Pattern Box Rules (discussion)

[rcaerobob at cox.net]

My TAKE....If a box change is 'needed', let's make the thing SMALLER.  That would drive us to fly SLOWER, require less POWER, and the airplanes would not have to be 2M...

Plus, a smaller box presents a smaller noise footprint, permits faster rounds, easier judging, and farther distances between center overlaps for collision avoidance.

Changing the box size smaller COULD have a lot of benefits!!!!
> 
> From: BUDDYonRC at aol.com
> Date: 2005/03/02 Wed PM 12:03:30 EST
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Pattern Box Rules (discussion)
> 
>  
> As a member of the rules change committee I am trying to determine if there  
> is interest in pursuing this matter and welcome a discussion and  suggestions 
> regarding this issue
> I have outlined some of the issues and suggestions pertaining to  this below 
> and welcome your opinions.
>  
>  
> The pattern box was added to the AMA rules when the  turnaround method of  
> Presentation and scoring was initiated. It defines the  limited scoring area 
> where all maneuvers must be performed. 
> The purpose of the box is to provide a uniform but somewhat  flexible area of 
> presentation that allows the pilot the opportunity to tailor  his 
> presentation to the requirements of the pattern being flown, and allow  judges to score 
> his presentation on an equitable basis when compared to the  presentations of 
> other pilots flying the sequence. 
> The rules provide for specific score penalties for  performing any maneuver 
> either out of the box or partially out of the box,  making it all important 
> that all box violations are downgraded the same by all  judges to provide the 
> correct score earned. 
> Over the years the failure of judges to provide a uniform  application of box 
> violations has resulted in an unfair advantage to some pilots  and a 
> disadvantage to others. 
> In many cases box line poles are not  or cannot be provided to give the pilot 
> or judge the visual reference necessary  which becomes the primary reason 
> among others that this condition continues to  exist.   
> In addition to the above the present box configuration  increases the 
> possibility of a midair collision when two flight lines are used  because many pilots 
> strive to utilize the same optimum distance out in their  presentation. 
> By reconfiguring the box more area  will be available for those who wish to 
> fly in closer with out fear of box  violation downgrades, this will also allow 
> those who experience vision  difficulties at greater distances the possibly to 
> be more competitive       
> In order to provide a method that will  more nearly insure equity to all 
> participants and simplify the task of judges,  while possibly reducing the 
> occurrences of midair collision, and also encourage  those with limited eyesight at 
> the greater distances to participate, It has  been suggested that a rules 
> change be requested to modify the pattern  box layout and redefine the box boundary 
> infringement  penalty. 
> One suggestion was to revise the box size by changing  the box line from 
> Sixty (60) degrees to Seventy-five (75) degrees. And adopt a  uniform system of 
> accessing penalties similar to the FAI rule or to the  method used in IMAC   
> Another suggestion which may offer solutions to more of the  inherent 
> problems experienced with the present box layout and scoring methods  would be to 
> adopt  
> A box layout and penalty system as described in the AMA  Scale Aerobatics 
> Rules Item 4.1 with modifications to suit pattern. 
> Buddy Brammer 
> 
> 
> 

Bob Pastorello, El Reno, OK, USA
rcaerobob at cox.net
www.rcaerobats.net

=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.