Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!
 
Cactus Aerobatic Classic 2001
Return to Cactus Aerobatic Classic Home

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

 

Return to Cactus Aerobatic Classic Home