"Clearest Presentation" or "Proper Gemotery" which to judge by.

[paffy]

	Quote: Originally Posted by KrisW
	2) Need to add "shgallower when going towrd center .

You must be really excited - I think you beat that dyslexic guy on the number of typos per sentence.

I specifically replaced the "shallow toward center" with "accurate" , because, geometrically speaking, on center, it appears just like true 45, not shallower.

P.

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by paffy
	You must be really excited - I think you beat that dyslexic guy on the number of typos per sentence. I specifically replaced the "shallow toward center" with "accurate" , because, geometrically speaking, on center, it appears just like true 45, not shallower. P.

Actually, I'm just dangling bait for the Curmudgeon to come along and correct my typoes again. That, and I split a fingernail on my index finger at work today . .kind of sensitive.

Still, "SHallower coming towards center" is needed for maneuvers such as Goldfish that have the 45 line starting well off center and may end before they cross center.

[paffy]

	Quote: Originally Posted by KrisW
	Actually, I'm just dangling bait for the Curmudgeon to come along and correct my typoes again. That, and I split a fingernail on my index finger at work today . .kind of sensitive. Still, "SHallower coming towards center" is needed for maneuvers such as Goldfish that have the 45 line starting well off center and may end before they cross center.

If we start discussing that, it would probably be the best to remove any helping text altogether.

Just stick with "must be 45", "must be straight" and "must be round".

P.

[Boulder]

	Quote: Originally Posted by KrisW
	Ahem. . your plane is too small. . . .

That's probably what it is

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by paffy
	If we start discussing that, it would probably be the best to remove any helping text altogether. Just stick with "must be 45", "must be straight" and "must be round". P.

Then add an explanatory passage concerning changing percetption due to angular deviation at the FRONT of the Guide.

[Judge]

Rather than spend endless time here arguing on the internet, why not take proactive action to try to make a change.

A wholesale re-write of the rules cannot be accomplished in an off-cycle process. However, and interpretation change can considered. Here are the AMA rules concerning that:

*********************
Interpretation Proposals
An Interpretation Proposal does not change the existing
rule but provides information designed to clarify it. It deals
with interpretations of the rules, or ways in which the rules
are applied in the field, where situations are not clearly
dangerous. Interpretation proposals will be dealt with as
described in 8.3 using options "B" & "C. This is the only
formal method by which a rule may be interpreted. The full
document on Contest Board Procedures is available from
AMA Headquarters and covers much more than this brief
summary. However, this brief version should allow each
reader to fulfill his responsibility in the running of our
organization in a democratic way.

New rules put in place by Urgent or Interpretation
proposals shall become mandatory on January 1 of the year
following their original issue (see 8.3.5). Rules put in place
by Safety/Emergency proposals are put in effect
immediately.

**********************

So I suggest that the AMA be contacted and the proper forms requested. Then the proposed changes and the reasons for them can be submitted to the AMA for consideration. If approved they will go into effect no sooner than January 1, 2008.

The Scale Aerobatics Contest Board (an AMA Contest Board) will review the proposal and consider the merits. They will then determine if it is a necessary change.

[Wayne]

	Quote: Originally Posted by paffy
	somehow I feel the original author is rolling his eyes over right now... P.

Dont forget everyone else except you, Judge, and KrisW who is reading this thread.


I fear what a new guy (someone who is considerng IMAC) is thinking when he / she reads some of these threads lately.

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Judge
	Rather than spend endless time here arguing on the internet, why not take proactive action to try to make a change. A wholesale re-write of the rules cannot be accomplished in an off-cycle process. However, and interpretation change can considered. Here are the AMA rules concerning that: So I suggest that the AMA be contacted and the proper forms requested. Then the proposed changes and the reasons for them can be submitted to the AMA for consideration. If approved they will go into effect no sooner than January 1, 2008. The Scale Aerobatics Contest Board (an AMA Contest Board) will review the proposal and consider the merits. They will then determine if it is a necessary change.

Bill. . .WE are not arguing. . WE are AGREEING . or DISCUSSING. . .or brainstorming, or thinking, or exchanging ideas. . or something like that. You are free to not spend hours arguing with us on the Internet, if you so desire..

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Wayne
	Dont forget everyone else except you, Judge, and KrisW who is reading this thread. I fear what a new guy (someone who is considerng IMAC) is thinking when he / she reads some of these threads lately.

They are probably thinking they can't get concise accurate answers that are not a cut and pasted quotation from the rulebook from the major "authority figures" in IMAC, and that the people who are trying to hash out and solve the problems and ask, consider all the factors, then answer all the questions, are not the ones in authority.

And they are probably thinking that if they have a question they will get way too many differing opinions, because no one has had the guts to set the rules, and interpretations, in stone. . .which is what IMAC needs, but no one seems to want to do.

[Wayne]

	Quote: Originally Posted by KrisW
	They are probably thinking they can't get concise accurate answers that are not part of the rulebook from the major "authority figures" in IMAC, and that the people who are trying to hash out and solve the problems are not the ones in authority. And they are probably thinking that if they have a question they will get way too many differing opinions, because no one has had the guts to set the rules, and interpretations, in stone. . .which is what IMAC needs, but no one seems to want to do.

If it was me, thats not what i'd be thinking.

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by paffy
	If we start discussing that, it would probably be the best to remove any helping text altogether. Just stick with "must be 45", "must be straight" and "must be round". P.

You forgot to go into family 9.11-9.12 in section 8.9.5 and add the clarifications for downgrades of the wingtip drop with the nose in a spin, and when the spin will no longer be considered a spin due to the length of forward stalled flight after the planes nose drops below the horizon, Paul. I'd say, a subjective 3-4 plane lengths of forward flight renders the spin entry no longer valid, and the maneuver should then be considered a FORCE, no matter what happens after that. It would go a long way toward ending any ambiguity in this area. But, we are not here to argue about Spins again, though if the rules were written this way there would be no arguing about them ever again for this "deviation" occuring.

[KrisW]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Wayne
	If it was me, thats not what i'd be thinking.

But you have already made up your mind how you will react.

In reality, they'd probably be wondering why IMAC is in such dire straits for it's judging and interpretation of the rules, considering how long it has been in existence. . then brand us ALL a bunch of losers and walk off because we obviously do not have our SIG's act together yet.

[Boulder]

And to think I was actually going to skip a few Pattern contests this year and try a few IMAC events.

[paffy]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Wayne
	Dont forget everyone else except you, Judge, and KrisW who is reading this thread. I fear what a new guy (someone who is considerng IMAC) is thinking when he / she reads some of these threads lately.

How would you feel if you attended an IMAC flying/judgin seminar to get some clear answers and half the instructors said A and the other half said exact opposite of it ?

That's exactly what happened. It could drive many people away from IMAC real quick.

If you feel totally indifferent to this, that's fine. I know many competitors who don't.

P.

[paffy]

	Quote: Originally Posted by KrisW
	You forgot to go into family 9.11-9.12 in section 8.9.5 and add the clarifications for downgrades of the wingtip drop with the nose in a spin, and when the spin will no longer be considered a spin due to the length of forward stalled flight after the planes nose drops below the horizon, Paul. I'd say, a subjective 3-4 plane lengths of forward flight renders the spin entry no longer valid, and the maneuver should then be considered a FORCE, no matter what happens after that. It would go a long way toward ending any ambiguity in this area. But, we are not here to argue about Spins again, though if the rules were written this way there would be no arguing about them ever again for this "deviation" occuring.

You'll have to fight that one alone. You don't have much popular support on it though.