FAI Judges Guide Adoption to AMA Rules

When was the rules change proposal submitted to the AMA to adopt the FAI Judges Guide into the AMA rules? I understand this is official for 2005, so I will need a new rulebook.

I heard Keith mention the adoption of the FAI rules on SSW last year, but I do not remember seeing a rules change proposal. Was there one submitted or was there some other adoption procedure that was utilized to update the rules?

I know all of the rules changes were published. Does anyone remember which issue?

Keith's change to the judge's guide was accomplished during the same rules change cycle with the AMA as was the ones on BOM that Peabody and Moon attempted to do. Keith's was adopted and is to take effect in 2005.

He did the 42 degree rule as well.

Have you guy's read the latest FAI judges guide?? The new proposed version has no maneuver descriptions, or even critical points, and to top it all, the FAI rules are described from the pilot's point of view. As we all know too well, there is a hellavu difference between a view from the center of the circle, and one from outside. How do we train new judges without explaining all of these perspective views correctly. It's beyond me completely!

The 42 degree in-point of the clover is also incorrect. Pete Soule's detailed paper showed that the tangent point between the upper and lower loops is indeed at approximately 42 degrees (41.88), but the lowest point of entry to loop 1, if you fly in parallel to the ground, is close to 38 degrees, as per the old rules. I have drawn many drawings to illustrate this point. I have even done a simulation of 3 different ways to show the problems exactly. No-one seems to be really bothered either way. My point is, if we have gone so far as to have the 38 degree point changed to 42 degrees in the AMA and FAI rules, why don't we just take the trouble to fix the actual description of how the clover should be performed? The present method is further from the facts than the 38/42 issue, which is real hard to see anyway.

Well,

I know of someone with the initials "KR" who can write, can't he?

How do we train
>new judges without explaining all of these perspective views
>correctly. It's beyond me completely!

I guess maybe we need to answer that question.

It would seem that the judges are trained with guidelines that are not in the rulebook. Dave Cook's Stunt Book for example, meant to be a judge's training guide, is outside the rulebook in several ways.

I still dont understand how you can have a judges training guide. The rule book is the law and that is what should be used. I know it is vague as far as judges go but that is the way it is. Adding a guide to our RB is probably one of the best proposals ever. It will lay the ground work for all judges to judge the same and these different "Guides" or "Interpretations" should all go away.

When someone "Writes" a training guide they are interpreting the rules as they "Read" them. Then it is sent out to the masses and there your slant starts. Case and point Dave's guide. Read it and you will understand.

Now I know he put alot of hard work into it and that is good. But you still cant use it if it isnt agreed upon by the whole as a proper interpretation of the RB.

Training should be executed with the RB in hand at all times. Not a Guide of some sort. I think this is one of the main reasons the FAI guide was to be inserted into our RB. Now if it is there then there is no NEED for non RB training guides. Make sense??? I think so.

>I still dont understand how you can have a judges training
>guide. The rule book is the law and that is what should be
>used. I know it is vague as far as judges go but that is
>the way it is. Adding a guide to our RB is probably one of
>the best proposals ever. It will lay the ground work for
>all judges to judge the same and these different "Guides" or
>"Interpretations" should all go away.

Doug, you are dead right in saying that the rule book should be the law. Through the years, there have been many judges guides in the FAI rules, and all of them had drawings and descriptions of the maneuvers, together with critical points to look for. The new proposed FAI judges guide has no maneuver descriptions or drawings showing a judges perspective view at all. If the guides are indeed wrong, then maybe it is better to leave it out all together.
>
>When someone "Writes" a training guide they are interpreting
>the rules as they "Read" them. Then it is sent out to the
>masses and there your slant starts. Case and point Dave's
>guide. Read it and you will understand.

This is indeed what has happened, and this has added to the lack of a universal understanding of the shapes.
>
>Now I know he put alot of hard work into it and that is
>good. But you still cant use it if it isnt agreed upon by
>the whole as a proper interpretation of the RB.

