Proposed Knowns and Rules for 2011

As a competitor in the northeast US, President of IAC Chapter 35, and one instigator of this rules change proposal, I strongly urge that the IAC Board vote in favor of the rules change 11-12.  Here in the Northeast the land owners, combined with the terrain and forests make it very unusual for a contest to be able to mark more than two corners of the box.  We envy the pilots in other parts of the country where land is inexpensive, fields are open, and land owners are friendly.  We also have a generation of pilots now who have not had any incentive to learn presentation since they rarely ever are penalized for flying behind the box.  This has had some comical results when pilots from this area encounter a box with marked and guarded boundaries.

Up here in the Northeast we would like better real estate for our contests, but it does not exist.   We do the best that we can with the available real estate.  That said, the rules can and should address this situation so as to better allow the pilots who can execute good presentation to better stand out from those who do not.

CIVA rules provide for these types of contest locations, British and Australian rules do also.   IAC rules should follow those leads.

Thanks,

    Wes Liu

    President IAC 35

Well, after I reread my post I realized that I need to post that the rules change proposal that we need here in the northeast is #11-12, for adjusting the presentation K factors when we can not put out all of the boundary judges.

Updated - Was able to edit the post above.

Best,

   Wes

I just flew the intermediate proposed in my 150HP S1C, it works well for me. It challenges the pilot, aircraft, and doesn't eat up too much altitude.

Hi All.

Here are my comments on the proposed 2011 rule changes. Thanks to those who took the time to propose changes, and to IAC leadership for considering all comments.

DJ Molny, IAC Chapter 12, Boulder CO

11-1 (Reduces allowable rolls on "uphill" lines in Intermediate Unknowns.) Agree. There are plenty of other ways to construct Intermediate Frees, and we don't want to penalize or jeopardize pilots in aircraft that are at the lower end of the performance spectrum.

11-2 (Adds "45-down-hammer" to catalog of Intermediate Unknown figures) Agree. This figure is safe, easy, fun, and gives sequence designers more options.

11-3 (Allows limited use of unlinked and opposite rolls on horizontal lines in Intermediate Power Unknowns) Agree. Same comments as 11-2.

11-4 (Separate awards for best first-time Power vs. Glider Sportsman pilots) Disagree. Trophy costs are often the highest line item in our contest budgets, and that's for basic plaques with simple engraved plates. Adding another mandatory award will drive up costs a bit, and there's nothing to prevent a contest from adding a separate Glider Sportsman award if they wish. Finally, I see nothing intrinsically wrong with grouping all first-time Glider and Power Sportsman pilots together when determining who had the best debut.

11-5 (Remove references to hot box panels) Agree. If anything, this change is overdue.

11-6 (Allow motor gliders to compete in glider categories) Agree. Given the delays and costs associated with tow planes, this should improve contest operations considerably.

11-7 (Allow motor gliders to compete in power categories) Abstain. I really can't see this issue coming up very often, or possibly ever.

11-8 (Broadens the responsibility of judges to avoid conflicts of interest) Disagree.The current rules draw a bright line by saying "thou shalt not judge thy family member's aerobatic figures." Fair enough. But at a typical contest, I'll know most of the pilots pretty well. Relationships run the gamut from good friend to acquaintance to mentor to student to adversary. Simply put, I have no idea how to decide what constitutes actual or potential bias. This proposal would make the VC's already-difficult work more controversial and maybe impossible.

11-9 & 11-10 (Clarifying judges recurrency requirements) Needs Work. Changing "Attending an approved ... seminar" to "Completing an approved ... seminar" is worthwhile. However, I'm not sure what a "contest year" is. Perhaps "calendar year" would be clearer? Finally, I'm neutral as to whether the current hard-and-fast 18 month window is in any way preferable to the prior calendar year + the partial current year.

11-11 (Do away with "-N" judging certifications.) Agree. Few judges fit these criteria, and those few are rarely called upon to fulfill the limited duties of those roles. In my experience, these rules just add confusion and waste time in Judges Schools and provide no practical benefit.

11-12 (Increasing the Presentation K-factor when it's not possible to monitor all four box boundaries) Agree. This situation comes up fairly often. In the past we've often addressed this by only posting one corner judge, which does allow the craftier competitors to game the system a bit. So I think this is a good solution: monitor all boundaries or none. Note: This will require both procedural and software changes to the scoring process!

