Precision Aerobatics Rules, Round 2

In my 30 plus years of flying and judging at various levels of competition and in most sections of the country, I have found almost universal understanding (or at least acceptance of basic understandings) on various elements of the pattern that are being brought into question by the previous thread. I do feel, that there is little to be gained by rewriting the rule book so that every contingency or "what-if scenario" that can be imagined is addressed, whether experienced in real life competition or yet to occur. Such a rulebook would start looking like a telephone book, but even then, there could still be those situations not specifically spelled out in detail. Because some judges or event directors have made errors in the past does not mean that the rulebook must be changed. On the other hand, if there really is ambiguity or conflict in the way the rulebook is currently written, then a change is appropriate and there are procedures to make that happen. Any AMA member is entitled to submit a change proposal.

Somebody asked for a summary of what this previous thread contained. What I am presenting here does not cover all of the points or questions that have been raised. However, what follows are my opinions on several items based on what I understand from the wording in the rulebook as tempered by a few years involvement with competition flying including the training of judges at several Nationals and FAI Team Trials in one form or another since the mid-70's when PAMPA first became responsible to run these two events.

Laps Required prior to the overhead eights:

I am reluctant to bring this up again, but it seems that there might still be those who seem to think that only 1.5 laps are required prior to the overhead eights. Paragraph 11.1 states "At least two (2) laps of level flight shall precede each maneuver..." This paragraph also states "Judges shall not require more than two (2) level laps between maneuvers…" Furthermore, Paragraph 11 (and this has not yet been mentioned in the previous thread "…doing less than two (2) laps between maneuvers…will result in a loss of pattern points." As stated before, 1.5 laps does not equal 2 laps. If only 1.5 laps are flown between the hourglass and the overhead eights quite simply "will result in a loss of pattern points." I do not think it could be any more clear. The rulebook requires 2 laps. The section stating that the judges shall not require more than two laps simply means that the judges cannot arbitrarily require more than the two-lap requirement necessary to satisfy the rulebook. Pattern points will be lost if less than 2 laps are flown between each maneuver.

Level laps before the landing:

The rules require that "two (2) laps of level flight shall precede each maneuver…" (Again referencing Paragraph 11.1.) Evidently, some are reading this to mean two laps of "normal level flight". Paragraph 11.1 also defines that "normal level flight" is "an altitude of 1.20 to 1.80 meters (3.9 to 5.9 feet)". Paragraph 11.1 states that "portions of certain maneuvers which require normal level flight elevation must be accomplished between 1.20 to 1.80 meters (3.9 to 5.9 feet) for maximum points." The only portions of the pattern that requires extended level laps at "normal level flight" are the level laps of the takeoff maneuver and inverted flight. The 2-lap requirement between each maneuver is not described as "normal level flight" but is expressed as "level flight". The laps between maneuvers need not be nominally flown at the 3.9 to 5.9 foot altitude, though the entry into some of the maneuvers are specified to be at this altitude. Entry at some other altitude should be scored as an error with a reduction of points for that maneuver. (As an aside, the non restrictive "level flight" term rather than the "normal level flight" specification for laps between maneuvers is what allows the climb to the proper altitudes for the outside square loops and the four leaf clover as well as the descent from the outside loops prior to the inside square loops to fulfill the "two (2) laps of level flight" required to precede each maneuver.) So when we get to the landing, and as Ted Fancher pointed out earlier, there is no altitude specified where the descent must start. The descent can start at 45-degrees, or any other altitude or after the completion of an inside loop. (This is explained to the judges at the Nationals during the training sessions.) The only requirement for level flight prior to the landing is that there be a minimum of two level laps (not necessarily at "normal level flight" altitude) after the four-leaf clover and before the landing. There have been National Stunt Champions determined when they shut their engine down by an inside loop just prior to the descent and landing and were awarded their pattern points. And as far as I know, there were never any indications that other contestants thought an infraction had occurred that warranted a protest. There is nothing in the rules that would support such action.

(Another aside: For the 2 level laps between each maneuver, there are no altitude specifications nor penalties for flying the two level laps between maneuvers at other than 3.9 to 5.9 feet. The entry for certain maneuvers require this altitude. The better flyers seem to fly the majority of their level laps between maneuvers at this altitude, but there is nothing in the rule book that requires it.)

