IMAC Pilot/Panel Rule

[Judge]

I would like somebody to define for me what this means:

	Quote:
	6.6: A realistic three-dimensional human pilot and viewable instrument panel shall be appropriately installed in all Scale Aerobatic aircraft.

What constitutes "realistic"?

What does a "viewable" panel mean?

What is meant by "appropriately installed"?

For instance, I was at a contest where a CD allowed an unpainted 1/12th scale Williams jet pilot figure to be considered as "realistic" and meeting the rules.

A viewable instrument panel - Does that mean a scale like panel with 3D gauges, or is a black and white photo copy of the panel of a 747 stuck flat on the canopy floor OK (which the aforementioned example also had). I know this really means that no opaque canopies are allowed, so why not just say that?

It is sort of amusing that AMA scale events and Top Gun do not require pilot figures, but IMAC thinks they are needed to make our planes look more "scale". And I am fine with that as long as the rules are written in a meaningful manner, which the current rule is not.

Should IMAC require a "scale correct" pilot? How often have you seen pilot figures that are way too small for the plane? Do photocopies of any airplane panel, jets, etc. really add to the scale look of the plane and why should they influence the score?

Helmet head pilot figures are popular in IMAC but are they really appropriate to an aerobatic plane. I know that the Red Bull racer's wear them, but aren't we supposed to be emulating IAC? How many IAC pilots wear full face motorcycle helmets?? 3/4 helmets are not uncommon, but the full face helmets do not seem very common. So do they really add to the sacle like impression of an IMAC plane?? Shouldn't "realistic" mean that you can actually see the thing at an IAC contest??

This rule was originally written to account for the added weight penalty of having a pilot and panel back when a 1.2 4-stroke was considered a monster engine. With our current crop of planes and engines there is no sensible argument about weight penalty that can be made so the fundamental basis of this rule has been lost. The new rationale is that it makes the plane look scale, but it is so poorly written that it really does nothing along those lines.

And finally, why on Earth does this affect the FLIGHT score?? If a pilot and panel are so integral to making an IMAC plane appear "scale" like why not simply make them mandatory, don't have a pilot and panel? Then you cannot fly. But even then I feel that the wording needs to be tightened up to better define exactly what is OK and what is not.

[kevod]

Judge -

I could not agree with you more on this subject, I agree that the rule is outdated and also should not affect the flying score.

I lost 3rd place to another pilot at a contest last year because of the penalty imposed from this rule.
The other pilot was an excellent pilot, but I had the position won because of my flying, but lost it because of the pilot/panel penalty.

I am not whining or complaining (ok - maybe just a little ) and did not dispute the results to the CD as the rule and penalty was known and advertised well ahead of the contest and during the Saturday pilot's meeting.

I bought my current plane (a 42% Giles) from another pilot that had painted the canopy silver - I love the look of it, but it would make it hard to prove that I have a pilot/panel at a competition since I would have to remove the canopy.

Another problem in my mind with this rule is that to get a good quality setup of a pilot and/or panel can be very expensive but it does not provide any extra functionality or safety to the plane.
My personal rule is to spend good money where it is needed to make the plane safe for everybody.

If I were to buy anything to meet this rule it would be the absolute cheapest pilot that I could find and I would print out a crappy looking panel from the internet since you can't even see it from the outside of the plane anyway.

Just my 2 cents - take it as such.

-- Kevod

[sweetpea]

There were 2 pilots who wore an F-1 style helmet in IAC in the past. While its not popular it is realistic. And Judge you know this becuase its been posted here on FG before with the picture.

But I'm all for a change in the rule.


Something like this---

-*this section does not apply to Basic. Basic is fly what you have
-a Lifelike 3-d pilot at approximate scale to the size plane consistent with looks of past/present IAC pilots
-an Aerobatic consistent dash,can be either 3d or on photo paper but in color (note: attempt dash layout to be realistic of the brand plane (i.e. Yak, Extra, Cap, Edge etc.)
-Pilot and Instrument panel must be attached to airplane in a scalelike position and not free floating.
-no opaque canopies

If you have these, you get to fly. If not you are DQ'd.


Of course my version can be cleaned up slightly to read better. I also think that this rule should not be allowed to be waiverable once its better defined. A waiver to me is for something the CD cannot control.....I.E. limiting manuevers due to sound footprint at a particular site.....Not because the CD doesn't feel like enforcing a rule.

[DKnippen]

Judge,
I totally agree with you on this subject. I feel the Pilot Panel rule should have especially no bearing on your score and should be a Pilots option if he chooses. This Rule was brought up in 05 and I and a few other Scale Contest Board members voted against the rule but were defeated, and the rule stands to this day.
As an AMA member you can get a Basic Rules Change Proposal form from the AMA. Fill out your request and send it in for the next Rules change cycle. I think rules proposals will be accepted until Sept. of 09.
I believe the emphasis was that flying a Scale aerobatic plane you should also have a pilot and instrument panel except for Basic Pilots.

[sweetpea]

	Quote: Originally Posted by DKnippen
	I think rules proposals will be accepted until Sept. of 09. I believe the emphasis was that flying a Scale aerobatic plane you should also have a pilot and instrument panel except for Basic Pilots.

I think you are correct on Sept. I'll have to submit a cleaner version of mine.