# 11-12 is fine as far as it goes.  It should be illegal to monitor any boundary for which there are not at least two markers.  Absent two markers, it is impossible for the pilot to "range" or line up in conditions in which it is necessary to crowd the edge of the box.  It is therefore possible to have a corner judge but  totally inadequate references for the competitor. This situation gives an enormous unfair advantage to local competitors who "know" the box at the expense of those who come long distances to compete.

 With only two Power Sportsman sequences to choose from, I prefer the "B" over the "A" only because with sportsman being the first step up from primary I'm not sure that putting a Split S near the end of the sequence is really too good an idea. I think either will work but that's just a thought. Fly Safe!

Jeff

Wow, all the heated controversy last year about proposing the dreaded 1 1/4 spin in Sportsman, and now not even a mouse fart!
 

Glider Sportsman  REV1 Looks great!

Thank you!

I prefer Power Sportsman A over B.

Not a fan of the Split S in A, but the energy management is about right to not start the maneuver too fast.

In Sportsman B, the figure 6-7-8 sequence on the downwind will be difficult to keep in box with strong winds like we often have in the midwest. Switching figures 6 and 8 could alleviate some of the problem, but the downwind humpty is generally not well received.

Just my take, for what it's worth.

Smash to live and live to smash.

Hi,

Here's my feedback on the 2011 proposed rules and Intermediate Known.  Kudos to everyone who's contributed to this good work.

Jim

Proposed rule changes:

No. 11-1:  "Modifies two Intermediate Unknown figures for increased safety and “flyability” in lower performance airplanes."  AGREE. This crept in last year without a chance for member comment, created a disadvantage for low-performance aircraft, and should be removed.

No. 11-2:  "Adds an additional Family 5 Hammerhead to the legal Intermediate Unknown figures."  AGREE.

No. 11-3:  "Allows limited use of unlinked and opposite rolls on horizontal lines in Intermediate Power Unknowns."  AGREE.

No. 11-4:  "Allows for separate “Best First Time Sportsman” awards for power and glider categories."  AGREE.  Though we have few glider competitions in the U.S., glider pilots suffer a handicap vying for this award per the rationale stated.

No. 11-5:  "Removes all references to Hot Box Panels."  AGREE.  Never too late to stamp out anachronism.

No. 11-6:  "Allows motor gliders competing in the glider category to 'self launch'."  AGREE.  Doing so increases the sport's inclusivity.

No. 11-7:  "Adds conditions for a motor glider to compete as a powered aircraft."  AGREE with the concept, DISAGREE with the language.  Same comment as for 11-6 as to inclusivity.  However, IAC should not impose pilot qualifications beyond those mandated by the national aviation authority.  If the pilot is properly credentialed to fly the motor-glider, IAC should not require that he or she be rated to fly ASEL aircraft.

No. 11-8:  "Broadens the responsibility of judges to avoid conflicts of interest."  WEAKLY AGREE, only because this may not rise to the level of a problem that needs solving.

No. 11-9:  "Changes wording of rules governing new applicants for Regional Judge to make it easier to understand and manage."  AGREE per the rationale offered.

No. 11-10:  "Changes the wording of rules governing new applicants for National Judge to make it easier to understand and manage."  AGREE per the rationale offered.

No. 11-11:  "Simplifies the administration of the IAC 'Current Judges' list."  AGREE per the rationale offered.

No. 11-12:  "Provides the procedures for administrating a contest held in a location where human or natural barriers prevent the placement of Boundary Judges such that all four sides of the aerobatic box cannot be monitored."  PARTIALLY AGREE.  If both X boundaries can be marked and guarded, I believe we'd do the best job of ranking pilot skill by using boundary judges guarding those lines and leaving presentation scores assigned as they are today.  However, if either X cannot be marked or guarded, I concur with this proposal to adjust presentation scores.


