[NSRCA-discussion] New FAI Rule Changes

Tue Apr 11 09:18:31 AKDT 2023

Just a point of clarification here... there is NOT an additional downgrade
given for not following the required geometry on a maneuver.  Those
deductions are already made for not following radii, line lengths, correct
angles (45 or 60 degree), etc.  The F3A rules are very clear about this -
see 5B.8.1.

5B.8. 1. GEOMETRICAL ACCURACY OF THE MANOEUVRE

As a guide for downgrading deviations from the defined manoeuvre geometry,
the manoeuvres are

divided into their different components: lines, loops, rolls, snap-rolls,
horizontal circles,

line/loop/roll/horizontal circle combinations, stall turns, and spins.

On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 7:26 AM Vicente Bortone via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> Good morning to all,
>
> This could be a good morning discussion and judging review.  It is good to
> mention that constant speed maximum downgrade is 1 point.  This means the
> judge can downgrade one point if the pilot does a terrible job in
> maintaining constant speed.  I will say that constant speed is
> equivalent to power management.  The fact is one point downgrade maximum
> means that is not the most important  part of the overall flying
> presentation because it is well known that it is practically impossible to
> do exact speed in all positions but it is possible to do power management.
> Clearly the easiest portions that human judges can see very well are: wing
> level, constant radius, wind correction (probably the most frequent
> downgrade and easier for judges to see), constant roll speed, rolls square
> stopping, relative angles that relate to geometry and equal radius, and
> positioning.  I am going to take this opportunity to mention the geometry
> of the pyramid or triangle.  Many pilots and judges think that the
> pyramid or triangle has equal sides geometry and it does not.  The base
> side should be about 23-24% longer than the 45 sides.  When pilots try to
> do equal sides the angles are forced to do 60 degrees.  Assuming that
> everything else is perfect is a 2 points downgrade for missing the 45 lines
> plus whatever the judge downgrades for not doing the required geometry.
> Probably an additional 2 points more downgrade.  It is interesting to hear
> the comments when a pilot gets a 6 when he thinks he flew a perfect
> pyramid.  Yes there are spins, snaps, fighter turns and stall turns.  We
> know these very well but we could discuss them if need be.  Please try to
> avoid snaps but why not.  With our judging experience we can dissect the
> snaps very well too.  This is a good review to get ready for the 2023
> season and the 50th pattern Nats.  Feel free to share your judging
> experience.
>
> Best,
>
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
> *NSRCA 1140.  Be Proud to show your NSRCA #*
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 8:35 PM GLEN WATSON via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
>> I believe the FAI weight increase will influence future rules around the
>> size of the aerobatic box. I've been privileged with others to witnessed in
>> real-time autonomous/computer flights configured with basic-pattern
>> maneuvers flown by an Epowered 2m plane. This consisted of center,
>> turn-around maneuvers including a rolling circle flown at proper distance
>> within box limits. The recorded playbacks were viewed on Flightcoach's
>> Plotter immediately following the flights. The very credible developer of
>> this autonomous effort will by me and should by others remain unknown.  AMA
>> flyers should keep in mind what FAI adopts will flow downhill to AMA rules
>> eventually. The following are my opinions from the autonomous flights I
>> witnessed combined with my impression from my own Flightcoach Masters 2023
>> flights recently reordered...
>>
>> 1) The increased weight rule for 2024 could influence larger/heavier
>> aircraft designs which could/should possibly influence the size of the
>> current aerobatic box? Flight coach (my opinion) is demonstrating it is
>> extremely difficult to execute and demonstrate a straight line before/after
>> and in-between every in-box maneuver.
>>
>> 2) Regardless of equipment constant speed is not realistic. "Constant"
>> implies the same or continuous. Those viewing their fight data via
>> Flightcoach understand "constant” is not possible. The wording of this
>> criteria in FAI's rules should evolve to say something like "similar
>> speed".
>>
>> 3) It is not feasible given today's technology to replace subjective
>> judging. Flight qualities such as smooth/gracefulness, geometry especially
>> radii, entry and exit altitudes, and box position portrayed by Flightcoach
>> is way different when witnessed real-time.  At this juncture of technology
>> there is no substitute for what the Pilot does to manage these flight
>> aspects to make things appear correct to human judges to be compliant with
>> the rules.
>>
>> ~Glen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 04/05/2023 3:00 PM Andrew Jesky via NSRCA-discussion <
>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I fear it causes manufactures to relaxes their standard to make light
>> airplanes, then the power requirements will need to be adjusted accordingly…
>> >
>> > Andrew
>> >
>> > Sent from my iPhone
>> >
>> > > On Apr 5, 2023, at 2:51 PM, Mark Atwood via NSRCA-discussion <
>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Tony,
>> > >
>> > > I would argue you were ON time.  At this point I think weight change
>> is 10 years too late and will only serve to escalate costs in the sport (My
>> opinion).  At this point the Glow/Electric debate is basically over and
>> electric power has proven itself viable in the current weight scheme.  More
>> allowance will only lead to higher volume aircraft with lighter wing
>> loadings.  Thus… retooling.  Which will cost both manufacturers and
>> participants more money.
>> > >
>> > > -M
>> > >
>> > > On Apr 5, 2023, at 12:39 PM, Anthony Frackowiak <
>> frackowiak at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Well, the weight rule is exactly what I proposed for AMA several
>> years ago. I guess I was just ahead of my times.
>> > >
>> > > Tony Frackowiak
>> > >
>> > >> On Apr 5, 2023, at 8:57 AM, Mark Atwood via NSRCA-discussion <
>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Hey All,
>> > >>
>> > >> Attached are the results from the CIAM plenary meeting and vote that
>> took place on April 1st.  These rule changes will go into effect in 2024.
>> Most of the rules that address F3A are minor and merely clarify clerical
>> issues in the rulebook or help outline procedures.  There are also changes
>> to the wording around telemetry, but again, only for better clarity. But
>> there are TWO notable rule changes.  Neither of which we supported.
>> > >>
>> > >> 1) Increase the weight limit to 5.5Kg TAKE OFF WEIGHT.   This is a
>> straight up increase for electric, and a change to weighing procedure for
>> glow planes to include FULL tank of fuel.   The issues here are obvious and
>> I know we have many on both sides of this discussion, but it’s the new rule
>> in FAI.
>> > >>
>> > >> 2) This one confounds me.   They have changed the judging
>> guidelines, such that they no longer want accurate geometry relative to the
>> aircrafts plane of flight, but instead want geometric accuracy FROM THE
>> JUDGES PERSPECITVE.    In other words, a half loop at the end of the box
>> needs to LOOK round, rather than BE round relative to the plane of flight.
>>  It completely changes our way of flying and makes tools like flight coach
>> useless.
>> > >>
>> > >> Personally, I can’t imagine this will last, and more over I can’t
>> imagine this will actually be used.  A few of us (US/ UK / AUS) fought hard
>> against it, but in the end it won out.  They had no explanation as to how
>> cross box maneuvers will accomplish this (such as a rolling circle) but
>> insisted this is what was wanted.  I’m sure there will be much discussion
>> at events prior to this going into effect.
>> > >>
>> > >> There were also some minor changes for how ties are handled and
>> better language and procedure for handling smaller championship events (<40
>> pilots). But most of that is benign.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> F3A Starts on page 25
>> > >>
>> > >> <CIAM 2023 ePlenary Meeting -
>> Proposals_Final_v1.pdf>_______________________________________________
>> > >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> > >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> > >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> > > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> > > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20230411/96af28f4/attachment.html>