Pattern question?

Do the "Reverse Wingover" and "Overhead eights" have to be entered from a certain side of the circle relative to the wind?
Allan Perret

The rules state that these two maneuvers shall be entered on the upwind side of the circle. We generally interpret this to be in front of the judges since they usually position themselves on the upwind side of the circle to clearly see the maneuvers and judge them. There are instances, however, when the judges are not on the upwind side as the wind shifts. To be sure you are properly judged for the scores you should clarify with the judges how they will judge your entry before the flight. It might be best to clarify that statement in the pilots meeting.

good luck

Bob Smiley
A Lancair 360 builder/flyer trying to be a modeler.

BOB WROTE>>To be sure you are properly judged for the scores you should clarify with the judges how they will judge your entry before the flight. It might be best to clarify that statement in the pilots meeting.

Bob it's up to the pilot to put the judge's where YOU want them. There is only one entry to the overhead eights, to do it any differant, you will lose pattern points.

Scott(thumb to nose )Riese

thumb to nose is what you do to make your overhead eights overhead....try it

This would be good for an argument, since the rules are ambiguous. The maneuver descriptions don't mention the wind, but the diagrams for these two maneuvers show a wind direction. Ask the judges how they plan to handle it. They might have a few other ambiguities they want to cover at the same time.

>This would be good for an argument, since the rules are
>ambiguous. The maneuver descriptions don't mention the wind,
>but the diagrams for these two maneuvers show a wind
>direction.

Therefore, it's not ambiguous.

> Ask the judges how they plan to handle it. They
>might have a few other ambiguities they want to cover at the
>same time.

Don't bother asking the judges. Enter the wingover and overhead 8 from the upwind side of the circle.

You know, at the five Nats judging meetings that I have had the pleasure of attending, I bring this up...because occasionally the maneuver is performed either backwards or enough sideways that it throws things akimbo.

To say that pattern points should be lost because the flyer chooses to perform these two maneuvers somewhere other than where the arrow points isn't right...the flyer (in AMA contests), may fly or position judges wherever he/she chooses.

Best to do the maneuvers opposite the judges though.

Most feel that "pictures" are not rules, but rather guidelines.

I have spent a bit of time trying to determine when the arrows appeared in the rule book, to see if there was a coincidental rule change. I haven't figured it out yet......mayhaps I'll look again this summer?

See Ya

Read and study the AMA diagram. It shows O/H 8 starting from
level flight and entering the 8 as in a "wingover" with wind
coming from the judges. To enter other than as described will
result in loss of pattern points. Most pilots I have observed
do it this way. After doing the 8, the exit is the other half
of a wingover. Reference diagrams.

>Read and study the AMA diagram. It shows O/H 8 starting
>from
>level flight and entering the 8 as in a "wingover" with wind
>coming from the judges. To enter other than as described
>will
>result in loss of pattern points.

It shouldn't. People can enter it from any direction without loss of pattern points, as long as the two laps between maneuvers are still met. The argument could be that the flier missed the wind direction. Of course, if you do it 90 deg. to the wind/judges, you won't get as good a score.

I, like Rich, occasionally see people do this maneuver at all sorts of funny angles to the wind, usually 180 from the preferred method, but not always. Recently, though, I have seen *a bunch* of people not make the 2 laps, but instead pull up at a lap and a half. This is OK in FAI, but not in AMA.

I guess Bill Fitzgerald and I (who judged classic at a local a few weeks ago) saw about 5-6 people lose pattern points this way all in one day. This after having seen it twice in my entire career until then. Weird.

If you miss the wind you don't lose pattern points but you do lose maneuver points. In the Overhead 8's it is harder to make the two loops the same size. In the wingover the plane doesn't track the same in the two passes. Better to start them dead upwind and not give up the points.

Most judges try to stay as close to dead upwind as possible, if you start these stunts there the judges should have no problem. Only time this might not work is when the wind is changing rapidly, but that is just part of flying the event.

Brett, with all due respect, had I been a contestant I would have questioned the loss of pattern points for doing only 1 1/2 laps from the overhead eight exit to the cloverleaf.

