RE: 2005 sequences
 

Guys,

Please don't paint with to broad a brush, when talking about all of the IMAC Regions and how they handle the Basic category.

In the Southwest Region our Basic pilots are included in our IMAC Southwest Region Season Point Title Challenge series. They are also welcome and compete at our SW Regional Championships.

There is no short shrift of our Basic pilots in the Southwest.

Regards,

Anna Wood
IMAC Southwest Region
Assistant Regional Director

RE: 2005 sequences
 

Anna,

Please fill me in on what happens at a contest to the basic pilots when the other classes are flying their unknowns. In SCAT the basic class flew a single known sequence. I have heard that in IMAC basic does not fly on Sunday morning and I don't want to be misled any longer, so I am asking the Expert.

Thank you

RE: 2005 sequences
 

Dick,

You hit the nail squarely on the head with that comment. The Pattern(s) today are flat ugly!

Yeah, I'm one of the old fly-by set where grace and style were King. Somewhere along the line the moniker "ballistic" was applied-----wrongly so. We were simply getting the power we needed and managing the speed, as you well know.

My "for myself" flight still is the '77 FAI schedule although there are many combinations that are flowing and pleasing to the eye----both the practiced and the uninitiated eye by the way.

We also used to fly close in where you could actually recognize those with grace vs. those with just the mechanics. It was fun to fly and fun to watch.

I'm afraid '---we should live so long' applies to your hopes--------but those are my hopes as well.

Pattern folks themselves have driven most away. Pattern used to be King-----long live the King.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

I'm no expert, but I did sleep at a Hliday Inn Express last night :D

Most all of the IAMC contests in the SW region have Basic fly a single Known opposite the other classes Unknown.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

Perhaps this rule should be applied to all classes. As I recall a couple of years ago there were very few pilots in Advanced at the NATS. Should we set a minimum number of attendance for a class and if it is not reached, then cancel the class?? That is the logic that flows from the above.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

2004 NATS had 6 Advanced pilots.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

Just like Bill says, the Basic fly, at least, a single known, while everyone else flys their unknown.

At the local events here in the Southwest, it is not unusual that the Basic pilots will have flown one extra scored sequence then everyone else. Depending on time and the amount of Basic pilots, it is not uncommon to have them fly their known twice while everyone flies their unknown.

Regards,

Anna

RE: 2005 sequences
 

Then by Doug's criteria this class should be cancelled. Especially if most of them were "local".

RE: 2005 sequences
 

Pattern's beginner class is sportsman not basic.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

<<There were guys in that class who were very skilled and were attending contests solely for the purpose of gaining points and winning the season's championship. The only problem with this is that it is very discouraging>>

The problem i have with that statement is that it penalizes a pilot for becoming competitive. a guy gets the bug, puts in the time on the flightline, buys the right hardware, and takes his competing seriously - and he wins. is he sandbagging or earning what is rightfully his? sure, he may ruffle a few feathers, but he didn't dangle the carrot, the region did. all he did was go after it. points work great when lifers (guys who are terminal class residents) want to hash it out, but when someone comes along who really takes it seriously, all the sudden the complaints start - and unlimited is no exception, if not the worst. as i stated in another post, you fly against yourself, not the guy next to you. if you both get all tens across the board, and the other guy still wins, then you have something to complain about.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

after competing in basic last year, and planning on at least beginning this season in basic (need to dial in the new plane) i have to agree and disagree with some of the point made.
from what i have seen, flying in both the NE region and the SE region, there were NO 40-sized planes. the smallest plane i saw was a 1/4 scale with an os 1.60. the next smallest was a patty with a da 50. so lets be honest, this class is not "basic" and the pilots coming to thest contests are there to compete, not learn how to fly. the biggest difference they have to learn is how to be judged at doing the manuevers, and in flying wind correction.
so yes, basic does need to be competed at the nats, and there SHOULD be unknowns flown in basic. all but 2 of the contests i went to last year did fly unknowns in basic. like was said earlier, the unknown could be as simple as reordering the sequence or maybe 1 or 2 manuevers.
just my .02 cents worth.


now for my question. when are the 2005 sequences suppose to be finalized?? i thought it was today??

