Any thoughts on the what airspace management is actually going to mean to us?

This is an important topic and needs to be discussed- thanks for bringing it up. First, for purposes of this discussion, here is the link from the IMAC site that describes this forthcoming change.

http://www.mini-iac.com/Portals/57ad...7/FJG%2004.pdf


To summarize, in my own words and opinion, this change is an attempt to try to get contestants to fly closer and was driven by the need to reduce our noise footprint. I am in agreement that reducing the noise footprint is a good an necessary thing- perhaps not at all fields but at many and you can't have a noisy plane for some fields and a quiet plane for other fields so you might as well try to get quiet at all fields.

As I read it, you will receive a score from the judges (0-10 with 10 being best) relative to how well you can exhibit the ability to control your plane so that it flies relatively close to the judges so that it can be scored more easily. For example, if you have been to a contest you have probably seen a flier who will get way out in the box or go much higher than they need because they are adjusting for a preceding or forthcoming manuever while the other fliers were able to keep their plane closer- it just looks better if you are not way out there. The flier who flies way out or too high all the time would receive a lower score than the others who kept the plane relatively close in.

So far this sounds OK to me. Here's where my concern is.

In speaking with other fliers it is apparent to me that contestants don't yet know how to score it and because it is somewhat subjective there may be a great deal of contestants who never really get a good grasp on it. The K factor is not peanuts either- in Unlmited it is 15K. A one roll rolling circle is about 20K.

Now-- to balance this out-- I predict that most contestant judges will tend to group their scores fairly evenly and it may not make much of a difference in the score (this would actually not be good thing from the perspective of the intent of the change- if everyone scores about the same no change in footprint/noise control will occur and it will have been for naught). Contestants in a class tend to end up flying the sequences exactly like their compeitition does. Unknowns may be different.

Bottom line- if this is to be received positively and be effective, judges have to be trained to know how to score it. Judging clinics are probably the best way to achieve this.

Dave Michael

This is simply another backdoor attempt at the Presentation Score. It makes a purely subjective, and undefinable score, part of your total. We already have a way to reduce footprint. It's called the BOX. Use it and enforce it and this is not needed. But CDs say they cannot enforce the box, so this was the alternative. A bad one in my view.

this is nothing but a tacit admission that attempts to reduce noise have failed. it would be nice to think that judges can be trained and all that, but the time and resources required are enormous. imac has let the footprint continually grow because that is the way the pilots were flying - the tail wagging the dog. the rhetoric sounds good, but rules have to be grounded in being able to be implemented evenly and enforceable.

Do you guys remember when there was 1% and 2% airplanes at the TOC, It was done to promote bigger aircraft.
How about 1% and 2% imac aircraft to promote quietness, for example if you are using cannisters or a three bladed prop you get 1% bonus and if you are using both you get a 2% bonus or something along these lines. The sound score we are currently using does not work ( big surprise ) and will never work as long as it's subjective. Some of us are paying the weight penalty and extra cost of using cannisters and a 3 bladed props and not getting rewarded for it.

I love quiet airplanes and will continue to use cannisters and three bladed props and or anything nessesary to keep my airplane quiet but there's a lot of people that don't care. All it takes is one loud airplane to loose a contest at a field with noise issues but we might be able to gain a contest or two if we all had quiet airplanes.

Albert Santiago

I agree, Albert. With today's planes it's no longer an issue if you dont' want it to be. We can have our cake and eat it too. Especially with the 40% planes- I had no issues with power/vertical all summer long regardless of the heat and humidity when running my 3 bladed prop and JMB mufflers.

I will say that the 100cc/35% planes seem to still be at a bit of a disadvantage on a 3-blade. I still have one that I usually only fly locally that isn't too loud but still - not as quiet as my 40% planes.

Generally speaking, the only people taking steps to quiet their planes now are really doing it because they enjoy the sound, need to because of the fields they fly at or recognize that quieter airplanes benefit everyone. There are too many who haven't yet made the switch.

I have been getting on the guys with the loud planes lately- like a reformed smoker, I guess. If we can't incent them to do it (as you suggest above) we'll have to shame them into it!

Dave

Why is IMAC afriad of using an aerobatic box? i flew many Imac events this year and was amazed at how te lower classes were unable to keep the plane at a constant disance from the judges ( e 150 meters in pattern) where the plane was over the judges heads nearly but not downgraded accordingly, o when hey flew so far out you could barely judge the maneuver. bring the box back into play at least on he ends and maintain a "safe" distance from the flightline, IMAC planes are bigger, heavier and can do tons of damage.

As for the noise concern, i agree that a 1-2 % bonus should be addd for equipment like 3 blades , cans, tuned pipes etc rather than how i feel your plane sounded.

