[NSRCA-discussion] New FAI Rule Changes

Thu Apr 27 10:18:59 AKDT 2023

Hello Derek^2,

So how we down grade an square loop that has everything perfect but is
clearly looks like rectangle.

Good point of discussion,

Vince

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 1:05 PM derek emmett <derekemmett at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 11, 2023, at 10:18 AM, Derek Koopowitz via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> 
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> --
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
*NSRCA 1140.  Be Proud to show your NSRCA #*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20230427/d74dacda/attachment.html>