Reference rule book: 11.1 "...A nominal interpretation of the "two (2) lap" level flight requirement is the accepted interpretation, allowing the starting point of one (1) maneuver to begin slightly less than the two (2) full laps after the exit point of the prior manuever due to the width of the maneuvers." Judges shall not require more than two (2) level laps between maneuvers due to the time limit imposed by these regulations.

In all my years as a contestant and a judge, I have never seen this narrow an interpretaion of the two lap requirement and we don't do that to folks here in the Southwest. FYI: They don't do it at the VSC either.

>Brett, with all due respect, had I been a contestant I
>would have questioned the loss of pattern points for doing
>only 1 1/2 laps from the overhead eight exit to the
>cloverleaf.
>
>Reference rule book: 11.1 "...A nominal interpretation of
>the "two (2) lap" level flight requirement is the accepted
>interpretation, allowing the starting point of one (1)
>maneuver to begin slightly less than the two (2) full laps
>after the exit point of the prior manuever due to the width
>of the maneuvers." Judges shall not require more than two
>(2) level laps between maneuvers due to the time limit
>imposed by these regulations.

A lap, plus about a half, to get around to upwind, is NOT "slightly less than the two (2) full laps after the exit point of the prior manuever due to the width of the maneuvers". This is not very ambiguous.

The FAI rules specifically note that a lap and a half is OK, BTW.

>In all my years as a contestant and a judge, I have never
>seen this narrow an interpretaion of the two lap requirement
>and we don't do that to folks here in the Southwest.
>FYI: They don't do it at the VSC either.
>

I've never seen it NOT interpreted this way, and I've been to a lot of contests, too. One thing for sure - don't do a lap and a half at the NATs!

Brett,

Just because I am curious. You would require 2 1/2 laps to get back downwind from the eights in order to start the cloverleaf? If so, then how do you interpret "...the judges will not require ...etc." portion of 11.1? Always trying to expand my knowledge and willing to listen to those who have more experience than I, it would be much appreciated if you could expand on this line of reasoning.

Thank you in advance,

My understanding has been that one flys 2 1/2 laps before entering the overhead 8's. However, John's question fired off a synapse in my brain and I recalled something Bill Zimmer explained. The AMA rule book, 11. Flight Pattern, speaks of 2 laps between maneuver, NOT two LEVEL laps. Bill Zimmer pointed out that, because the four leaf clover ends at the top of the circle, the return to level flight is @ 1/4 lap and this can counted in the 2 laps needed before landing.

Similarly, the overhead 8's are entered at the top of the circle, so instead of flying 1 1/2 laps before the maneuver, one actually would have flown 1 3/4 laps--closer to 2 laps than is 2 1/2 + 1/4 = 2 3/4 laps. Maybe we need to think about this a little more.

Now, to address John's question; you exit the overhead 8's at the top of the circle, fly 1/4 lap down wind to level flight, fly a lap trying to remember what comes next, fly another lap to get up to level flight at 38 (42) degrees altitude and enter the maneuver a bit before directly down wind, not quite 2 1/4 laps. So one flys just slightly more than two laps before entering the clover, not 2 1/2.

A local flyer, who will remain nameless to protect the guilty, likes to enter the wingover downwind, sometimes crosswind. The stronger the wind, the higher the liklihood that he will enter the maneuver incorrectly. It has something to do with his theory that entering upwind is likely to blow the airplane in on the lines.
BTW, he crashes a lot using his downwind entry and does the ugliest wingovers ever if he survives, more like a big 3/4 inside with the highest part of the loop being somewhere close to the top of the circle.
It is also interesting to note that incorrect entry may result in lack of pattern points if the maneuver is survived, though an argument could be made that with the wind swirling and generally blowing hard from several different directions depending on your position on the field, that the maneuver which appeared to be entered downwind to the judges was actually entered upwind as the wind was blowing in an opposite direction on the other side of the circle.