Proposed Intermediate Power Known:

Though flyable, this isn't especially challenging for any but perhaps a beginning Intermediate pilot.  It's littered with Sportsman figures and those in the 2010 Intermediate Known.  Specifically:

1. The proposed sequence lacks "Intermediate-ness":  Figures 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 are all figures one would expect in a Sportsman Known.  Save for one added rolling element, figures 1, 6 and 12 would also fall into that Sportsman lot.
   
   
2. The sequence contains three figures (representing 22% of the number of figures) that serve little purpose but to change energy, altitude or attitude; they aren't useful for distinguishing good from poor flying.  See the two vertical lines and the half-roll on a horizontal line.  We're better off when every figure contributes to challenging, thus ranking, the competitor.
   
   
3. The push-bump is essentially the same as for 2010.
   
   
4. The snap at the top of figure 1 is the same snap as in 2010.
   
   
5. The 2010 sequence ends with a 90º inverted turn.  This sequence does the same.
   
   
6. I do like the opposing rolls at the top of figure 12.  We should have more of these.
   
   
7. The Y-axis corrector appears at figures 3 and 4; it's followed by 9 figures all flown on the X.  Flyable, but desirable?

The catalog is rich with figures that the Intermediate reference aircraft can fly safely and with sufficient energy.  I'd prefer to see the Known peppered with more interesting, challenging figures than those offered here.

Each year, a handful of contests turn into single-flight affairs due to weather.  We should choose a Known sequence that can, by itself, rank Intermediate pilots well for such events.  This proposed Known doesn't do that.


A general comment:

I support the rules committee's role as a vanguard for good rule-making and am grateful for the time and intellectual muscle that Brian Howard and his compadrés invest.  Yet the community would benefit if this committee operated more transparently.  Each year IAC members propose rules and Known sequences that the committee discards without publishing for general comment.  Further, the committee submits its own rule changes to the Board for approval without first providing the membership any opportunity to review them.

IAC would encourage greater member participation in the rule-making process and a richer discussion of proposed rules and sequences if a brighter light were shone on this activity.  To that end, I'd like to see the committee publish every proposed rule and sequence it receives, no matter how harebrained.  If the committee wishes to recommend "for" or "against" each, they can do so alongside the proposal.  Further, any changes that are not put before the membership for comment should be limited to those of an editorial nature, except in extreme circumstances.  In the end, the Board will separate the wheat from chaff and approve or disapprove each proposal.

I basically agree with everything Jim just said. ESPECIALLY his comments about transparency and member input as regards the rules committee/rule change process. I campaigned for several years as a member of the Board for just such a process, where ALL proposals are put before the membership, and the members and the Board allowed to separate the wheat from the chaff. I wholeheartedly support such a change in process. I do not believe that either the members or the Board are so foolish that they need a special committee to pre-digest rule change proposals for them.

As to this years changes:

11-1 AGREE.

11-2 AGREE. These are great, fun figures and are not particularly hard to fly or performance intensive.

11-3 AGREE.

11-4 AGREE with the caveat that separate trophies should not be REQUIRED, only allowed. The CD should be able to make this choice, and, as has been pointed out here previously, trophies are often a major if not THE major expense associated with putting on a contest.

11-5 AGREE, with a bit of sadness and nostalgia in my heart. I will always remember the first time I heard a Chief Judge (I believe it was Jim...) say "Scott, the box is clear, the panels are white, have a great flight". I am not sure what Chief Judges will say now.

11-6:AGREE, although I doubt we will see much use of this. Inclusiveness is always better.

11-7 DISAGREE as written. As Jim has so deftly put it, the FAA is the arbiter of pilot credentials, not the IAC. We should not be in a position of telling an FAA qualified pilot what he can or can't do with his aircraft.

11-8 DISAGREE As has been pointed out here previously, this is a small sport. I know and have a relationship with most everyone who I am likely to judge (except, perhaps in Primary). Thus, a conflict of interest could be construed in almost any judging situation. If this rule were to be applied, I would thus essentially be unable to judge--a statement which is probably tru e for almost every current IAC judge. Beyond that, it potentially creates a nightmare scenario for the VC, CD and Contest Jury trying to arbitrate what is a "valid" conflict of interest and what isn't. The alternative would be for everyone to ignore this rule which defeats the purpose of the rule book in the first place. As currently written the rules create a clear line: "thou shalt not judge thy family" and defines who exactly that is. This rule puts us back where we were BEFORE the current rule was put in place (2003) and effectively removes the definitions. IF this is a real concern, perhaps "thou shalt not judge thy family nor thine aircraft partners" or something to that effect would be workable.