Flame suit on.

Chuck Hochhalter

imac has a box, although it is refered to as "the aerobatic zone". as for the 1% or 2% noise thing, we already have it, is is our sound score. and i have seen situations where it has made the difference at the end of the weekend. in the past few years i have been flying imac, i have noticed that the noise from all planes is decreading. with the help of 3 blades, cans, and MOST IMPORTANTLY power management. the only excuse for ripping the prop is because the pilot did NOT bring the power back. you dont need to be flying from one end to the other at full power, its not a race. go at a leasurely pace, not slow enough to get blown arround, but not fast enough to rip the prop. the power is not on a 2 position switch for a reason, so pull the power back. my 35% last year had da100, MTW cans, and a mejzlik 28x10 and i got lots of 10 for sound, because i brought the power back. if you havent gotten my point, BRING THE POWER BACK, 3 blades and cans help but ive seen and herd several 40%er with 3blades and cans rip, and seen 40%ers with 2 blades and standard mufflers not. its the pilot bringing the power back thats the keey to the sound. as for flying in closer, i think we should, but not much further so we can still see vertical lines in the center area. foreinstance, in the advanced class (which i fly in) our first figure was a hammerhead this year, if you do it (even offset to one side) you still cant tell airspeed to hammer over. i am aware that we do fly at about 700-800 feet from us, because i put a camera in my plane 2 years ago, and did the sequence. so we have room to move in, but for sight reasons, we shouldn't move too far. teaching people at judging seminars is a good idea, but getting people to go is hard. and not to mention planes are different sizes, and different people have different depth-perseptions. its not practical. if what i have said offends you, too bad.

We are not talking about flying closer to the pilot, but rather keeping the sequence in tight at the ends and back of box. The sequence design of late does not enhance your chances of doing that. So rather than write sequences that will allow tight flying and enforcing the existing rules, the BoD dreamed up yet another subjective and undefinable score. Why not just do paper/scissors/rock to determine the winner if we are going to actually write subjective scores into the rules??

What's wrong with the 3 Zone Box? Seems to me it was always a clearly definable way to fly and score, complete with flying and Judging guidelines. The problem with the ( noise) footprint was / is that we ALLOWED pilots to abuse the size of the box. Sure, we don't ( usuall) have the resources to judge the box limits ( aka line / box judges ), but, we can pretty much visually determine when a guy flys into the next county!! Many still do fly into the next county ( from what I've seen this past summer), even with the zoneless box ( oops - airspace ).

The zonless box was passed off on us as " a remedy to solve the "noise / footprint" matter.

In actual fact it was simply a "copy cat" of the recent Full Scale method. ( hey, Full Scale did it, so should we. )

In Full Scale it was introduced as an energy managment tool for planes ( lower powered models) that had a difficult time scooting around the box from zone to zone trying to keep up with the stronger Extras, Sukhois, etc, especially when a pilot moved up from a lower class to one that requires more poop.

If we ( the IMAC members ) were permitted an open vote on the matter, mine would be to return to the 3 zone box. It's more accurate, It's more definable.

Bob Hudson, IMAC 1865

I vote for a KISS method.

Most Fields I have Flown IMAC events at do not have Sound Issues, If a field Has a sound Issue then they Do Not Host IMAC events. Also the fields that do not have sound Issues typically do not have Overflight Issues.

So in a region of 6 states there is likely over 1000 AMA chartered clubs/fields. We can not expect to get our footprint so small and our sound so Low that we can have events at all of these fields.

Look at the contest results page for each region, There are plenty of fields that Sound and Footprint is not an issue.


I guess what I am trying to say is that the Sound and footprint issue IMHO is presented to be a bigger problem than it actually is.


Lets keep it simple then leave this subject alone. Here are some KISS solution suggestions:

1. Define sound score scoring criteria, make it in .5 instead of 5 point incriments, make its K higher.

2. Circle a manuever and give it a penality if a) the pilot Rips the prop at any time during the manuever, b) if the pilot flys the manuever so far out that it is hard to judge(box penality)

Simple


Also I want to thank the BOD and Leadership of IMAC. It is a thankless job, where they must spend countless hours not trying to cut themselves with double edge sords. It consists of elected volunteer members that have dedicated their time to ensure the future of the sport we so Love.

Sound might not be an issue out west but it is a real issue in the northeast and as far as power management, I agree that it is part of the problem but cannisters and a quiet prop in addition to power management will always win in my book. Oh and yes bring the three zone box back please.

