ORIGINAL: twtaylor

Thanks for your response Fred.

I do not usually post on public forums, as I learned a few years ago that most of the participents are simply trying to start a "brand war" or "public embarrassment debate". However, when a topic "hits a nerve", I will respond to the point. No public debate unless 'you want to talk to me in person'. This will be my last public response on this subject as a courtesy to you.

Can I ask what was the reasoning for removing the "box" in the first place?

Unenforcable, impractical, angle lines not accurate, manpower, and others

Why were the centering requirements removed?

weighted the center maneuvers (figures) unfairly and unnecessiraly, ability to design sequences that flow better, not to crowd the X-axis, and others

Did those changes lead to the "foot print" problem we see now?

If the sequences are designed and flown as mandated, there should be no footprint problem (all the latest sequences can be flown and presented much smaller than most pilots realize), even for the rolling circles (ever seen someone do a 4-roll roller within the confines of the runway? - I have) My son can do any 360 roller well within the alloted airspace - less than 1,000 feet out in any direction - and score very well. (this year , 2007, he finished 2nd in Unlimited and 1st in Freestyle at the NATS and received very high ACS -- he works at it, and I see and critique it, so I know it can be done)

Why would the governing body decide to use an subjective thing like ASC rather than something everyone can see and verify? IE the "Box".

Biggest reason -- see #1.
It is not all that subjective.... some education and experience go a long way....I recommend that you attend a sanctioned IMAC Judging Seminar given by one of our nationally trained instructors.

I'm trying to understand what the rule changes were trying to achieve. I'm not looking for an argument at all just understanding.

The changes accomplish a lot of objectives, not the least of which is flexibility of sequence design, better flow of sequence, smaller foot print and less noise consequences, centering of a given figure does not outweigh the comparable other figure K values and sacrifice figures before or after 'center', Many, Many hours of discussion have gone into these improvements. I have only touched the surface of a 3 or 4 year debate and actual field testing. You are welcome to come to my contest in October 2008 (it is on the IMAC website - I hope you are an IMAC member, if not please join), attend a future Judging Seminar when I am one of the instructors, or even call me via phone. -Fred

Thanks