Landing Maneuver:

It has been suggested in this forum and elsewhere that touch-and-go landings could be performed and still be eligible for pattern points as long as the model had stopped prior to the 8-minute limit. The rulebook is not written in a way that touch-and-go landings are addressed in any way. The rulebook states "A correct landing is judged when the model descends smoothly to land with no bounce…" If I was a judge and I saw a touch-and-go landing (i.e. one that was performed with throttle control), I would judge it as a bounce. If more touch-and-go landings were performed, then this would be assessed as more bounces and more points deducted accordingly. The flight would still be eligible for pattern points.

Additional loops or "non-standard" exits:

The threads here have included some actual experiences as well as some hypothetical situations regarding how certain maneuvers are exited and if pattern point eligibility is maintained. This gets to the point made in Paragraph 11 that "Not doing the correct number of consecutive maneuvers, … entering or exiting a maneuver in any way other than is illustrated in the maneuver section …will result in a loss of pattern points." The diagrams for each maneuver illustrate the start and end point of that maneuver. Anything different simply means that pattern points will be lost. Now, one can get into real life or hypothetical situations where there is a question regarding this seemingly simple rule. One example could be (but not necessarily limited to) the situation where the contestant takes actions to correct for problems caused by wind. And there can be endless (and pointless) "discussions" on what constitues an improper entrance or exit that warrants the loss of pattern points compared to an error in position/attitude/altitude at the entrance or exit that only reduces the score for that maneuver. These matters would have to be considered on a case-by-case situation. (It is sort of like defining pornography - the judge will know it when he sees an incorrect entrance or exit that deserves the loss of pattern points.) The decision made by the judges should be made based on the available facts and what is fair to the competitor involved as well as the other flyers in the competition given the way the rules are written. An extra loop, or anything that resembles such a thing at the end of any of the eights is more than an error. It is an exit that differs from the illustration and description of the maneuver and would be cause for loss of pattern points. Similarly, flying too many loops or not enough loops will also result in the lost of pattern points. These are not just errors that result only in the loss of points due to a poor exit. Instead, pattern points will be lost.

General comments:

Again, I do not claim that I know all the answers regarding the PA rulebook. There have been numerous adjustments/changes/refinements to the rules, but the basics have remained the same for more than 30 years. I do not doubt that more changes should and will be made in the future. I am also aware that the rules have evolved in a manner not entirely envisioned by the framer of these rules in the person of George Aldrich. I have nothing but the utmost respect for George Aldrich who had a significant impact on my modeling career. The rules have nonetheless evolved and will continue to do so. I would suggest to those who feel that there are discrepancies or some perceived problem with the current rules that they consider these rules have been around for some time. The rules should be carefully read in their entirety and consideration should given that they have served as an understood standard for many years at all levels of competition. It is hard to imagine how new revelations have been discovered regarding something as basic as the 2 lap requirement between maneuvers which has been around since the early 1960's or before. Errors have been made in applying and interpreting the rules. Unfortunately, no matter how well written, there will still be errors in applying the rules. If a change, refinement or clarification is really needed, then a change proposal should be made to the AMA Control Line Contest Board. There is a procedure for that. It would be highly commendable that any change submitted is done so in the context of truly improving the event rather than serving some self-serving ego.

Standing by for incoming.

Keith

Keith

>...speak on
>the effect of weather/wind conditions
>and judging. I cant
>locate it now for lack
>of time (got to go
>to work) but somewhere in
>the rules this is addressed
>with a small sentence, quite
>non specific in nature.

Jon,

Quoting Paragraph 14.6: "The fact that weather conditions change throughout the day (wind, rain, temperature) is no reason to change scoring to compensate."

I think this is fairly straightforward. The score of a maneuver should not be adjusted to compensate for the effects of the wind. Basically, a judge needs to score each flight as if the judge was totally unaware of the weather and what effects it might have on the performrance of the model. The judge should be looking for compliance to size, shape, bottoms and corners. If the weather is afecting the ability of a competitor to fly a maneuver properly, the judge should not award award a score better than the maneuver deserves, irrespective of the wind. This is not a matter of a judge trying to show how tough he can be. It is strictly a matter of how well a model is flown. If a good score is awarded to a flight that is not deserved, there is litle room left to give a better score to a flight which is flown noticeably better and then no room at all to properly score a flight which handles the weather conditions very well.

Thank you for the clarifications! If we can get your final comments put into Stunt News for all the membership to read, we should be a little closer to uniform understanding of the rules.

Bill

Bill Mitchell
Apex, NC
District 4
AMA540930

What incomming? I thought this was a reasoned and well thought out synopsis. I definately agree with the idea that some things are wrong and everyone agrees. Others are a case by case analysis. What is fair to the flyer and the other competitors.

