Another box rule (discussion)

[Bill Glaze]

Buddy:
I like the way you are exploring lots of options.  It can only help to 
get these (and other) ideas.
By way of information, only:
I just returned from judging at the JR Challenge in Punta Gorda, FL.  
Having to leave Greensboro, NC with it's 30 and 40 degree weather,  for 
Florida with it's 70 degree weather, was a real sacrifice.  Nasty job, 
but someone had to do it.
Anyway, while there, the box situation came up.
Following the International Aerobatic Club, and applying it's 
rules/thinking to model airplanes doesn't always work, despite what some 
elements in IMAC seem to think.
The box situation is one of those things that simply hasn't worked.
Originally, the 3 zone box was eliminated; no more left/center/right 
zones.  Then, the box itself was, in effect, nullified.  Would you 
believe that the thinking at the time was that such a rule change would 
make for a smaller (yes, smaller!!) noise foot print?  Maneuvers no 
longer had to be centered; they could be flown way, way off center; this 
of course made the turnarounds nearly in a foreign country.  At the 
conclusion of the flight, the judge was asked to award a "positioning" 
score which, we were assured, would level the playing field for those 
folks who ignored the centering completely.  (and many did ignore it.)  
It certainly had no effect on positioning.  And it made the maneuvering 
area absolutely huge; judges had trouble seeing airplanes as big as 42%, 
with wingspans as large as 116"  It certainly didn't help the precision 
when the pilot couldn't really see the airplane, and the judges had a 
very hard time judging it.

Now, to the crux of the matter: there is a definite move afoot to 
re-establish the box, and to re-install the  zones.  After suffering 
through the zoneless box, then the boxless box, they have finally begun 
to realize that there has to be some territorial limit, or the whole 
scheme of things becomes ridiculous.
Look for it to be changed.  Some things must happen first, but they will 
be changed.
Sorry to be so long winded, but the only other person I know on this 
list who is intimately familiar with the above is Ed Alt.  I felt there 
might be some interesting information here.

Bill Glaze

BUDDYonRC at aol.com wrote:

>  
> There seems to be valid reasons to not change the present pattern box.
> There are also two seemingly valid questions / problems that the 
> present box arrangement presents.
> 1. Pilots flying optimum distance out increase the chance of mid air 
> collision.
> 2. Pilots who are somewhat vision limited who would prefer to fly 
> closer in.
> A possible solution would be to revise the box rules to allow a person 
> who in advance of his flight accepts a 2% total flight score downgrade 
> to fly in closer and violate the 60 degree box lines without further 
> downgrade.
> How about some comments and opinions and any other ideas which would 
> address these issues.
> Please don't boot me off of the list again I'm just trying to do my Job.
> Buddy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050309/6b741ad3/attachment.html