Dave's manual does have the incorrect judges perspective views, but Dave is one of the most open-minded guys around, and I am busy working with Dave on correcting the perspective views.
>
>Training should be executed with the RB in hand at all
>times. Not a Guide of some sort. I think this is one of
>the main reasons the FAI guide was to be inserted into our
>RB. Now if it is there then there is no NEED for non RB
>training guides. Make sense??? I think so.

The new FAI rules with the 2-D drawings in some way make the shapes easier to understand, for the pilot's that is. Just remember that everything must be brought back to the sphere in the long run. So whatever shape you think that you are seeing, it must be able to fit on the surface of a sphere to be correct. If you step through each maneuver piece by piece on a sphere, you will always get the correct understanding. The pilot's view, and the so-called judge's views, must all fit back on the sphere. Judges need to be trained to adjust to how shapes change perspective from different angles. Now when the rules are not written to explain this (neither should they be) then something more is needed. This is possible with a good judges training guide, or manual.

My simulation is getting better all the time, and I now have pop-up maneuver shapes, so that you can see how the model actually follows the shape. Now, if I can just get some consensus as to how the clover can be done, then I can finish the sim. I was actually going to do a seperate sim for a sort of animated judges guide, but I think that combining the whole thing into one is maybe a better idea.

Judges need to be trained to adjust
>to how shapes change perspective from different angles. Now
>when the rules are not written to explain this (neither
>should they be) then something more is needed. This is
>possible with a good judges training guide, or manual.

<golf clap>

This manual would need to be adopted into the AMA rules, using a rules proposal. No manuals outside of the rules should be used to train judges.

Dave Cook has been an invaluable help to me. I cannot thank him enough. He answered questions that no one else would answer for 2 years (or could answer). I love his attitude, and he seems to have been doing this for a while.

I do not wish to use Dave's name in any negative way. I think what he is doing is the right thing, and SOMETHING LIKE his Stunt Book should be adopted into the AMA rules in the future. Maybe diagrams and descriptions coming the sim work will ultimately make the best guide.

You are dead right about Dave. I reckon that if everyone involved in the rule making and judges training, had Dave's open-minded attitude and enthusiasm, we would have solved all of the silly problems that we are sitting with right now.

>When was the rules change proposal submitted to the AMA to
>adopt the FAI Judges Guide into the AMA rules? I understand
>this is official for 2005, so I will need a new rulebook.
>
>I heard Keith mention the adoption of the FAI rules on SSW
>last year, but I do not remember seeing a rules change
>proposal. Was there one submitted or was there some other
>adoption procedure that was utilized to update the rules?
>
>I know all of the rules changes were published. Does anyone
>remember which issue?

Brad,

I am still in the process of getting unpacked and settled in our new house in Tucson and have not opened the boxes that have my files on the various rules proposals.

The proposal to adopt the CURRENT FAI judges guide was submitted during the current cycle about two years ago. I want to make it clear that the proposal is to adopt the FAI guide that is in the current FAI rulebook. This is NOT the revised FAI guide that has been developed over the past several years with the work of Peter Germann and Andy Sweetland. The current FAI guide that has been approved by the AMA CL Aerobatics Contest Board for our rule book has been adjusted to make the guide compatible with the few differences in the AMA and FAI pattern descriptions. This FAI guide that is being adopted was generated several years ago and in the opinion of many at that time offered a valuable tool to help judges do their job. It is my belief that many feel that this current FAI guide (the one in the current FAI rule book) is far superior to the guide that is in the current AMA rulebook. The current AMA judge's guide was essentially prepared by one individual. Though it has some elements that are useful, there are biases in that guide that do not belong. The new guide, based on the current FAI rulebook, in my humble opinion, correctly empahases the various aspects of the pattern like shapes, sizes, bottoms, intersections and corners.