>A local flyer, who will remain nameless to protect the
>guilty, likes to enter the wingover downwind, sometimes
>crosswind. The stronger the wind, the higher the liklihood
>that he will enter the maneuver incorrectly. It has
>something to do with his theory that entering upwind is
>likely to blow the airplane in on the lines.

If somebody did this at most contests I have attended and at the Nats where I have judged, the pilot would loose pattern points.

Now, if there is a question that the pilot would claim that he sensed that he actually started the wingover on the upwind side of the circle, most judges will give him benefit of the doubt. But if there is a strong steady breeze that has been constantly in one direction, it would be difficult to accept the story.

>Brett,
>
>Just because I am curious. You would require 2 1/2 laps to
>get back downwind from the eights in order to start the
>cloverleaf? If so, then how do you interpret "...the judges
>will not require ...etc." portion of 11.1? Always trying to
>expand my knowledge and willing to listen to those who have
>more experience than I, it would be much appreciated if you
>could expand on this line of reasoning.

No - you exit the 8's on the downwind side, so you are going to get "nominal two laps" pretty easily. If, however, you entered from downwind (after only two laps), and exited on the upwind side, you *would* need 2 and a half laps.

Funny you should mention this - Bill Fitz. and I were judging Classic at Golden State this Saturday. A pilot, whos fuel was obviously and audibly running low, cut out an excess half a lap by entering the overheads from *downwind*. He got the two laps, but he didn't wait until he got around upwind. Bill and I were thus in an excellent position to see the maneuver, and he did a reasonably good maneuver and got a reasonably good score for it, and pattern points. He was able to finish the pattern before he ran out of gas. A brilliant use of the rules to maximize his chances of getting through and thus getting a good score.

The kicker on this story - the pilot was none other than Paul Pencikowski, AKA PaulyP. I might also add that he was a perfectly reasonable guy all weekend, and everybody got along with no problems.

>The kicker on this story - the pilot was none other than
>Paul Pencikowski, AKA PaulyP. I might also add that he was
>a perfectly reasonable guy all weekend, and everybody got
>along with no problems.
>
> Brett

Paul Pencikowski was also flying an all carbon Russian RTF airplane. Good looking airplane and it flies very well.

Also, if he entered the overheads other than from the upwind side, even from the downwind side which would give the judges a good position to view the maneuver, that entry, at most contests I have attended for the past 5 years, would result in loss of pattern points.

These are questions that I think the PAMPA rules committee and/or the competition/judging committee could address. Standards could be adopted as recommendations on how to deal with these matters until specific changes could be made in the rules.

It should be noted that except for the handfull of rules changes currently pending, there will be no more changes in the rulebook when it is published in 2005, which will be the beginning of the next rules change cycle for the rulebook that will not be published until 2008. In other words, other than the current changes pending, there cannot be any changes in the rulebook until 2008.

>>The kicker on this story - the pilot was none other than
>>Paul Pencikowski, AKA PaulyP. I might also add that he was
>>a perfectly reasonable guy all weekend, and everybody got
>>along with no problems.
>>
>> Brett
>
>
>Paul Pencikowski was also flying an all carbon Russian RTF
>airplane. Good looking airplane and it flies very well.
>
>Also, if he entered the overheads other than from the upwind
>side, even from the downwind side which would give the
>judges a good position to view the maneuver, that entry, at
>most contests I have attended for the past 5 years, would
>result in loss of pattern points.
>

I could interpret this as the pilot deciding he had a different idea about wind direction than the judges - particularly in nearly-dead conditions. I would have a really tough time taking away pattern points for something that was a matter of interpretation. There were nominally 2 laps, the wind (to the pilot's mind) might have shifted, so Bill and I agreed that this was OK.

> I could interpret this as the pilot deciding he had a
>different idea about wind direction than the judges -
>particularly in nearly-dead conditions.

I know there was a big fuss about making sure that there were two laps between the inverted flight and outside loops at the Nats. I lost pattern points on one of my patterns becasue of it. I made sure to count out VERY LOUDLY on the next pattern and put in an extra lap just make sure.

Sure seemed awfully stupid to me...