Randy

I have the rulebook open to p.55 and it states in sect. 14.1.1 that the judges find the upwind side of the circle, 14.1.2 that the contestant may point out the quadrant he wishes to to perform maneuvers, 14.1.3. that the Judges should change position when the wind changes, and 14.1.4. that the Judges should only change position during level flight between maneuvers. What bothers me here is that these various instructions are not tied together in a manner that makes sense, and in some ways are contradictory. I would prefer it be written in a different order at least, starting with .2, then .1. Then I would change .3 to state that the judges should change position in response to the flier's signals but only during level flight between maneuvers. I can't walk and judge at the same time...if I'm out of position, I stop and judge the best I can, but the contestant will suffer.

I would appreciate guidance on this issue! Steve

Hi Steve,
You make a good point about the desireability of putting all the judge placement criteria in one spot. However, notwithstanding the obscuration thereof, the following thoughts come to mind on the subject.

I think the FAI direction regarding "stay at home" judging is a terrible suggestion and could likely be argued to be unsafe and thus subject to an emergency revocation.

Control line models depend on line tension for safe operation. By legislatively insisting that they be flown in a position which may result in loss of tension (shifting winds, etc) the rules essentially mandate unsafe flying practices if one hopes to get a favorable qualification from the judges. It's not unlike saying that RC flyers should be required to continue flying in areas of constant radio interference because they don't want the judges to be inconvenienced. It just doesn't wash.

I have no problem with the judges and the flyer conversing about likely maneuver placement prior to a flight. This uncertainty usually only occurs during those dreaded calm conditions which have all of us searching for any hint of air.

Once airborne, however, I think the flyer should allow the judges to utilize their own judgement about where to position themselves. Both the judges and the pilot have tough jobs to do and I doubt either one can do their best work if they are engaging in sign language communiction between each maneuver.

Frankly, in my many years of competitive stunt flying I've seen many a pattern flown in dreadful calm air requiring lots of footwork by all concerned and almost without exception the pilot appears to have gotten a pretty good benefit of the doubt regarding the quality of maneuvers flown out of the ideal quadrant relative to the judges. Even though the pilot may think the flight was barely survivable the score turns out quite often to be pretty darn good.

For what it's worth, I give almost no thought to positioning my maneuvers based on where I think the judges are. Frankly, I often don't know where they're stationed because my concentration on either flying a maneuver or positioning myself and the airplane for the next maneuver are so intense that their position simply doesn't enter my radar screen. The point being that the pilot serves himself best by concentrating his energy on the things he can and must control to produce the best pattern he can.

Last summer, I flew at Nils' contest in Redmond Oregon. The wind was, ah, interesting. Nils had flags positioned around the circle to help judges and fliers determine manouver position (a good idea). Didn't help me much though when at one point all 4 flags were blowing directly at me. Don't you just love thermals?

But the idea is good. Let the flier and judges look at the flags and make their best call.

Randy

Steve, you asked, so here are some more comments about wind and judging:

As you point out, the rulebook (Paragraph 14.1) explains that the judges are to be on the upwind side of the circle. A contestant can indicate to the judges what he thinks is the wind direction. The judges can be expected to move during the flight to be on the upwind side of the circle, but are not to do so during a maneuver. I think that is fairly straight forward and I do not see that there is any conflict in the wording of Paragraph 14.1 or ambiguity in the order of how the paragraphs appear.

Now, I am going to talk about this in more detail, hoping that this is responsive to your question.

There are three maneuvers in the rulebook that specify the orientation of the maneuver relative to the wind. These maneuvers are: reverse wingover, inverted flight, and overhead eights. The reason why inverted flight is included in this list is to make it absolutely clear when the judging of the inverted laps starts and ends. The other two maneuvers are oriented so that they are initiated directly upwind (where the judges are supposed to be) so the judges can best determine how well the maneuver is flown.

As Ted explained, there are those situations where the wind shifts during a pattern and even during a maneuver. The judges are expected to move to the most advantageous position to observe the pattern but no while a maneuver is being flown. A pilot can point during the pattern where he is going to fly his next maneuver, but this is often fruitless as it disturbs his own concentration and the judges do not often watch what the pilot does. As Ted suggested, it is better for the pilot to concentrate on flying his pattern where he thinks is the best location and then hope for the best that the judges give an accurate score for how well each maneuver was executed.

