Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!
 
Cactus Aerobatic Classic 2000
Return to Cactus Aerobatic Classic Home

                                                                                                                                         
December 09, 1999

To: AMA Competition Technical Director

Dear Steve, 

As per our discussion this morning here are the additional deviations/changes I would like you to consider for addition to the AMA sanction of the Cactus Aerobatic Classic 2000 to be held on January 28,29,30 2000 in Mesa, Arizona.

Scoring Proposal
I want 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 penalties proposal
I want 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 on adhering to the clubs sound rule of 103 db's checked static as per AMA sound addendum. 

Unanimous Zeros Proposal
We are planing on using 3 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 score 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"       Below is what I put in the pilots letter.
"The Box - We will not fly in a marked and monitored “box”.  However, if you’re all over the sky, many judges will knock off points for “positioning”.  I ask that all pilots pay attention to the back of the box. There are horseback riding trails just beyond the back of the box and we must be courteous to anybody using these trails."
Additionally at the pilots meeting I plan on identifying 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
I propose 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's a lot of spectators. 

All of these issues have been documented in the pilots letter that has already been sent out. I apologize if I have deviated in procedure. I did not have complete definition of these changes at the time I submitted the sanction. I had no intention of hiding anything from AMA or IMAC. I believe that most of what I have proposed happens regularly at many western US contest but has been done so on the fly instead of documenting it up front. If further explanation is needed please contact me . 

Sincerely,
John Heigl
Contest Director
Cactus Aerobatic Classic 2000
 

Return to Cactus Aerobatic Classic Home