I was once in a meeting for a big construction project. One of the most prolificv engineers I ever met was in the meeting. I was just out of school, and didn't know much. I took the meeting off on a weird tangent over a hanging detail. The engineer turned to me and said, "Brad, if you want to pick sh##, pick sh## with the chickens." It took years for me to understand that phrase.

>
>> I could interpret this as the pilot deciding he had a
>>different idea about wind direction than the judges -
>>particularly in nearly-dead conditions.
>
>I know there was a big fuss about making sure that there
>were two laps between the inverted flight and outside loops
>at the Nats. I lost pattern points on one of my patterns
>becasue of it. I made sure to count out VERY LOUDLY on the
>next pattern and put in an extra lap just make sure.
>
>Sure seemed awfully stupid to me...

Hey, no sympathy or that one.5 laps is 5 laps, and 6 is 6. It's not remotely the same as PaulyP's situation.

> Hey, no sympathy or that one.5 laps is 5 laps, and 6 is
>6.

Did not expect any...

>Do the "Reverse Wingover" and "Overhead eights" have to be
>entered from a certain side of the circle relative to the
>wind?
> Allan Perret

This question comes up from time to time.

To me, the rulebook is the rulebook. The diagrams depicting each maneuver are just as much of the rulebook as are the verbal descriptions. There are four maneuvers where the rulebook shows how each of those four maneuvers are to be oriented with the wind. I have flown in contests, judged in contests, and have officiated at contests where pattern points are lost if one of those maneuvers is not flown with proper orientation with the wind.

Well, actually, the pilot has nothing to do with orienting the inverted flight maneuver relative to the wind. The rule book shows where the judged portion of the inverted flight maneuver starts and ends with respect to the wind. That is shown with an arrow. The verbal description mentions nothing of this, but to me, the arrrow is binding on the judges where inverteted judging starts and stops, just as the arroow for the wind directions shown for the wingover, overhead eight and four leaf clover are binding on the pilot to fly with a specific orientation with respect to the wind. This is for the judges to know when the maneuver starts and when it stops. It is for the same reason that the other three maneuvers (wing-over, overhead eights and the four-leaf clover) are to be flown a certain way with respect to the wind. It gives the judges a consistent vantage point from one flight to the next to more fairly assess the maneuver and more accurately assign a score from one flight to the other. (I am not going into the situations where there is shifting winds, light winds and when the judges are not in the "optimum" upwind position. Such circumstances can be handled on a case-by-case basis, giving as much consideration as possible to each idividual flyer while still be as fair as possible to all of the other competitors.

The matter of the requirement for a nominal two laps between each manever is also raised. Every so often, somebody thinks he has come up with a clever interpretation to be able to get away with 1 1/2 laps before the overhead eights. (This is allowed in FAI because of their 7 minute flight limit.) 2 1/2 laps are required before the overhead eights in AMA competition. The nominal 2 lap requirement is to allow time for the judges to assess the maneuver just completed, assigh a score, write down the score, then get ready for the next maneuver. The judges are looking to see how well the competitor if flying his model with respect to what is specified in the rulebook. The judges will be impressed with a well flown pattern as specified in the rulebook. The judges might tend to get irritated with the competitor who is trying to come up with a self-proclaimed, clever interpretation of the the rulebook that is different than what has been the traditional, accepted way to fly the pattern. The judges have to work hard enough to do their job. Most judges will not "normally" be impressed if a flyer shows how "innovative" he can be while still performing within the requirements of the rulebook. A flyer should show the judges how well he can fly, not how clever he is.

Here is something that I wrote in Dec 01 in topic 1137:

"Precision Aerobatics Rules, Round 2"

I guess I cannot let the thread on PA rules die. That thread has been all over the spectrum regarding various interpretations of the PA rulebook, often times with questions not being completely or correctly answered or comments that warrant at least some response. I make no claim that the rulebook as it exists today is perfect. I strongly believe that the rulebook does provide the basis to determine a correct finding if and when a situation is encountered that is not specifically or completely defined in the rulebook. In the minds of some, there are some inconsistencies in the rulebook and these people seem to delight in testing the limits of these rules whether it is in these forums or on the flying field.

