Originally Posted by Dean Bird

The pilots are the root cause. I know we make rules to encourage them to do the things that are healthy for the sport, but that rarely works. We have a Sound score and the majority of pilots still do nothing to make their planes quiet. They show up with stock mufflers and 2-bladed props.

Until the pilots care about preserving the fields where we practice and compete, no rules change is going to help. All the stock mufflers and 2-bladed props are a WAY bigger issue with the loss of fields and nobody is suggesting we require all pilots to run canisters/pipes and 3-bladed carbon props. THAT would have a significant impact.

I don't like the idea of the three zone box. It would have minimal impact on the flight footprint. And it arbitrarily adds more deductions to the center maneuvers due to the centering criteria. The same maneuver flown on the end would be worth more. Doesn't make any sense.

This RFA looks like a whole lot of work for insignificant results. Make pilots keep their planes quiet. Now you've taken a step forward in saving our flying fields.

"The pilots are the root cause. I know we make rules to encourage them to do the things that are healthy for the sport, but that rarely works. We have a Sound score and the majority of pilots still do nothing to make their planes quiet. They show up with stock mufflers and 2-bladed props."

If the Contest Directors would grow big enough kahuna's and send these pilots packing after two consecutive rounds of zeros you would see three blades and cans at the next contest. Guaranteed ya!
All it take is a pilot being beat by someone and the only difference was the sound score the change will start! It only takes one to set the pace.

"This RFA looks like a whole lot of work for insignificant results. Make pilots keep their planes quiet. Now you've taken a step forward in saving our flying fields."

Now your talking!

why aren't the sponsors names listed?


Sponsors are not posted because that part of the RFA is hand written. Non text.

.

There seem to be a few issues rolled into one on the thread so I will try to break in to each
seperate concers .

ASC during the patterns has got out of hand , the patterns are being flown to far out and something needs to be changed in order to force the flyers to have a smaller foot print.
IMHO I think the 180 box should be re introduced , thats 300 meters in each direction and
also the 60 deg rule should also be re applied . As for the back of the box of I would like to
see the judges have the discression weather th ZERO the whole manouver because the plane
was to far out to score , "If i cant see it then you get a zero" .

Centre box is another thing all together , I think the patterns would have to be redesigned
prior to this being a criteria . Over all I do like the idea and presentation when centre box
is required but this is a personal . I also like going to the big comps where you get to see
different ways fo presenting the patterns so either way is fine by me .

Noise has been delt with in Australia , if you get a second warinig then you are in big trouble .
You must fix the problem prior to your next flight and if it is not fixed you will not fly . We have
very few problems in this area .

As I am the state CD for my region these thoughts are not my first on the issues .

Stuart Davies

ASAA (IMAC) Vic state CD

Originally Posted by Danny Baker

why aren't the sponsors names listed?


Sponsors are not posted because that part of the RFA is hand written. Non text.

correct...as my post stated.. they are on the RFA on the IMAC site....

1. We have hard enough time finding judges now you are talking about adding more judges in the mix.
2. Why dont we make triple ACS andsee what happens.
3. If we were to limit the size airplane we fly then we will have a smaller footprint. This would do alot for IMAC more people would consider flying if they could go to a contest and the biggest airplane was a 30% or 35% plane. Lots of new pilots dont like flying against 40%.
4. sound. Make the sound score weight more and require 3blade and cans. They do this at triple tree and its like going to watch the masters.
5. All this would help keep flying fields.

Josh

To address the ASC "K" factor, it has been addressed by the IRC, which I am a part of. I can assure you that it will have way more bite than it currently has

Sound has been addressed as well in the exact same manner

But they will not go into effect until 2011 so what do you do in the mean time, you get tough on the ASC and sound. You educate both the judges and pilots. I hear it now, we do educate but both parties fail to recognize it. One thing you can do is remind them we are guests at whatever field we are at and it is our duty to do the best we can to keep the club from getting complaints due to our activities. If you prove to a club that you are concerned, beyond just saying it, then you will most likely have a field the next time you want to hold an IMAC meet there. We cannot afford to lose fields.

I have spent all week, since the RFAs came out, reading everything I can and most all the complaints come from people losing fields do to overfly issues and sound. My guess is both existed before hand but the IMAC event due to larger, more powerful and in some cases certainly louder planes did not help matters.

As far as doing a zoned box, I'm totally against it. the ASC and Sound works. I've seen a few folks fly this years Unlimited and keep it in nice and tight and still not looked rushed so it can be done

Better pilot and judge education is our responsibility, do we really need a new rule to "help" us to what we know we should be doing anyway?

.

Originally Posted by Jim Woodward

This has all been said before right?

Jim

Indeed it has Jim. The zoneless box has been used for 4 years now, and for whatever reasons one wants to suggest, the bottom line is it has not solved our footprint problem. Some would say that it has even gotten worse.

As I see it, the vast majority of the powers that be, [both on the IMAC BOD and the AMA SA contest board] have their "IAC/ IMAC" blinders firmly in place, and that is not going to change any time soon. I fully expect the RFA requesting to return to a zoned 150 degree box, to be rejected.

