Originally Posted by dunny

Hopefully some of the more influential IMAC officers are watching this thread so they can comment and get a little deeper into this. On the surface the potential rule change dosen't make much sense.

This thread could get interesting.

Dunny

IMAC BoD has nothing to do with it now. The proposed rule has been submitted to the AMA and is now in the AMA process. The Scale Aerobatics Contest Board is made up with one member from each AMA District. It is an AMA function, not an IMAC function. You need to contact your AMA District's SACB member and let them know what you think. They are the only ones who can vote on this now.

It bothers me how often I see the term "IMAC rules". I know it seems like splitting hairs, but there is no such thing. The ONLY rules are the AMA Scale Aerobatics Contest Rules.

True, IMAC as an AMA SIG has an influence on the rules, but think about this, in pattern you never hear anyone talk about the NSRCA Rules. Just the "pattern" rules. It is a small but important distinction.

Since the AMA rules pertain to everyone, IMAC member or not, I think these discussions are better held openly rather than on a member only forum.

FWIW I have ALWAYS been opposed to any scoring rule that is not directly a function of pilot skill. Sounds scores, airspace scores, these are all backdoor efforts to control noise impact. They have no place in the flight score of a pilot.

Originally Posted by Judge

IMAC BoD has nothing to do with it now. The proposed rule has been submitted to the AMA and is now in the AMA process. The Scale Aerobatics Contest Board is made up with one member from each AMA District. It is an AMA function, not an IMAC function. You need to contact your AMA District's SACB member and let them know what you think. They are the only ones who can vote on this now.

It bothers me how often I see the term "IMAC rules". I know it seems like splitting hairs, but there is no such thing. The ONLY rules are the AMA Scale Aerobatics Contest Rules.

True, IMAC as an AMA SIG has an influence on the rules, but think about this, in pattern you never hear anyone talk about the NSRCA Rules. Just the "pattern" rules. It is a small but important distinction.

Since the AMA rules pertain to everyone, IMAC member or not, I think these discussions are better held openly rather than on a member only forum.

Interesting information

Originally Posted by Judge

FWIW I have ALWAYS been opposed to any scoring rule that is not directly a function of pilot skill. Sounds scores, airspace scores, these are all backdoor efforts to control noise impact. They have no place in the flight score of a pilot.

Agreed

Here's the link to the COntest Board Members:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/cbmembers.aspx

Here are the currently pending Scale Aerobatics rules:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/...erobatics.aspx

Keep in mind that the only way to influence the process is by contacting your SACB representative. The votes are 100% in their hands.

good post

Judge is absolutely correct.
Contact the SACB members in your region and let them know how you feel about the issues.

Its in their hands now.
I hope they vote as the membership is asking them to.


I am in favor of anything that the majority of IMAC members want.

The good thing is that there IS a SACB now. Up until just a few years ago there was but one aerobatics contest board, populated by people from the pattern community. Many were not up to speed on issues concerning scale aerobatics to put it mildly.

Originally Posted by Judge

Here's the link to the COntest Board Members:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/cbmembers.aspx

Here are the currently pending Scale Aerobatics rules:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/...erobatics.aspx

Keep in mind that the only way to influence the process is by contacting your SACB representative. The votes are 100% in their hands.

This link only shows how to contact them via physical mail. I seriously doubt many people would take the time to use mail to voice their opinions. Could an e-mail address or phone number be provided so input can be made more conveniently? Since several reps are not active IMAC competitors having a more convenient way to contact them would ensure they get the direct feed back they need from the people they are supposed to represent.

Nothing shows true interest, class, and desire better than a good 'ole fashion letter.

Very true Curtis. I mailed a letter to all SCAB members before the first RCP vote and two of the ten members contacted me via phone to discuss the letter/issues. They do care and would love to hear from IMAC members.

Craig

Originally Posted by exeter_acres

Nothing shows true interest, class, and desire better than a good 'ole fashion letter.

Some would have you believe that if there isnt an online thread about issues the concerns are not real.

Bottom line, contact these people any way possible and be heard.
They represent you.

Agreed Wayne!!

If it is important to you, make the effort...
that holds true for ANYTHING....

IMAC, National Politics, whatever!

Sorry, I do not have all their email contact info.I at least thought it was a leg up letting you guys know about SACB and how it works.

FWIW July 30th is the deadline for submittal of cross proposals. The next vote to be taken by the SACB is due on August 15th. The final vote ballots are due for the SACB on September 15th. So if you are opposed or support certain rules proposals you need to get it in gear if you want your voice heard.

This document explains how the Contest Boards work and has the calendar of important dates they use:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/CBProcedures.doc

My Cross proposal was sent to the AMA this morning and Greg Hahn has confirmed he has received it.
He said it should be public in the next day or so.

Thanks Wayne.

Originally Posted by sweetpea

Sorry, but you cannot create a rule without criteria to judge it.

Plain and simple. Show me the judging criteria (and post it here for those not IMAC members) and how I am supposed to determine what is the difference between a 6 and a 7 in sound. i.e. at what level do I deduct a point or half point etc (even though I don't score halfpoints I could round up or down on the final score but that isn't even told what to do). Every other maneuver has criteria. While the old method didn't really have criteria it was simplier. Quiet is 10, anything louder is 5 and earsplitting was 0. Problem is if you rip the prop once does that make it a 0? What if I was quiet the rest of the flight, shouldn't I get a 5? Now add in 0-10 scoring and how many prop rips does it take to equal a zero (should be 10 right?). A no criteria rule is STUPID!

And what do we do with judges with hearing problems?

I agree with Sam. Judging criteria needs to be established; even if it is something simple like 0-10 and every time the prop rips in a sequence, a point is deduced from the sound score. Scoring that way attacks the root of the issue and that is throttle management. It is also less subjective since I could gather 10 judges together and I am sure they would all agree at what point a prop starts to rip, regardless of their hearing accuity (unless they were totally deaf). The pilot knows EXACTLY what will affect his score so he/she can adjust flying skills accordingly. Also, allow those RC fields that don't have a sound issue to waive any sound criteria so the pilot with a loud plane can decide what contests they want to spend money on attending without risk of impacting score or DQ.

The way this has been going, I believe the sound issue is going to eventually kill IMAC due to the increased complexity of the sequences requiring higher power and larger prop diameters. We are limited by physics and all the ranting and raving about this canister and that prop will not resolve the major contributor to noise.......supersonic prop tip speeds. Supersonic exhaust can be muzzled quite effectively by baffling without a great increase in weight. (Cost is another issue!) Ballistics silencing is a science that has been around for a long time. However, prop supersonic transition is omnidirectional and therefore can carry extremely large distances. No way to muzzle that! And lower pitch/larger prop diameters appear to help with upline recovery, so, you can see where that is going.

There are numerous variables to make these aircraft perform and it is was difficult enough to make everything balance out without worrying about sound. Once a sound limit is thrown into the equation, all other variables have to be adjusted. It's kind of like throwing it all back to square one.

My 2cents,
FWIW