[NSRCA-discussion] New FAI Rule Changes

Thu Apr 27 22:15:20 AKDT 2023

Vicente,

The issue that I see is that you may be downgrading a maneuver
unnecessarily more than it should be.  In P23 for the triangle - the
maneuver description states (and we always go by the description when we
judge) that each radius must be equal and the lines must be 45 degrees and
if that's the case, and the maneuver is flown correctly, we don't look at
line lengths because if it is centered correctly and the radii are the same
and the lines are 45's then it is geometrically accurate according to the
description.  If the radii are not the same (downgrade) and the lines are
not 45's (downgrade) then either one line will be too long or too short
(downgrade), that will become a downgrade based on comparing the two 45
line lengths (0.5 for a minor error or more points for more severe line
lengths differences) and if not centered then we will downgrade at the end
of the maneuver for the percentage of the maneuver that is outside of the
maneuvering zone (offset from center).

There can and should be only one way a judge can see downgrades - judges
should not differ on this.  If one is seeing things that other judges are
not, then one isn't judging by the rules.  A judge may miss a downgrade but
everyone should be on the same page with regard to downgrades.

Hopefully this helps!

Best,
-Derek

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 2:10 PM Vicente Bortone <vincebrc at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Derek,
>
> We are a kind of the same page.   There could be more than one way a judge
> could see downgrades.  Sometimes is not possible to see each until the
> maneuver is close to be done or actually done. For some reason, in some
> cases it is just easier to see it in one way or another.  In the case of
> triangle, if pilot do a perfect equal sides triangle with all elements
> perfect I will downgrade for one point for each angle been off and one
> point because the all lines are equal when the base one should be about 25%
> longer.  (kind similar to the square it is easier to see when maneuver  is
> close to be done).
>
> This is good discussion.  I will check this weekend with Don Ramsey in
> Katy, Texas contest.   He wrote an article in the new K-Factor that is
> about to be released.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Vince
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 2:56 PM Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Vicente,
>>
>> The line lengths must be the same for all 4 legs in a square loop.  Those
>> deductions are made while the square loop is being flown - not afterwards.
>> You cannot make another deduction with regard to geometry after the
>> maneuver is completed - that would mean you are dinging the pilot twice for
>> the same infraction.
>>
>> Best,
>> -Derek
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 11:19 AM Vicente Bortone via NSRCA-discussion <
>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 #*
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20230428/2310bfd7/attachment.html>