Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Proposed Rule Changes for 2013

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Seattle, WA and Tucson, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by WLIU View Post
    First, no one has taken advantage of the rule.
    Actually, one Advanced competitor flew a 4-Minute Free Program in Ohio this year.


  2. #22

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    New Hampshire
    Thanks for the info. That is actually sort of good news in that the effort that IAC volunteers put into last year's rule change benefited one member. But it begs the question of whether the IAC contest rules should contain paragraphs that benefit one or two members.

    Hope that the minutes if the fall board meeting offer some insight into the discussion on this one.



  3. #23
    13-1 Disagree

    13-2 Agree

    13-3 Disagree

    13-4 Strongly Agree

    My thoughts are directly inline with Jim and Martin’s comments. This rule provides the direction and language to support what many chief judges already have done and/or would do if necessary while removing the uncertainty that currently exists around what to do in this situation. Unfortunately sometimes this problem occurs and chief judges are unsure of or are on the fence about calling a flight. By adding this to the rules it simply clarifies for competitors, judges and juries what is not only allowed by expected in order to maintain the highest level of safety.

    13-5 Strongly Disagree

    I supported the initial rule change and see no reason why it should be changed back (no issues with the change during this last year to my knowledge). The rationale states “The ICAS waiver is NOT designed to test skills that are required to fly a competent 4-Minute Freestyle.” I would argue that IAC does not test skills or even provide oversight for teaching competitors about low-level flying, “airshow-style” or “competition-style”. Thus, in many cases I would argue that an Advanced competitor with a 250ft card may have more experience, understanding and training for this type of flying and thus may actually be safer than an Unlimited pilot with no training in low-level flying and/or airshow energy management. As Rob points out, the arguments that are brought up in the rationale of this rule change proposal could easily be used against many Unlimited pilots (something that Eric Sandifer also clearly points out). If IAC’s goals are to increase participation and safety the inclusion of pilots with an SAC Level 2 card who have actually sat down for a checkride with an ACE would seem to not only benefit for our organization (as not only do they have to take a checkride but they have to do so every year which is an additional safety measure) but help meet both goals.

    13-6 Disagree

    This seems to be something more along the personal limitation lines – especially when it comes to surface winds.

  4. #24
    AcroGimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    San Diego, CA
    13-1 - Disagree

    13-2 - Agree

    13-3 - Agree

    13-4 - Agree

    13-5 - Disagree

    13-6 - Disagree

    Whether you think you can, or think you can't, you're right.

    EAA Chapter 14, IAC Chapter 36

  5. #25
    13-1: agree.

    13-2: agree.

    13-3: agree.

    13-4: agree.

    13-5: agree.

    13-6: disagree. real world conditions, planes, and pilots are much too varied for such a simple blanket rule to be applicable, especially with such high limits.

    iac 16830

  6. #26
    13-1 Abstain: and may cause problems for a slow rolling airplanes, especially if those roll components are 2x4's, but other than those, the remaining figures should be within the capabilities of both pilots and airplanes in the category.

    13-2 Support

    13-3 Support

    13-4 Support

    13-5 Support: One year does not constitute a reasonable period for evaluation of this new rule.

    13-6 Abstain (but leaning towards Do Not Support)

Posting Permissions

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