Albert Santiago

when all the discussion is over, i think what will - or imo, should - prevail is unfixing what wasn't broken. any kind of sound score - whether it be based on perceived noise or equipment is going to be subjective and arbitrary with no basis in logic. I don't care for the zoneless box because it results in bizarre presentation that is sometimes hard to judge and often ugly to watch. and i for one could care less how noisy an airplane is, imac is about precision flying. there is no precision in flying a "center" 4 pt roll 500 feet away from the judges. i know the history of why the change was made, and it was another tail (IAC) wagging the dog. at some point, imac has to face the fact that it has more in common with motocross than pattern - some pilots like to rip their props, just like so many who like to listen to their Harley's. Contests should be held at fields with no noise issues. Assessiing points doesn't quiet airplanes, it simply assesses a penalty which a lot of pilots could care less about anyway. Judging clinic have proven to be of questionable benefit for a number of reasons, one of the most obvious is that there is nothing in place to measure the benefit - are scores really more rules based, or how many "graduates" of judging schools emerge with a firm understanding of the rules. IMAC has rarely enforced its box limits - I was part of a committee that drafted rules )that were the published rules) years ago that included a rear limit that was ignored as soon as they were printed. anyway, good luck on this one....

Yes..My vote is to bring the three zone box back. Lets see the appeareance as it should be...It could make the sequence a little harder by putting the center back in the box etc.. but thats where it should be IMO...[8D]

Exactly Bob! You are right on the money!

The only thing I would add, is a return to the 150 degree box from the current 180 degree one. This helps determine where the ends of the box are, with respect to the position of the plane thats flying. With an established flight path a given distance from the flightline, as soon as the 150 line is crossed, the plane is out of the box. Granted its not perfect, but its certainly better than nothing, which is exactly what a 180 degree box provides.

The thing that bothers me is, I have spend a bunch of money on a 40% plane to fly next season.
I don't want to spend another $500 - $600 on cans or pipes.

F1race79,

You can spend $500.00 or $600.00 dollars and keep the neighbors happy or you can put stock mufflers and possibly get complaints and or possibly loose that contest for ever. I don't know where you fly and this might not apply to you if you have no noise issues but here in the northeast we have lost two contest because of noise issues.

Albert

I agree with reducing the sound, bringing back the 3-zone aerobatic box and reducing the overall "box" footprint. A lot of airplane manuf. are not designing their planes with canister or pipes as an option and the pipe and can manufacturers are giving us more and more options for reducing sound. Three blade props are another piece of the sound problem that is being addressed by the manufacturers I believe that the person above who describe sequience design hit the nail on the head so to speak!!

The sequence is the key to the whole enchalida - design the sequence correctly and most of the preceived problems are deminished - not tottally eliminated but deminished. Part of the problem has been that the sequences have gotten more and more difficult and more and more complicated to challenge our flying abilities but not necessarily flying skills/precision. As a result of this, the accuracy (remember that precision is no guarantee of accuracy - you can put 10 shots within a one inch diameter circle but the circle may be 10 inches off of the bullseye!!) of the maneuvor has been overlooked to a great degree!! Is it time to start designing sequences to conentrate on reducing sound, footprint accuracy of the maneuvor?

I understand that the 2007 sequence committee is moving forward with sequence design. I hope that they are taking into consideration some or all of the factors that I and others have pointed out. If so, it is a move in the right direction!!

Bobby

Ok, I'm new at this IMAC thing. How would you tell if someone is flying "outside" of the box?
Thx
shaun

Most pilots fly a given distance [approx 200 ft] from the flight line. As the plane travels back and forth across the box, one can roughly tell how far the plane travels towards the two ends of the box by keeping the 150 degree line in view. As soon as the 150 line is crossed, the plane is out of the box.

The problem is of course, that this is only accurate at a single point. As the pilot gets deeper into the box the crossing point of the 150 degree line gets farther and farther out. The actual endpoint of 1,000 feet to the side of the pilot occurs ONLY on a line270 in front of the pilot. At the back of the box the line cross the "end" at 2,650 to the side of the pilot, or 1,650 beyond the actual end box. At 500 feet from the pilot the line indicates the end box at 1,880 feet, almost twice the actual size of the box.

This method gives a false precision and still allows for huge excursions outside the box while giving the appearance that the plane is still in the box.

Quite correct. This is why the judge must take note of the established line the pilot takes when he begins the sequence. If the aircraft strays out further, the judge takes the increase distance into account, when determining how close the aircraft is to the end of the box.

Again, not a perfect solution, and somewhat subjective, but certainly better than nothing.

I disagree since once the pilot is past 270 feet out he will be breaking the end box as he crosses the sight line. Asking a judge to "judge" how to adjust that is far too subjective for me.

Pattern flyers have been doing it this way [with a 140 degree box] since day one, and with a bit of experience, it can and does work for IMAC. Like I said its not a perfect solution, but in my opinion, there no other solutions available to us currently that would work any better.