F3M - To Be or Not To Be

[Judge]

A pattern contest is certainly the venue best suited to integrate a contest into. They have the FAI aware judges, a box that can be easily changed to the 70 degree box, and the hang of doing an FAI class.

For "normal" regional/District contests I could see just flying the Known. The Freestyle and Unknown portions would be for a National level contest.

If you want to go the standalone route that would be the place to introduce a couple of easier sequences to attract people into the F3M fold. Most Advanced IMAC pilots, and maybe even some better Intermediate pilots would be able to get through the Known sequence with some practice, but it would still be a good idea to have at least one other sequence that is a little easier. A suggestion to consider would be to use the same base figures but change the roll elements on them and perhaps omit the roller for the lower class sequence.

Lots of things that could be done. If you start getting huge numbers you could think about running separate contests down the road. But as I have learned the important thing is to get going. Build it and they will come type of thing.

[McFueler]

Jim I was just wanting to know if the F3M contest would count if you only used the rules you wanted in order to have that contest at the same time as a pattern contest ? Because the main reason I have been against F3M all along is because their rules are so much differant from IMAC rules. With that being said then why not think about flying an F3M class using IMAC rules so it would work with an IMAC contest ? Then maybe you would not have so much trouble getting help from IMAC. After the rest of the world see that if F3M used IMAC rules it would work better then maybe they would change their rules to the AMA Scale Aerobatic Rules. This is just another idea for you to think about.

[Jim Woodward]

Hi Mark - I do value your input and of course it is welcome on this thread.

Here is they crux of my personal position - I believe the IMAC rules are deeply flawed for competing with model aerobatics. It is admirable to want to follow IAC to the N'th degree, but that goal to my opinion, has been a factor that allowed for the rules to become what they are today - mostly being ACS, then Sound score.

So - a major point of going down the F3M route is to escape ACS and Sound score, and return to flying model aerobatics using the 3-zone-angled box, with a judging pool that is already (or will become so), ready to apply box-infractions during a sequence. Box infractions are so severe, that if institutionally accepted, provide more than adequate "motivation" for the pilots to fly in the box. The lines have been used satisfactorilly for decades around the world and I have no doubt that if they are "institutionally" accepted as they are in the pattern/FAI/F3A sense, that F3M will not cause footpriint problems. The box provides the "goal" of where to flly the sequence and errors that are "percentage" of the infraction are applied. Please, no body come in and state that the box doesn't work.

If you can present a way for IMAC to accept the 3-zone-angled-box for this class and adopt it with some level of enthusiasm, then we can go forward the IMAC route as originally intended by my RFA.

Several people have posted here and the other thread with an understanding that IMAC wanted nothing to do with F3M nor offered insight into any future effort towards it. Yet, it was recently explained to me that perhaps this is not the correct interpretation of the RFA Rejection and that IMAC may want something to do with it, but could not say that at this point.

Do you know what the correct interpretation of the IMAC F3M Response is?

Thank You,
Jim

[Jim Woodward]

Poll is up. It will close in 7 days. This is for an initial opinion set to be gathered. People can of course change minds asinformation presents itself. We can do it again at a later date too.
Thanks,
Jim

[Judge]

The issue is that F3M exists as a defined FAI class. If you start tinkering with it to make it compatible with IMAC then it is no longer F3M. I suspect that there is zero chance that FAI will rewrite their rules to accommodate IMAC.

The one major thing I wish F3M did do was to use the Aresti Catalog for figure construction. I hate "made up figures" with K factors derived from no known criteria. The Aresti catalog provides a systematic and proven method to construct figures and derive and calculate K factors.

There is this extremely puzzling item in the F3M rules:

	Quote:
	Knowledge of the Aresti cryptographic system is highly recommended to all competitors and judges. Known and unknown schedules must use patterns according to the full size FAI Aresti catalogue.

Of course, the F3M sequences are not derived from the Aresti catalog, which is puzzling. But even F3A does not do this, which I have also never understood.