11-9 AGREE

11-10 AGREE

11-11 AGREE

11-12 DISAGREE Although I agree in concept that there should be an easy way to deal with the very real situation where some or all of the boundaries of the box cannot be judged, as written this change has two serious issues. First (and to my mind most important), it replaces an OBJECTIVE scoring criterion with a SUBJECTIVE one. Right now, a competitor is either in the box, or s/he is not (within the accuracy of the boundary judge which may or may not be accurate--but that is a different issue); scores do not change if some or all of the boundaries are not guarded, and if the Boundary Judges are there, then one gets penalized for going out of the box, if they are not there, then that penalty just isn't applied. The SUBJECTIVE presentation score isn't changed. Second, this rule should only be applied when it really is impossible to put Boundary Judges out (either because they can't get there, or because there aren't enough people to do the job), and not when the CD just feels like s/he doesn't want to mess with having boundary judges. This is a bit of a "nose of the camel" argument in that I am concerned that this change would make it far too easy to do off with boundary judges in situations where they could be used, and thus serves only to functionally remove the need to stay in the box--which to my mind is a fundamental part of the game. I WOULD support a much simpler rule change to allow the CD to dispense with boundary judges if it is impossible to place them (either because of geography or manpower) and to simply brief the competitors to that effect. The CD should then be required after the fact to justify to IAC HQ why the boundary judges had been dispensed with. Such a simpler change would not effect the objectivity of the scores, but would provide a solution to the very real problem of not being physically able to guard all (or some) of the boundaries at some contest boxes. I also agree with Jim that this should not be an "all or nothing" rule. Guard what you can, and don't worry about what you can'y, but be prepared to explain it.

Although I would love to be able to refrain from comment on the Intermediate proposal, I DO have to say that I agree completely with Jim's superb analysis of this proposal. We can do a LOT better than this.

Please vote for Sportsman proposal B. It is my first inclination because I don't like the split.

Proposal B appears to be better for flying in a Decathlon. I will be attempting to move up to sportsman in my Decathlon next year.

EDITED 10/8/10 --

I have now gone out and flown both patterns.

Prop B has energy management problems when going from the wedge, to the 2 point, then to the half cuban.

Prop A flows better, but leads to more altitude loss overall with the split S and one & quarter spin in there.

So now, I am not too crazy about either proposal. But I am leaning towards prop A.

Flying a Super D, I believe the A pattern flies better, as I feel that it retains and recovers energy better than the B pattern. I would agree that a split S near the end is more risk however it I feel that it only poses a problem in the lower powered aircraft who are either going to begin higher or take a break in the sequence so I don't think it is a huge issue.

I have a few comments about the following proposals:

11-1 and 11-2: I agree completely.

11-8: I agree with the principle of this proposal. However, the all-inclusive wording and lack of specificity opens the possibility of problems that in a contest scenario would be very difficult to resolve satisfactorily. For instance: is an instructor judging a student “biased”? That is a very common scenario. What happens if that “bias” is not reported? Can the absence of “bias reporting” be protested? (It would be against the new rule). How would such a protest be resolved? In what case would the jury deem the protest justified?  We are a small community with many friendships and personal relationships between us, even more so in competitors from the same region. If this rule passes it will create many practical problems for finding “unbiased” judges.

11-12: I believe this proposal helps by trying to address the difficulties mentioned. However, I believe it needs refinement. Deficiencies by a few CDs are in my view not reason enough to change the rules for all of IAC. Since, as I understand it, this new rule would actually incentivize NOT using boundary judges by eliminating the requirement of a waiver, it is likely that more and more contests would be held WITHOUT boundary judges. Therefore, this new rule would have a significant effect in the future practice of the sport. The mere increase in presentation coefficient does not have the same effect on scores as boundary judges. The presentation mark, as noted in the current IAC rules book chapter 8 section 6 is “subjective by design”. Increasing its K factor provides only an additional level of subjectivity, and takes away the fairly objective counting of “out” penalties.  Competitors familiar with the local geography would have a significant advantage over non-local pilots. I believe a waiver for not having boundary judges should still be required. If after a case by case review the waiver is granted, then this new rule would take effect.  As currently written I disagree.

