:
Originally Posted by flyrite
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Gifford
How about this...You have flown other mount's & now have the benefit of flying your present mount....Let's not talk around the issue by trying to debate minutia...Do you agree that it's a big advantage having the H.P. & wing area in the category over the lower performance mount's...Yes or No?
bump>>>craigQuote:
Originally Posted by flyrite
Over 5000 views in just over 2 month's.....I have no idea why .......Ahhhh....Probably just a lot of people waiting on a good argument to be made .....[Me to].....Or some may be wondering if the guy who started the thread will continue to stir the pot....Hmmmm....I know that guy & he is an unruly sort of fellow.
Come on fella's...If ya gone fly'em ....Don't be ashamed to defend'em....I'm willing to be seen as the "spoiled sport" that need's the rule's to prop me up, So where's the fear on your part ? I thought there was at least one guy that was gonna defend the code on the other side. Interesting that none of the guy's flying the unlimited's in advanced for years will jump in on this thread......I know you guy's are visiting here...Don't be scared of this "little ole debate" :P
Take care
Tony
Tony -
I get detailed analytics for several web sites, and it's very common for web crawlers (Google, Bing, et al) to generate far more "reads" than humans do on low-traffic sites. Just sayin'.
As to why nobody's commenting... Seriously, what else is there to say? Every point and counter-point was expressed within the first few posts of this protracted thread.
Regards,
DJ
DJ, Trust me, The "advanced lifers" flying the unlimited machine's are visiting here...And if I can encourage some of them feller's to quit "Cheat'n"...Well, Then I'm all about pushing those member's to continue to develop their skill's & "MOVE UP" to the category that their mount's were designed for...[Don't you think the unlimited category need's it]But really.. don't you find it interesting that none of them guy's will argue for themself's!Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Molny
It's obvious that the powers that be [IAC] are not going to address this & as you've pointed out "Every point & counter Point has been made".
And to your point of the interest in this thread being more about "web crawler's" than actual real people visiting.....I bow to your knowledge of this medium...But believe me when I say there is a lot of interest on this issue in the sport.
Thanks for the explaining why the view's just keep increasing...[ I do find it curious that the other topic's don't enjoy the same increase in views]...But me & the "Official IAC forum" will continue to enjoy the exposure provided by the crawler's. ;)
Take care
Tony
5500.............&................counting........ Director's, tell me......is it folk wondering about the "Redneck" continuing to stir the pot...[ them pesky web crawler's]...Or... could there be a true interest in the issue ?
Take care
Tony
Tony,
You asked me to jump in on this thread so here goes.I guess I need to approach this ”unfair” thread you started as both your Regional director and as as an individual IAC member.
I’ll have to switch hats.
You wanted my opinion on your “unfair” thread as your Director. Well, as a director I don’t have one. As a director it is my job to vote at a board meeting in a manner that has been indicated to me by the membership. If I do not have enough input from the membership to give me an indication as to what they want, I use my judgment keeping in mind what I feel is best for the club. My primary concern is the health of the club.
You claim that this “Unfair” situation is responsable for driving people away from or out of the IAC. Obviously, thats something we do not want. Your thread spoke of doing some thing to even the playing field. Handicapping was mentioned and limitations were hinted at.
If you are serious about this subject you need to switch from being pro-vocal to being pro-active. When we spoke you asked me, “ Am I supposed to contact each member personally?”.
well, yes, that’s how I would go about it. The thread you started, as it is, won’t get the job done. In seven pages on line you only had seven people responding to you. I wouldn’t use the “Exploder”, it would do just that..explode. If I were you I would write an article for SA to touch each member. You would need to explain the problem as you see it and what you feel should be done to rectify it. In it refer the membership to your thread. I’m sure Reggie would print it if it were well written. I have no doubt it would be well done,after reading your thread it’s evident you know your way around a key board. You express yourself well.
