November 30, 2000
To: AMA Competition Technical Director
Dear Steve,
I would like you to consider these deviations for addition to the AMA
sanction of the Cactus Aerobatic Classic 2001 to be held on February 10,11
2001 in Mesa, Arizona.
Scoring Proposal
To use the pattern system of normalizing the scores prior to dropping
the low sequences as described in Rule 15 of the Radio Control Scale Aerobatics
Section (ref: AMA contest regulation 1999-2001) "Determining the winner".
Reason
I feel that dropping raw scores does not ensure that the pilot who
performed the best throughout the contest will be determined the winner.
Sound penalty proposal
To use the F3A rule that allows the judges at the end of each flight
to assess whether the plane exceeded reasonable sound limits during the
round. A percentage of score penalty for that flight will be assessed.
Reason
Sound is an issue at the hosting club field. With the larger planes,
prop noise is the real issue. A method of controlling in flight sound seems
to be in order. We are also planning to adhere to the clubs sound rule
of 103 db's checked static as per AMA sound addendum.
Unanimous Zeros Proposal
We will be using three judges per flight line and would like to make
zeros a unanimous decision. If two judges give a zero then the third judge
would change to a zero. If two judges gave scores then the third judge
would change their zero to the lowest score given by the other two judges.
This system would be used immediately at the end of each flight. It's mechanical
in nature and does not allow for conflict between judges.
Reason
One of the biggest complaints I hear at contests is the inconsistency
in the use of zeros. IAC uses this system with very fair results. IAC also
has an extensive training system to certify judges and they still feel
this system is needed as a check and balance.
Marked "Box" Proposal
Ref: Rule 12 of the Radio Control Scale Aerobatics Section (ref:
AMA Contest Regulations 1999-2001) "Aerobatic Zone".
The Box - We will not fly in a marked and monitored “box”. However,
the judges will be instructed to use common sense judgement to access boundary
penalties. Additionally at the pilots meeting, I plan to identify landmarks
to the judges for reference in scoring boundary infringements
Reason
Many contests I have flown at are run this way and have very acceptable
results. The intent of the rule will be upheld and the judges will be instructed
to score boundary infringements.
4 Minute Freestyle Proposal
To allow a four minute freestyle rather than a 3 minute freestyle.
Reason
Spectator value. This contest has the largest spectator turnout of
any IMAC contest that I know of. Last year we parked 700 cars over a 2-day
period. That is a lot of spectators.
Addition of a Second Unknown Proposal
This proposal is to add a second unknown sequence to all classes except
basic, which has no unknown sequences. The additional sequence will be
handed out at the pilots meeting on Saturday morning. The sequence will
be flown as the last sequence for the day on Saturday. The regular unknown
sequence will be handed out and the end of Saturdays flying and will be
flown as the first flight on Sunday. The better of the two unknown sequences
flown will be kept and tabulated into the final score for the contest.
The other unknown will be discarded. Each of the two days unknowns will
be unique to one another.
Reason
A single unknown to be flown once and kept places an abnormally high
importance on this sequence. I understand that it is the competitors responsibility
to maintain their equipment as to not experience failures, however a single
kept sequence has the ability to completely nullify previous and unflown
rounds. Flying two unique unknowns and keeping the best scoring sequence
allows the spirit of the unknowns to be kept while lowering the emphasis
on the unknowns.
Judging "Not Observed" proposal
If a judge misses a maneuver, he will instruct the scribe put an "N.O."
(Not observed) for a score signifying the he has missed the maneuver and
cannot give a score. The score for that maneuver will be an average of
the remaining judge/judges. This shall be accomplished in the scoring booth
by the official scorekeeper.
Reason
This situation is not clearly covered in the IMAC rules section of
the AMA Competition Regulations 1999-2001. AMA Pattern rules and the IAC
rules are both in agreement on how this is to be covered.
All of these issues will be documented in the pilot's letter that will
be sent out and posted on the Internet. Additionally I will cover each
of the deviations at the pilots meeting at the start of the contest. I
believe that most of what I have proposed happens regularly at many western
US contests but has been done on the fly instead of documenting it up front.
If further explanation is needed please contact me.
I can be contacted at:
5698 E. 14th Ave
Apache Jct. AZ. 85219
(480) 983-2715 Home
(480) 891-5463 Work
john.c.heigl@boeing.com
Sincerely,
John Heigl
Contest Director
Cactus Aerobatic Classic 2001
|