IMO, [which we are all entitled to as all of us live in a country with free speech] this will eventually lead to the demise of IMAC, as fields and contests will continue to be lost. I really hope I am wrong, but I guess only time will tell.

If any of you who are reading this are in favor of the request within the RFA, I would encourage you to give it your support, and contact you’re RD, and voice your concerns.

Jim... I'm with 100%.

Again, we have good rules in place for sound. We do not follow them. (i agree with kent)

Why do we even let planes fly in Sportsman-Unlimited that do not have a pilot/panel, or an effective muffler system? If the criteria for IMAC is a scale plane, pilot/panel, effective sound requirements then if the planes don't meet the requirement then why let them even fly? (i left basic out intentionally)

Regarding the space issue... All judging critiera must be consistenly down graded. As a pilot if I over rotate on a roll I know what the downgrades are and can adjust my flying to meet the criteria described in the judging manual. ACS is way too subjective. What determines the difference between a 10 and and a 7? Weighting the ACS more makes this make even less sense without a clear definition of downgrades.

Regarding the center box and end box manuvers... i'm not saying that we need to change the positioning to reflect pattern. What I am saying is that at least bring the box back and let the pilots fly within that defined airspace.

I think Josh has some good points... again, instead of limiting the size of the planes.... limit the airspace and the footprint will help limit them due to the defined space that they can present the sequence.

Rollers: Most people fly them almost wide open... and the reason is you hear... "it presents better"... reality is that it is easier to fly and make it presentable. Limit the size and the rollers will fit... slow the planes down, the circle gets smaller.

Go to a few pattern contests and see how it is done. You guys are making a much bigger deal out of defining an airspace at a contest than it really is.

We did not have these discussions until the box was removed.

Just a procedural thing here, but rules proposals do NOT have to go through the IMAC BoD. They can be submitted directly to the AMA. In addition, since there is no clear safety issue or other factor that requires immediate attention this does not fit the criteria for an Urgent Rules Proposal (URP).

For the record I thought the Airspace Score was just another name for the "Positioning Score". I fought against it at the time but lost that one. I never liked getting rid of the 3 zone box either. But I will say that the use of angles lines to control box ends also has issues. If you want a zoned box the one and only way to accurately enforce it is to use end box judges. Two per flight line will be required.

And frankly sequence design is also another huge factor and I think IMAC has failed year after year to use sequences to keep things tight. One thing that would help it to eliminate rollers of any kind from Known sequences. They are always flown huge and cause all kinds of footprint issues. They are very low K and take a long time to fly. Relegate them to the Unknowns and that one thing will help reduce footprint and also speed up contests.

But as afar as the current proposal goes, if thye are serious they shold go directly to the AMA as and understand that the proposal does not fit the requirements fro a URP.

Remember, WE are responsible for how WE fly. Do rollers really need to use up 1/8 mile (660 feet) or more of airspace?

I'm just guessing here, but why would you fly a roller really big. I personally see two reasons, makes it harder for the judges to see mistakes and maybe so that the pilot can take their time which then makes it easier.

Originally Posted by Judge

Just a procedural thing here, but rules proposals do NOT have to go through the IMAC BoD. They can be submitted directly to the AMA. In addition, since there is no clear safety issue or other factor that requires immediate attention this does not fit the criteria for an Urgent Rules Proposal (URP).

For the record I thought the Airspace Score was just another name for the "Positioning Score". I fought against it at the time but lost that one. I never liked getting rid of the 3 zone box either. But I will say that the use of angles lines to control box ends also has issues. If you want a zoned box the one and only way to accurately enforce it is to use end box judges. Two per flight line will be required.

And frankly sequence design is also another huge factor and I think IMAC has failed year after year to use sequences to keep things tight. One thing that would help it to eliminate rollers of any kind from Known sequences. They are always flown huge and cause all kinds of footprint issues. They are very low K and take a long time to fly. Relegate them to the Unknowns and that one thing will help reduce footprint and also speed up contests.

But as afar as the current proposal goes, if thye are serious they shold go directly to the AMA as and understand that the proposal does not fit the requirements fro a URP.

I certainly respect your comments Bill.

If I may, consideration was given to submitting a rule change proposal [both regular and URP] to the AMA, however the AMA rules stipulate that one must be an AMA member, in order to do so.

This is the reason for the action that was taken.

Originally Posted by 300sflyer

I certainly respect your comments Bill.

If I may, consideration was given to submitting a rule change proposal [both regular and URP] to the AMA, however the AMA rules stipulate that one must be an AMA member, in order to do so.

This is the reason for the action that was taken.

Mike,

I think you got the wrong person, the quote you quoted was from Judge, not me, or am I dumb and Judge's name is Bill

Originally Posted by bubbagates

Mike,

I think you got the wrong person, the quote you quoted was from Judge, not me, or am I dumb and Judge's name is Bill

I'll let the other Bill answer that one...