Once you start getting responses form a committee. Have the group formulate the rule or rule change it feels well rectify the problem you wish to solve. When you come up with a proposal make sure it includes:
1) The problem as your committee sees it.
2) The old rule if there is one.
3) If there is no rule to modify ,where in the rules book should your new rule be placed.
4) Should your rule touch or effect other rules within the book state how those need
to be modified.
5) What your committee feels the new rule will accomplish.
The proposed change has to go to Brian ( rules chair) for publication to get the member comments. It well be voted on at the next Fall Board meeting in Oshkosh.
Simple! If it is on the agenda at that meeting and I am on the Board,I will vote for it if there is indication that the large majority of members want it passed.
As your Director I wish you luck with your new callange.
Now, Speaking as IAC member #1999, I can say I don’t completely agree with you. Yes, I see that the Single wing high horsepower A/C has some advantage. That advantage, however, can be a two headed snake. Advantages like higher speeds,more vertical penetration, longer lines,and 420*/sec. roll rate. I’ve had these advantages work against me on numerous occasions.The faster speeds eat the box,the long lines means more exposure to the judges.
I will however fly the higher performance machine because you don’t have to work as hard.
Our judges are taught to judge the roundness of a loop not how large it is. The 1 for 5* rule applies to all types of A/C but the most exposure to judges goes to the Hi powered machines. It’s much easier for the judge to see uneven lines or off vertical lines on those long ones.
Tony, Im sure you see where I’m going with this but let me tell you, the system isn’t broke. Our judges are the best in the world, trust me. I have been doing this sport sense 1972. That’s 42
years. During that time I averaged 6 regional and 1 National contest each year. I can honestly say that during that entire time, THE BEST PILOTS TOOK HOME THE TROPHIES. Tony, it made no difference who made the plane at the bottom of the stick or how big the engine was at the end of the throttle cable..... The best pilots won!
If you make a rule that dictates to me how many years I am allowed to fly my plane in a category before I have to change either the plane or category, you’ll only see me on a golf course. If you do something like that, and I feel thats what you are hinting, this Club will disappear. The sport won’t but the club will.
My suggestion to you is to move up to a high priced high powered monoplane. After all Tony,
it’s the American way.
Tom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Adams
Thanks so much Tom for your thoughtfull post.....I've been holding off my response cause I've been assured by 2 more director's by e-mail that they would be posting a response also.....Would love for the remaining director's to at least give their perspective on this issue.....:cool:
Take care
Tony
Oh well, So much for more director's joining in....But moving on, Again Tom thanks so much for your post. I truly appreciate my director being responsive to my concerns even if he doesn't share them. You responded by wearing your 2 hats as a director & then as a member, Let me address both of you.....
Tom the Director said this below....
If you are serious about this subject you need to switch from being pro-vocal to being pro-active. When we spoke you asked me, * Am I supposed to contact each member personally?*.
well, yes, that*s how I would go about it. The thread you started, as it is, won*t get the job done. In seven pages on line you only had seven people responding to you.
Tom on being pro-active I wrote a letter to the magazine back 10-25-13 that I put a copy of on this forum called "Fair Unknowns" that address's this very topic from the perspective of designing sequences that would keep the "little guy" in a fair fight...I'm still waiting for a recognition that it was even recieved.
I do plan to make another attempt & do what you suggested by inviting participation in this thread. Hopefully I'll get a response this time.
As to the limited reponses to this thread you referenced ...I myself wish more of the membership was more pro-active to the issues they are aware of regardless of their position. I just assume it's kinda like the elections for the directorships each time ....only a handful of members even respond...Not because they don't have opinions...But I would venture that the views & responses to this obscure thread by percentage surpasses participation in the election ballots that are sent to every member!
Now to the forming of a commitie to accomplish my desire for the club to address what is an obvious disparity...No problem, I've been contacted by several members that have good ideas & suggestions. If after I can get Reggie to put something in the magazine I'll go about doing the commitie thing....Although I do wonder if every rule change that you guys do requires a commitie to get it done.