My thoughts on the Proposed Rule Changes for 2011.

11-4: Agree on Change.  Agree with the Rationale.

11-5: Agree with the Change.  Agree with the Rationale.

11-6: Agree in Principle with tha Change. Wording needs to be refined to ensure the engine is not used until after completion of the flight program. This change will ensure the glider cannot use the engine during an Interruption causing an unfair advantage to gliders without engines.

11-7: Agree in Principle with the Change.  The following words need to be removed: "and the pilot possesses the appropriate powered, aircraft single-engine land ratings on his/her pilot certificate." It is Not Reqired, per FAR Part 91, to have this rating to operate a Glider. It is also not a Requirement to have a Glider Rating to operate an aircraft single engine land.

SPT GLDR Known Proposal A:  Agree.

INT GLDR Known Proposal A: Agree

Best Regards and  FLY SAFE

Powered Sportsman proposal A looks to be the better of the two sequences.

The powered Intermediate proposal looks good.

Rule proposal 11-1: Agree

Rule proposal 11-2: Agree

Rule proposal 11-3: Agree

Rule proposal 11-4: Agree

Rule proposal 11-5: Agree

Rule proposal 11-6: Agree

Rule proposal 11-7: Agree

Rule proposal 11-8: Agree except for the last sentance. The last sentance is made redundant by the sentance that precedes it in the rule proposal. Relative is but one of a myriad of relationships that can be put under a microscope. Either we trust a judge to call it the way he or she sees it, or we don't. Remove the last sentance and you've got the complete rule already.

Rule proposal 11-9: Agree

Rule proposal 11-10: Agree

Rule proposal 11-11: Agree

Rule proposal 11-12: VERY STRONGLY AGREE. This was the method used quite successfully at the last world championships. It addresses one of the biggest logistical and operational burdens of contest management. There is also a big safety benefit. We regularly have pilots jump into airplanes to fly sequences immediately after baking out on a corner for a few hours. Sighting devices prevent them from having the same shade protection as scoring judges. This rule proposal offers the relief from that situation.

Tom Myers

IAC 16830

11-1:  AGREE

11-2:  AGREE

11-3:  AGREE

11-4:  AGREE

11-5:  AGREE (I just took ours to the dump... finally!)

11-6:  AGREE

11-7:  AGREE with caveat.  As mentioned earlier, we are a club, not a regulator. If a pilot meets FAA requirements to fly a particular aircraft, we cannot demand an increased level of compliance.

11-8:  DISAGREE  As a CD that has run into staffing problems, I don't see this as helpful in any way, shape or form. In fact I would propose to remove the rule as it is currently written completely.

11-9:  AGREE

11-10: AGREE

11-11: AGREE

11-12: AGREE with caveat.  This should only be available to a CD if a) geographically it is impossible to place a boundary judge at the corner or b) there are not enough volunteers to staff the boundary.

Sportsman Power: B

For all other sequences, actually having a choice would be required for me to make a decision.

The comments earler about transparency of the processes in which we recieve these proposals has me concerned.  I would hope that we do get a chance on actually choosing our sequences from all proposed submissions that were legal.  From sounds of it, we are not and that raises concerns.

11-1 thru 11-3 I agree.

11-4 I disagree.  Trophys are one of the most expensive parts of holding a contest and to make another award maditory would put a strain on some smaller contests.

11-5 thru 11-6 I agree.

11-7 I disagree.  Let the motor gliders fly with other gliders.  They would be at too big a disadvantage against power planes.

11-8 I disagree.  With the small number of judges and competitors there is no way that a judge will not have some kind of relationship with someone in the catagory he or she is judging.  Also, this puts too high a strain on manpower during a contest.

11-9 thru 11-11 I agree.

11-12 I disagree.  I understand that there are some contests where we cannot properly gaurd the boundary's, you should gaurd what you can and get a waiver for the rest.  The rule opens up a pandoras box for a CD to be lazy and just not put judges out, and I feel that flying in the box is a very large part of this sport.

Just my humble opions.

John