I have no problem if the emphasis lies there. But it should fall under the same rule as the 10% scale. You don't have it, you don't fly. Pilots can be had at a reasonable price (under $50 for both pilot and dash). Heck most planes come with a dash so that puts it even cheaper to get a pilot figure.

You spend what you want on one.....I have one that is over $100 with custom paint and I have one that cost me $30 and I painted it myself. Both are very nice.

[Judge]

	Quote: Originally Posted by sweetpea
	There were 2 pilots who wore an F-1 style helmet in IAC in the past. While its not popular it is realistic. And Judge you know this becuase its been posted here on FG before with the picture.

Not really the core of the argument and like I said, it is not un heard of, just not all that common.

	Quote:
	Something like this--- -*this section does not apply to Basic. Basic is fly what you have -a Lifelike 3-d pilot at approximate scale to the size plane consistent with looks of past/present IAC pilots -an Aerobatic consistent dash,can be either 3d or on photo paper but in color (note: attempt dash layout to be realistic of the brand plane (i.e. Yak, Extra, Cap, Edge etc.) -Pilot and Instrument panel must be attached to airplane in a scalelike position and not free floating. -no opaque canopies If you have these, you get to fly. If not you are DQ'd. Of course my version can be cleaned up slightly to read better. I also think that this rule should not be allowed to be waiverable once its better defined. A waiver to me is for something the CD cannot control.....I.E. limiting manuevers due to sound footprint at a particular site.....Not because the CD doesn't feel like enforcing a rule.

This is moving in the right direction.

[Jim Woodward]

If given an opportunity to vote, I would vote to eliminate the pilot/dash requirement. The people that want them will still buy them, the people that want to paint or tint canopys can do that then.
Jim

[Judge]

	Quote: Originally Posted by DKnippen
	Judge, I totally agree with you on this subject. I feel the Pilot Panel rule should have especially no bearing on your score and should be a Pilots option if he chooses. This Rule was brought up in 05 and I and a few other Scale Contest Board members voted against the rule but were defeated, and the rule stands to this day.

Recall that I was the chairman of the IRSC at the time. I felt completely sideswiped on this since the Contest board appeared to support the rule change and then changed their moinds at the last minute.

	Quote:
	I believe the emphasis was that flying a Scale aerobatic plane you should also have a pilot and instrument panel except for Basic Pilots.

This is the current defense of the rule. I think it is absurd since we allow so many other non-scale deviations. And like I said, not even the SCALE events require qa pilot, so why is it the defining factor of scale for IMAC??

[sweetpea]

Jim, you have the opportunity to vote, sorta. Fill out the rule submission and submit it. For now that is the best you can do.

[Judge]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Jim Woodward
	If given an opportunity to vote, I would vote to eliminate the pilot/dash requirement. The people that want them will still buy them, the people that want to paint or tint canopys can do that then. Jim

This would be my preference as well, but if we MUST have them then it needs to be defined far better and removed from the scoring of the pilot. I'll go to my grave trying to understand why this should affect your FLIGHT score.

[crhammond]

Yes, the current rule is badly written and it is very unfortunate that it effects the flight score. The pilot would have to weigh 2lbs in the planes we have to make any difference.

I never had pilots in my planes before but I have become attached to them. They look cool... and spectators and other sport flyers often comment on how cool it is to be able to clearly see the pilot in a 40%er (one that is correctly sized) during the maneuvers. But affect the flight score, that is silly in the current scheme of things I agree 100%.

I won a very close contest once because of that rule and its a STUPID way to win. I wish I could forget about it. I think at the next contest I see the pilot I am going to give him the trophy because 2 years later it still makes me feel bad even though it was a "not important" local contest. Now that I have more experience it just makes me feel ashamed.

IMO the rule should say "No opaque canopies allowed" or as per what SP wrote. You follow the rule or you don't fly, simple as that. I fly scalemasters too and we MAKE THE PILOTS REMOVE the scale pilot for judging if it is removable! That is so it won't unduly influence the score or obstruct the outline view in some way.

While we're at it... sound and ACS

I understand the reasoning behind scoring to make people care about it. But I would rather see a non-scoring line item recommending a CD review for "loud" airplanes. Then the CD can issue warnings and or ground a loud airplane.

The ACS could be more defined into scores for energy management, positioning, and presentation. Right now there is no way in the rules to adequately reward a very flowing, constant speed, well positioned smooth flying pilot VS a super choppy but accurately presented flight. The ACS does not carry enough weight... Also the ACS scores I have seen (and admittedly I have limited experience) are very clustered and there are not enough criteria for judges.

Sound should be - you're too loud - once you fix it or you're okay so now show us how you can FLY. Scoring sound to try and force pilots into good behavior does not make sense to me.

[crhammond]

Oh and I'm from Canada so I can submit a form but not being part fot eh AMA I don't know if it counts. I know that a form submitted to IMAC willd efinately get looked at by the BOD and the BOD has certainly always listened to us... but I'm not sure a non AMA member can make an official RFA???

[lazyboyflyer]

I didn't like the pilot/ panel rule at all and refused to go and spend money for a pilot and panel. But I did make a pilot out of some foam and a paper panel for no cost to satisfy the rule and the only CD that was enforcing the rule in the SW region. I'm still using the same pilot and panel today.

[lazyboyflyer]

Not one dime, just labor.

[jaguar bone]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Judge
	I would like somebody to define for me what this means: What constitutes "realistic"?

Simply human perhaps?