Now to ...Tom the fellow club member said this below ...
Now, Speaking as IAC member #1999, I can say I don*t completely agree with you. Yes, I see that the Single wing high horsepower A/C has some advantage. That advantage, however, can be a two headed snake. Advantages like higher speeds,more vertical penetration, longer lines,and 420*/sec. roll rate. I*ve had these advantages work against me on numerous occasions.The faster speeds eat the box,the long lines means more exposure to the judges.
I will however fly the higher performance machine because you don*t have to work as hard.
AAhhhhhh, The old to much performance is a disadvantage defense...You know of all the argument's that I have heard I guess this one is probably the best one that someone flying an unlimited mount year after year in advanced can come up with...But Tom...I appreciate that in the end you are honest that all things in the seat being equal..... the guy flying the higher API'ed mount is not working nearly as hard.....And is flying with a big advantage....and for the record you must fly the little small winged 1D at the same speeds as the unlimiteds to get any performance because of the limited wing area...Its just steady losing altitude the whole time.
You also said.....
Tony, Im sure you see where I*m going with this but let me tell you, the system isn*t broke. Our judges are the best in the world, trust me. I have been doing this sport sense 1972. That*s 42
years. During that time I averaged 6 regional and 1 National contest each year. I can honestly say that during that entire time, THE BEST PILOTS TOOK HOME THE TROPHIES. Tony, it made no difference who made the plane at the bottom of the stick or how big the engine was at the end of the throttle cable..... The best pilots won!
I never have said the system is broken....What I have said is that the IAC has not kept up with the category creep as well as equipment advancement by adopting rules to keep the "Legacy mount's" that are still advanced capable in a fair fight with the guys that like to use their pocketbook to buy more performance & park that performance in a lower category.
Now to the Best Pilots taking home the trophies regardless of mounts they are flying .....Would you seriously argue that 2 guys of equal skill flying 2 mounts with such differing API's will have a consistant result that is not BIASED to the higher API mount.....Tom there are always "Exceptions to the rules" but the rule remains regardless of the exceptions.....I.E. The guy flying a higher performance mount will win the majority of the time [skills being equal] regardless of the quality of the judges.
If for no other reason than presentation advantage of putting the flight in the performance zone.... and... if the members submiting the unknowns are mostly flying the unlimited mounts how can any reasonable person argue that the best pilots are winning the competitions?
Your last point below.....
If you make a rule that dictates to me how many years I am allowed to fly my plane in a category before I have to change either the plane or category, you*ll only see me on a golf course. If you do something like that, and I feel thats what you are hinting, this Club will disappear. The sport won*t but the club will.
My suggestion to you is to move up to a high priced high powered monoplane. After all Tony,
it*s the American way.
Now were getting to the real root of why were unlikely to change anything and where I appreciate your honesty. No doubt alot of the brethren would probably collect their toys from the sandbox and go home if their advantages in advanced were minimized.....rather than move up & play in the sandbox their toy was designed for. And Tom , You like another brother in an earlier post have proven its about the money your willing to spend more than the skills you have to be competitive in the category.
Because I believe I stand a better chance of getting something done by petitioning to get some fairness in sequence design to minimize the disparity as was the point of Giles Hendersons article a couple of magazines back as well as my original point in the "Fair Unknowns thread" thats where my efforts will be placed.
Besides Tom I prefer to be an underdog ....after all its the american way.:rollseyes:
Take care
Tony
6719 views ......Dang them peskey web crawlers.........:cool:
More like popcorn eaters Tony. ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by flyrite
:rollseyes::rollseyes::rollseyes::rollseyes::rolls eyes::rollseyes:
Anyone really think a 7ECA can do a good two point roll? They suck at a regular roll and now they want you to stop in the middle while the engine dies.
Life isn't fair. Success goes to the people with the best combination of intelligence, hard work and willingness to put success as a top priority.
