Originally Posted by pcastine

Any further consideration about my idea from post #13, about a binary test for each figure under the ASC?

I still am not in favor of a 150 box, because there is no objective way to tell when the pilot has blown the back of the box. Most of the overfly issues I've encounted in IMAC have been with flying too far straight out (primarily issues with rollers) not with flying too far down end box. And if we implement a 1000' depth of the box (down from 2000' depth of the 180 box), we can be almost certain that the back will be blown.

Pete

I read #13 but is still doesn't have a criteria. I understand the was the figure easy to judge and clear, but your view of that and mind may be different. That is bascially were we are at with ACS. The membership is looking for a criteria to judge by. Airspace, zoneless, or what ever else hasn't had a criteria. We need a criteria.

With the box from my own experince. If a pilot is out he know it as well as I do. He can see the same lines I can on the ground. From I pilots point of view. I knew each time I flew out and was not surprised when I saw my score.

Now the depth of the box can be discussed. We all know the roller is what pushes out so far. It's not the seqence as a whole. Personally I wouid rather see a vertical roller, but we know that isn't going to happen. In all the rollers will always be big no matter if there is a box or not. It's the nature of the beast. IMO.

Right now with ACS I don't have any idea why I scored the way I did, and when asking the judge about it. He or she doesn't have a clue either.

I read post #1 as edited by Rick. I think the way it is written with exception to the centering, 60 degree from horizon, the outer boundary parallel to the flightline, and the penalty matrix. I particularly like:

"Because the judges are located behind the pilot, the only box infringements generally noted are the
one that can easily be assessed using the 75 degree markers reference on the ground. Although judging
the side and back infringements are more difficult due to the lack of references, judges should still take
them into account if the aircraft clearly goes past these boundaries. In case of uncertainty, always give the
competitor the benefit of the doubt."

I think that covers the back of the box faily well.

Other opinions?

Let me preface my statement by saying I am very much in favor of efforts to reduce the size of the IMAC footprint or addressing noise and overfly issues. I think we have to be careful not to knee jerk react and make sure we are addressing the real issues constructively and not just throwing solutions out in the hope that something will work or to respond to a few very vocal constituents. That being said, I would hate for unforseen negative consequeces to crop up after rule changes are put in place.

Maybe it's just me since I have had two mid-airs within the last two years but if I read the proposal correctly, the box would be 75 degrees right and left from the pilot position, 1000' deep at the center, 900' right of center and 900' left of center at the back of the box? Is that correct? If accurate, the purpose is to substantially condensed aerobatic airspace.

Anyone considered:
Two flight lines = two larger airplanes (certainly larger than pattern)+ smaller, more condensed sequences as designed by the sequence committee + smaller, more condensed box + better piloting (I have observed pilots in all classes performing better, straighter lines intended to optimally positioned the aircraft for judging). Add this all up and IMHO, the chances for mid-airs significantly increases. I don't know for sure, but I think there were more mid-airs this year at NC contests than have been seen in the past as pilots attempted to make their footprints smaller.

Anyone else have this concern?

Would there be benefit to asking IMAC CD's there opinion about the ACS rule change. After all, they are the ones that will have to find a way to implement the changes.
Just some thoughts for consideration.
Mike R.

Agreed with your points, we need to get rid of the 60 degree limit and make it the deadline only.
Also the note about smaller boxes being accepted if notified in writing 30 days prior, why not have a larger box notation as well? Give places that don't have these issues something to work with. Places like Tucson don't use ACS anyway. Not sure what CC will do. Just say something simple. For locations that have no size constraints a 180 degree box may be used if published in writing at least 30 days prior to the contest date. In this case no box or ACS scores will be used. All other airspace rules apply...
Will

Originally Posted by Ryans Rebel

I read post #1 as edited by Rick. I think the way it is written with exception to the centering, 60 degree from horizon, the outer boundary parallel to the flightline, and the penalty matrix. I particularly like:

"Because the judges are located behind the pilot, the only box infringements generally noted are the
one that can easily be assessed using the 75 degree markers reference on the ground. Although judging
the side and back infringements are more difficult due to the lack of references, judges should still take
them into account if the aircraft clearly goes past these boundaries. In case of uncertainty, always give the
competitor the benefit of the doubt."

I think that covers the back of the box faily well.

Other opinions?

I thought this was to be easier than the current system.

How does a judge visualize the 1800 box length? If one follows the 75 dgree line out to the 1000 ft back of the box, the length would be 7460 ft if my trig is right.

Ed, if it's a right triangle, isn't it A(sq) + B(sq) = C(sq)? 1000' straight out (depth), width of 1/2 of the box is 900', therefore the line can't be longer than 1345' until you hit the back corner of the box.

Rick, I agree it's difficult (if not impossible) to apply purely objective criteria to the ASC. However, we could create guidelines to make the application of downgrades more consistent. If it's done on a figure by figure basis, it leaves less subjectivity than trying to evaluate the sequence as a whole after the end of the sequence.

So, my premise would be that a judge must apply a yes/no decision to each figure. The downgrade is applied by figure, not to the sequence as a whole. The guidelines to follow when making the yes/no decision for the figure could be:

**Was the figure flown at a distance such that it was easy to reasonably discern the roll, pitch, and yaw axes of the aircraft throughout the entire figure?
**Did the pilot fly reasonable-length vertical or horizontal lines within the figure, such that the figure as a whole wass not viewed as excessively large?
**Did the pilot fly a reasonable-length horizontal line proceeding or following this figure (as the case may be), such that the figure was separated from the proceeding/following figure by a reasonable distance?

If the answer to all guidelines is yes, then no downgrade for that figure. If no on one or more, then down grade (benefit of the doubt to pilot). Of course, there will be a number of times when the answer is not "yes" or "no" but "I think/don't think so". Benefit of the doubt has to apply here. And obviously these guidelines could be hashed out and wordsmithed a bit better, and we'd have to determine what the penalty is for the downgrade. Perhaps we start small with a 1 pt downgrade.

Thanks,
Pete

Originally Posted by pcastine

Ed, if it's a right triangle, isn't it A(sq) + B(sq) = C(sq)? 1000' straight out (depth), width of 1/2 of the box is 900', therefore the line can't be longer than 1345' until you hit the back corner of the box.

You've captured the issue. Your trig is ok for the back of the box but you describe a 42 degree angle. That means that at the back of the box (1000 ft from pilot) the box is only 84 degrees.

Folks talk about the difficulties in judging ASC, I maintain that knowing the limits of the box will be just as difficult.

Ed

Here is the proposed shape of the box as I understand post #1. I don't see how a judge sitting near the apex of the 150 degree lines can see the 1000 ft back and 1800 length unless we use spotters.

I think your correct in your box diagram except I think that the 100 foot no fly line continues past the intersection of the 75 degree box lines.
Will

Originally Posted by Ed Kincer

Here is the proposed shape of the box as I understand post #1. I don't see how a judge sitting near the apex of the 150 degree lines can see the 1000 ft back and 1800 length unless we use spotters.

Will, I agree with the 100 ft dead line extension.

As I look at the box diagram, I realize that the 150 degree (2 x 75) lines are almost meaningless. They are only in play if the aircraft is flying within a line 243 ft from the pilot. In my limited experience, most pilots fly well beyond that distance.

See RCP 026 and 027 for further discussion. I seperated the post after a suggestions from Bill James on page 1. We will submit two proposals to the BOD and then let them decided the outcome.

Thanks,

Rick