thanks
tony

RE: 2005 sequences
 

I actually find that to be very reasonable. If you have 40 Sportsman pilots who want to compete, why should the class be limited to 17? Especially if only 6 Advanced pilots attend? While it certainly wouldn't be the decision of one person alone, I think a minimum entry requirement by a given cutoff date to be quite practical for the Nats.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

Last year's sequence was terrible from both a positioning and judging standpoint. The new sequences are in my opinion not much better, especially from an ability to accurately judge it. While I doubt the Unlimited pilots will have much difficulty flying it, it will be VERY hard to find skilled judges capable of keeping up with it and the downgrades associated with it.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

I agree completely.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

Dick, Bill, Doug, et al- i'd like to get your opinion on this: What do the 2005 proposed unlimited sequences lack or in what ways could they be changed in order to make them flow better, look better and be "judge-able".

In general, what kinds of elements/guidelines should be followed to make a sequence 1) challenging and interesting 2) fitting of the respective class 3) flowing/balanced and 4) judge-able?

Dave

RE: 2005 sequences
 

You asked - so here it is :
In England - they used a sequence that was basically the same --from lowest to highest classes -- then simply added difficulty to each maneuver for the next higher class .
This made judging far easier, as the same basic part of the sky and basic maneuver was the same --for all classes..
It is too much to hope for - to adopt this logic - I realize that.
(for you new guys -think of a stall turn - then add rolls -then snaps etc., to increase difficulty.)
Next thing .
keep the distance of all maneuvers based on the judging position.
How?
Imagine the box is really a half of a circle --all maneuvers must be designed to fly in that circle
So --- a maneuver sequence that goes to the "end" of the box, must return toward center--- NEVER go outbound from the ends. These combos can end up in the next county.
The judges must be able to see the entire combinations of rolls/etc..
Further ----
Making "string" sequences creates a huge judging problem.
The judge skill level has to be very high.
It simply is impossible to accurately keep eyes on some "strings", remember all errors -then relay this all to a scribe, while the flyer is obviously starting the next "string."
This shat has to stop .
The trick for best scores,is to obviously use the largest model possible - so the TIME between each segment can be increased .
Bigger model = fly out further =more time to do all of it .
For those very good flyers who can pull this all in close --- the "string "then looks like nothing more to the newer judges, than a series of glitches.
Bottom line to this rant---
You must have a sequence that is easy to see, remember and score.
Maneuver difficulty is increased to sort out the best flyers --but this bit of "logic " falls flat on it's face if the judging can't really keep up with the "Flight of the bumblebee".

RE: 2005 sequences
 

Having said all that:
I really think sequences should be held to no more than 3 strung together elements .
Too simple?
Not for the best judging.
One last thing:
NO one who has not acted as a CD for at least 4 contests --should be allowed to vote on any sequence proposal.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

I've been designing sequences for a few years now and one of my signatures is just as Dick has described.......I start out with a basic pattern without any rolls or snaps. Once I'm satisfied with the flow and balance of the basic sequence of manuevers, I then add the snaps and rolls legal for each class until I've reached the total K value that I've targeted. You can create nearly identical sequences from Sportsman thru Unlimited that progressively increase in difficulty level. In my opinion it makes judging easier.
You can create sequences that are challenging to every skill level without being impossible to judge. ....... and from most of the feed-back I've gotten after a contest, they can be FUN to fly as well.
If anyones interested, I recently wrote a "how-to" article which is posted on the IMAC website that goes into more detail on my method.

Larry Lutton
[email protected]
[email protected]

RE: 2005 sequences
 

Larry, i have to respectfully offer a different opinion. in the early days of scat, i tried "saving time" by using a sequence template technique and varying/applying the critical roll and snap elements in the sequences to bring them up to the appropriate "K". I did it, I think twice, and never thereafter because I wasn't satisifed with the results. We ended up with the some figures that didn't flow well, or had strange positioning requirements, or both. In fact, there was an unwritten rule of "you wrote it, you judge it." There was no need to hear it from the pilots - as a judge you knew right away when something didn't work. The SCAT known and unknowns were written thereafter from a clean sheet of paper (screen?) with no regard to what the sequence looked like in the other class. It took more time, but freed the writer from the technical gymnastics sometimes required to turn a sportsman figure into an unlimited figure. and based on the years of positive feedback we received about the quality of our knowns and unknowns, my two cents and (and i think aresti2004 would agree with me) recommendation is taking the extra time for each sequence.