Aerobatic competition isn't fair. Success goes to the people with the best combination of airplane, skills, hard work and willingness to put success as a top priority.
If you can't accept that, then go sit in a corner and sulk, but quit complaining.
BJC
What a great speech to attract new people to the sport!Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron J. Covey
Hey ssmdive, Don't let the snipers spin you up....The silly arguments that are put up regarding this issue border on comical. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by ssmdive
Ignore guys who offer nothing but more "self help classes on life's inequities" to defend the obvious.
Hope to meet you at the contest in feb. in Dunellon....Till then lets go to our respective corners [yours being an advanced skydiver champion] and mine being 2013 Advanced N.E. Champion & sulk as well as ponder our lack of success in our respective successes...Cause we obviously know nothing of prioritizing...hard work....or even having the intelligence to get where WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN!!!!!
Tony
P.S. maybe some of these self help guys will show up at some of the S.E. contests in person and demonstrate their superior skills in the contest arena.......YeeeHawwww:cool::cool::cool:
Dang Tony, you sure have aged since then. I remember a 40-something blond haired guy winning Advanced Nats in '13. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by flyrite
Yea I caught and fixed that Eric....N. E. ------N.E.-------N.E.------N.E. Advanced champion.....But ma wife sez I'm as handsome as that guy....Heh..Hehh...
But I'm convinced...Had I gone to Texas me & my 1D could have lost with the best of'em....:eek:
"Dowst it" I can't get away with nothin
To be fair, in 2014 I also got a Silver medal in Open 8 way and Open 16 way. So not just "Advanced". In Skydiving, "Open" is the highest class. I also won Advanced in 2003, in skydiving, once you win you have to move up for 5 years, I moved up a bit longer than that - In fact till 2013. But I placed in the top 10 in Open in 1998, 2002, 2004, 2005, (2006 got 11th DAMN IT), and 2007. Come to think of it.... I also: Won Silver in Open 8 way not just 2014, but also in 2006. In Open 16 way: Silver in 2009, 2010 (World Record), 2013 and 2014. In Open 10 way: Silver in 2009, 2013 and Bronze in 2010, and 2011. Plus a bunch of Int medals I don't care to track down to list. Some of those as a coach. But I mean what would I know about "skills, hard work and willingness to put success as a top priority"...... Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by flyrite
I plan on going to... Well, a bunch of competitions this year since I quit my fully sponsored, salaried skydiving team..... You know dropping one PAID hobby to focus on another - Does that count as, "willingness to put success as a top priority"???? Nah, I am sure he is correct and I know nothing about Competition and what it takes.Quote:
Originally Posted by flyrite
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssmdive
Well shoot...you obviously don't have what it takes to succeed, I'm sure you won't do well in the IAC without the rules to prop you up....Look forward to meeting you at one of the up coming contests.
BTW...Keep a look out for an article in one of the up coming issues of Sport Aerobatics magazine... I'll be looking to guys like you to make suggestions for future rules proposals.
Some of the points you have make to much sense to ignore...Look forward to working with you on future issues.
Take care
Tony
Thought I might add an update to this drawn out thread. I have through the months that this has been going on tried as best I could through personal e-mails as well as phone calls to get the rest of the directors to involve themselves [on the official IAC forum] just to get their perspective [regardless of what that is]. So that the people who elected them would at least know what their perspective on the issue is. That has been fruitless, It amazes me that some of the folks that make the decisions for the membership are willing to isolate & insolate themselves as they have done. I truly appreciate Tom Adams as well as our President [Mike] for at least being willing to give "Voice" to their perspective.
I do want to make sure that all the Directors know that I really am grateful for their sacrifice, I understand that it is a thankless as well as payless position....BUT, I would assume that you if you ran for the office you were willing to serve. I would then assume that that service would allow you to give opinions on current issues such as Mike & Tom have.
For the record, The only representatives that would even answer my calls were Mike, Tom, Michael, Bruce, The rest were left several voicemails as well as e-mails.
Take care
Tony