Pattern Box Rules (discussion)

[Joe Lachowski]

The 75 degree box is just as bad as no box at all. I flew the 75 degree box 
in a couple of IMAC contests when they used it and thought that that big of 
a box was a joke and presented less of a challenge. Leave the box alone. 
Let's bury this obsurd idea right now!!

>From: vicenterc at comcast.net
>Reply-To: discussion at nsrca.org
>To: discussion at nsrca.org, discussion at nsrca.org
>CC: BUDDYonRC at aol.com
>Subject: Re: Pattern Box Rules (discussion)
>Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 22:10:27 +0000
>
>IMAC changed to 90 degree box this year.
>
>Vince
>
>-------------- Original message --------------
>
>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
>


=================================================
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.