[sm=thumbup.gif]

RE: 2005 sequences
 

Sorry 10channel, but my experience tells me it can be done....if you're not satisfied with the sequence you've designed- modify it.....if it doesn't flow well - make it....and if you end up with strange positioning - change it!
It doesn't matter if you're working with an individual sequence or a series of similar sequences, it takes a lot of time and thought to come up with sequences that are both challenging to the pilot and judgeable by the average judge ~ NOT EASY!
I advocate using this system for Unknown designs....not sure if it's such a good idea for the Knowns!? Then again, maybe it is!?
I hate to see the sequence debate get so political......on one hand, it's just a hobby and a sport...on the other, as hobbyists and competitors we put a lot of time and money into our "sport" and naturally want to see how we match up to the other guy! Trick is, as we are finding, to continually develope sequences that fairly challenge us and raise the bar each year.
Look at the TOC sequences of just 10 years ago!!!!! Other than the rollers, not much more difficult than the Intermediate or Advanced of today! I worry that we're pushing the complexity and difficulty levels to the ridiculus and that could be self-defeating.
I don't have any answers..... I feel like I'm just along for the ride sometimes. But I do love the hobby and I do love aerobatics ~ I'm sure we'll work these out, as we always have!
Thanks for your opinions and comments.

Larry

RE: 2005 sequences
 

Larry - Your method is certainly one way to approach sequence construction. I feel it has limitations due to the fact that the base figures used for the lower classes limit the variety of figures available for upper class construction. But as I said, it is one approach.

However, I see no reason for it other than it can speed the design process if you are doing a lot of Unknowns. It is not the big of a deal to write a fresh sequence for each class using class appropriate base figures. I do think that could help the neophyte sequence writer. However, once they get some experience I see no real need to approach sequence writing in this manner.

One thing that I think is imperative is for all sequence writers to understand the FAI catalog. For instance, the TOC which you referenced, was notorious for illegal construction. The 2004 Masters was also a victim on illegal construction. The problem with illegal construction is that it leaves you with no valid method to calculate the proper K factor for the figure. You end up simply having to make up the K factor for illegal figure.

So for me, it matters less what method you use as long as you understand the FAI catalog and use it correctly. But I do think that your method has limitations and does not really benefit sequence design in any real manner beyond perhaps easing the load on a person who has a lot of sequences to do.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

The sequence is just so busy that judges are never going to get a second to think about downgrades for the maneuver they've just watched. From a pilot's standpoint, the flight has been changed from who can fly it well, to who can get through it without zeros at all. Roughly 450k for 10 maneuvers is harder than the majority of the last 3 TOC's sequences. They should be at least survivable by the Advanced pilot moving up to Unlimited, yet not be so easy they give a high-end pilot no challenge. I think the new guy moving up to Unlimited will be so overwhelmed that they stop enjoying themselves, or worse.. people won't move up at all.

Worse still.. these maneuvers are so complex that I guarantee you they'll be flown as large as pilots can't get away with in order to slow the pace down a bit. So instead of presenting a compact, quick zoneless sequence.. people are going to be flying HUGE maneuvers, using a large footprint, and will take quite a bit longer to fly, meaning less pilots through the flightline in a given time period.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

I looked at both of the Unlimited proposals last night --Much better than the sequences in the past - at least my opinion.
The BUT tho -is that they are still very busy sequences.
Stuff like 3/4 snap downline & 1 1/4 roll (Prop B fig 7) are fun to fly --but may get a 9 or a zero at the same time-
Again, a judging thing. Ditto for fig 8.
I am with Larry on the concept of "evolved " Especially for known sequences, which would make an orderly progression of learning thru the classes.
The Unknowns can be as involved as rules permit -which should satisfies the " who has the biggest ----" competitors.
I have done CD work at a number of contests plus stared into the sun for hours in the judges chair. Regardless of how many complex sequences are thrown in - the most practiced fliers typically win.
I know -'cause I simply don't practice enough.
However , the judges' job get's harder and the time to fly the sequences increases AND the need for a biggest plane and largest flight box increases.
So - How about a reality check????

RE: 2005 sequences
 

2005 sequences are out.

RE: 2005 sequences
 

ANd once again let me say, What he Said. I agree with Doug on these points.