Judges should be expected to shift position as the wind shifts, but there is a limit on how quickly they can move. (I have and judged at one field when it is not uncommon to move completely around the circle in one flight. After several hours of this, the process can be very demanding. At that same site, you can fly when it feels like the airplane is downwind but the wind is blowing in your face. Or the corollary to this is having the wind at your back while the model is being blown in at you by the wind.)

The FAI rules currently do not allow the judges to move during an official flight. There are revisions to the FAI rules in work at this time that will allow the judges to shift their position as much as one-fourth of a lap during an official flight. (One should remember that at the FAI World Championships, the judges are observing as many as 50 to 60 flights a day for three days. Then there are 45 g]flights to judge during the Finals. Changes are being proposed to also change to a two circle qualification process at the World Championships and to reduce the number of finalist to from 15 to 12 which will reduce the workload of the judges by some degree.)

Back to the AMA rules. If the wind shifts and the judges are out of position to best view the maneuver, each judge will have to do the best he can to determine how well the maneuver was flown. During the judge training sessions at the Nationals and FAI Team Trials, the judges are instructed to not give a good score for something they did not see. However, again as Ted pointed out, the pilot normally is awarded some benefit of doubt in these situations. (This is related to the fact that the score given to a maneuver might be similar to those scores preceding that maneuver when the judge is not in an optimum position. I am not saying this is what the judge is supposed to do; it is the reality of what often happens.) There becomes a tradeoff that the pilot must consider. When the wind conditions are very light and if the pilot has a really good airplane, the plane can be pushed to present a good maneuver even in a non-optimum position relative to the wind to allow the judges to best view the maneuver. But, if the wind gets to the point that the maneuver would suffer unless its orientation is correct relative to the wind, the pilot should choose to position the maneuver with the best orientation to the wind, irrespective of where the judges may be positioned. Points "might" be lost because the judges could not fully evaluate the maneuver, but more points would likely be lost for flying the airplane in a location such that its execution (size, shape, position) suffers. Then, no matter where the judges are located, the reverse wingover and the overhead eights must be entered from the upwind side of the circle. This can get to be a problem when the judges sense the wind is from one direction and the pilot feels the wind from a different direction. The judges could penalize pattern points because of an improper entry. It has been my experience that the judges will the give benefit of doubt to the pilot in these situations.

There are situations involving the weather that the Precision Aerobatics rules do not address. During the course of a contest, the weather or wind conditions could dramatically change during a flight or several flights. Examples I am familiar with include:

a. Weather conditions are relatively stable through the contest period. (There could be wind or other less than desirable conditions, but each contestant generally does not experience any different conditions of "any significance") Then, a large whirlwind (or dust-devil) goes through the circle during an official flight and extremely unstable air remains where it is virtually impossible to fly the pattern, assuming the model survived. Based on the severity of the conditions, the Contest Director can rule that the contestant can refly that flight. The flight can be rescheduled as if the flight that was blown out never occurred. (Or in other words, the same number of attempts and remaining flight, if applicable, stay the same.)

b. As in example a. above, the weather conditions are relatively stable through the contest period. Then, it starts to rain, perhaps lightly at first, but turns into a downpour during a flight and it is impractical and perhaps not safe due to lighting to continue. The contest should be halted. If conditions improve so the contest can be continued, those competitors who were affected by the rain should be allowed to refly those flights that were so impacted.

In either case, decisions should be made by the Contest Director that do not give any contestant any advantage. Neither should some contestants be penalized for the "significantly adverse" weather conditions that affected only their flights.

I have been at contests where these events occurred and reflights were allowed. As far as I could tell, all participants seemed to agree with the decisions made by the Contest Directors.

The General Information portion of the rulebook allows for delays and for the Contest Director to make decisions appropriate for any given situation.

The only place in the PA rules where "circumstances outside the pilot's control, which may have caused ... errors will be taken into consideration by the judges." is in Paragraph 13.15. Landing. The Contest Director has the authority to apply this standard to any portion of the conduct of the contest. Judges should consider this factor as they are judging any pattern where some event occurs that could get such consideration. It becomes the responsibility of the Contest Director to determine how an appropriate score should be recorded for the given situation. (This is not saying the CD should or can dictate how the judges score a maneuver, but the CD can establish the basis for the scores to be determined by the judges.) If the rules are not specific regarding any question that might arise, the Contest Director is responsible to make a decision based on the "intent of the rules" and what is fair to all contestants.

Let's go flying! 2&1/2 laps to the overheads - so be it!