To me the "perfect" arrangement would be The F3M format with centering and a box flying sequences derived in accordance with the FAI-Aresti Catalog (and associated K factors).

Unfortunately this would eliminate some sacred cow figures like triangle loops, 3-roll element lines, coupled rolls in the same direction, and so on. But I think that would be a small price to pay for the consistency offered by using the Aresti Catalog.

[sweetpea]

Please correct me if I'm wrong (Judge).

But IMAC allows safety breaks (like almost mid airs) with no score penalty and Pattern does not. What will this F3M allow?

[Judge]

Not sure what the FAI rules are. At most pattern contests I have been to if there is a clear need for collision avoidance that is allowed without penalty. They just do not have it written into their rules like the Scale Aerobatics rules do.

I cannot imagine any CD or judge not allowing a break to avoid a collision.

[dmichael]

I've had a discussion on the subject of avoidance at pattern contests- a year or two ago- I was told that you could not call avoidance in pattern.

[Judge]

And I have witnessed twice at contest this year where it was fine. Most judges can tell the difference and do not penalize the pilot. I think the pattern rules need a tweak to write this into their rules, much as they have already written in about not downgrading a pilot who displaces a figure to avoid the sun.

Safety HAS to come first and any CD that does not allow for a no penalty safety break is taking things too far in my mind.

After doing some checking it is in fact not allowed in pattern, although like I said I have seen it happen without penalty. Sort of "local rules".

[sweetpea]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Judge
	After doing some checking it is in fact not allowed in pattern, although like I said I have seen it happen without penalty. Sort of "local rules".

That is what I thought. With the high cost of planes nowadays and the safety factor that rule needs changing. If I were the CD for the contest I'd have to allow the safety break for local contests. It would be in the sanction form though and posted up at least 30 days in advance.

[Jim Woodward]

I'm OK with safety/avoidance call. This is part of making the solution successful for local events.

Thinking ahead though, I would not agree with allowing "sequence breaks" of any type that allow the pilot to correct a missflown maneuver. This causes more strife and inconsistency than its worth so I would prefer this not to be available.

Thanks,
Jim

[Judge]

Here is the rule from the AMA rulebook for pattern:

	Quote:
	10.3: In the case of a collision during a Pattern flight, the contestants must immediately recover their aircraft. They may resume their flights with the same aircraft if the aircraft are judged to be airworthy or with a backup or repaired aircraft. They will begin with the maneuver that was in progress or with the next scheduled maneuver if the collision occurred between maneuvers. The previously defined starting times will apply for a resumed flight and the contestant will be allowed no more than two (2) passes in front of the judges for the purpose of trimming the plane. Scores of the previous maneuvers will be added to the scores of subsequent maneuvers in the resumed flight. The flight must be completed by the end of the round being flown, or within a time frame designated by the CD.

Of course this is in the case of an actual mid-air and not a break for avoidance

[BreadBowl]

For the guys who voted to add F3M to AMA pattern contests, why do you feel that way?

[dmichael]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Judge
	Here is the rule from the AMA rulebook for pattern: Of course this is in the case of an actual mid-air and not a break for avoidance

So you can fly the rest of the sequence with a back up plane after you mid-air. Small consolation.

When I inquired before I found that there are very clearly two separate schools of thought on the avoidance issue between pattern and IMAC. The pattern folks (at least those who posted when I asked) seemed to feel as though you didn't gain anything by avoiding- that you are just as likely to mid air when you try to avoid. Some were worried about a contestant abusing the avoidance rule - calling avoidance to have the opportunity to re-fly a maneuver that wasn't going well.

I happen to disagree.

[Judge]

I got the same answers, and I too disagree. It seems odd to me not to allow a break for avoidance. Myself, if I think I'm going to hit something I'm going to move. To do otherwise is negligent in my mind. I'll take the zero rather than potentially lose a plane.