I know that Al Rabe has objected to various parts of this new guide that will be in the 2005 rulebook because he thinks it overemphasizes certain parts of the pattern and because of its length. Others might have some objections as well, but I think overall, this guide is a significant improvement over the guide in the current rulebook.

I will try to find the material in the next day or so and summarize all of the changes that will be adopted in the 2005 rulebook.

In response to several posts that have already appeared on this thread: One of the proposals is to change of the elevation angle of the horizontal intersections of the four leaf clover. Keith Renecle has correctly shown that even this new 42-degree elevation angle is still not entirely correct, though I think he will agree that the four leaf clover should correctly consist of four loops, all tangent to each other as described in the rulebook and the diameter of the loops should be 42-degrees (not the 38-degrees that is "over-empahsized" here in the States). I do not want to get into this discussion here at this time as we have gone over it before on this forum. Keith Renecle and I have corresponded at length on this and were able to discuss it at the World Championships in Muncie last July. I will recommend that for those who are interested should contact him. His computer graphics on portraying the pattern on our hemisphere are supurb. The problem is graphics can correctly show how the four leaf should should be flown given that the loops are tangent with each other and the top of the two top loops are to be tangent with the vertical plane through the center of the circle. This will show that the loops are to be approximately 42-degrees in diameter and that the intersections between the top and bottom loops are at the 38-degree level and the graphics will correctly show that these intersections are not horizontal. It is difficult if not impossible for a judge to see this. I think it is important that judges understand this but I do not think there are very many calibrated eyeballs that will ever be able to differentiate this with any degree of accuracy..
(And it will be almost as difficult for the pilot to see this and even more difficult fot the pilot to fly these segments through the intersections of the top and bottom loops.)

Brad, I know this does not directly answer your question. The proposals were published in Model Avaiation during this rules cycle. However, I do not believe that the complete word-for-word proposal for the guide was published. I believe it was available to each district representative on the CL Aerobatics contest Board.

It is important to know that the new guide that will be in the 2005 rule book is based on the current FAI rulebook with changes that are peculiar to the AMA rules, not what might be published in the next FAI rulebook.

Keith...I hope your move is going well....I'm still unpacking/wishing that I hadn't pitched stuff.
I am unclear ..... is our AMA going to adopt new rules for PA (other than the 42 degree Clover), or is the Judging Guide in the Rule Book going to be changed? Or Both?

Thanks

See Ya

>Keith...I hope your move is going well....I'm still
>unpacking/wishing that I hadn't pitched stuff.
>I am unclear ..... is our AMA going to adopt new rules for
>PA (other than the 42 degree Clover), or is the Judging
>Guide in the Rule Book going to be changed? Or Both?
>
>Thanks
>
>See Ya
>
>Peabody

Rich,

Finally getting unpacked and have most of my files and reference material on the shelf of my den. And we got our computer hooked up today.

As I understand, the following changes to the AMA PA rules will be made in the 2005 rulebook.

Increase the alllowable total displacement to 15 cc (.915 cu in) 2-stroke or 4 stroke. Line size tables will include lines sizes for the larger displacements.

Deletion of the suggeted "N' designation in front of the license number to a suggested "USA".

42-degree elevation angles for the four leaf instead of 38-degree elevation angles.

Replace sections 14 and 15 with the current FAI Judge's Guide. The guide that will appear in the AMA rulebook has been modified to adopt the few differences in the AMA rules. As I tried to explain in the previous post in this thread. this guide emphasizes the "Judging Focus" to be on shapes, sizes, intersections. and bottoms. The guide then gives tools for the judge to use to be able to focus on these elements of the pattern. It may not yet be perfect, but it seems to a giant improvement over the material in the current AMA rulebook.

Hi Keith,
I hope that your move is getting through the worst now ie. unpcking, trying to find everything etc. Drop me an e-mail when you are settled. It will be nice to correspond once again. I have done a lot more work on the simulation now, and also with Igor's help, I have some better idea's for the clover. All the best.