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.

Here are some earlier threads on these subjects.

http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dcforum/DCForumID1/5467.html

http://www.clstunt.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=1113&forum=DCForumID1#56

http://www.clstunt.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=1137&forum=DCForumID1

There is more, but my search could not open more of these threads.

I just love it when I can disagree with the colonel.

I might be wrong but...

In my opinion the wind indicators on the graphic descriptions of the maneuvers are there for reference only and are never discussed in any fashion as mandatory factors in either the scoring of the manevuers or in the qualification for pattern points.

If they were a "requirement" you couldn't judge flights when the wind was calm because you couldn't comply with the requirements for entry and or exit, etc with the proper relationship with the wind.

Further (I don't have my rule book here so can't quote chapter and verse), there is a rule that specifically states the requirements for earning or forfieting pattern points and there is no mention of the relationship of the maneuver with respect to the wind in that paragraph.

Guys, the whole reason for the "two lap" requirement is as a convenience to the judges to allow adequate time for their evaluation and recording of the score for the previous maneuver. The maneuvers themselves can be flown anywhere the pilot prefers to do them (whether it is to his best advantage or not as in the case of the "backward wingover) as long as he provides the judges with that nominal two lap time frame to perform their administrative duties.

This is the reason that, for AMA, the 1 1/2 laps between the hourglass and the overhead doesn't cut the mustard. In FAI, on the other hand, they specifically exempt that requirement for that instance only as a pragmatic recognition of the constraints of time given the seven minute limit for completion of the pattern.

Ted

EDITED PS. IF, IN FACT, THE WIND FACTOR WAS TO BE USED AS A JUDGING CRITERIA, WHAT EXACTLY WOULD HAPPEN IF, ON AN OTHERWISE CALM DAY, THE PILOT FELT A BREEZE FROM ONE DIRECTION WHEN THE JUDGES FELT IT FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE?

SORRY, COLONEL. THE WIND ARROWS HAVE TO BE FOR REFERENCE ONLY

>If they were a "requirement" you couldn't judge flights when
>the wind was calm because you couldn't comply with the
>requirements for entry and or exit, etc with the proper
>relationship with the wind.
>
>Further (I don't have my rule book here so can't quote
>chapter and verse), there is a rule that specifically states
>the requirements for earning or forfieting pattern points
>and there is no mention of the relationship of the maneuver
>with respect to the wind in that paragraph.

Oooooooo... good one.

>I just love it when I can disagree with the colonel.
>
>I might be wrong but...
>
>In my opinion the wind indicators on the graphic
>descriptions of the maneuvers are there for reference only
>and are never discussed in any fashion as mandatory factors
>in either the scoring of the manevuers or in the
>qualification for pattern points.
>
>If they were a "requirement" you couldn't judge flights when
>the wind was calm because you couldn't comply with the
>requirements for entry and or exit, etc with the proper
>relationship with the wind.
>
>Ted
>
>EDITED PS. IF, IN FACT, THE WIND FACTOR WAS TO BE USED AS A
>JUDGING CRITERIA, WHAT EXACTLY WOULD HAPPEN IF, ON AN
>OTHERWISE CALM DAY, THE PILOT FELT A BREEZE FROM ONE
>DIRECTION WHEN THE JUDGES FELT IT FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE?
>
>SORRY, COLONEL. THE WIND ARROWS HAVE TO BE FOR REFERENCE
>ONLY
>
>

Hello Captain,

I do not entirely agree. "The wind arrows are to be for reference only." "Reference" for what? If the wind directions arrows are not meant to mean anything, then why are they there? For the inverted laps, the wind direction arrow shows exactly when the inverted laps are scored. Does your interpretation mean that the wind direction arrow is meaningless and the judges can choose some arbitrary but otherwise "nominal two lap portion" of the inverted laps to score? I think not. So when do the wind direction arrows mean something and when do they not mean anything on those four maneuvers where they appear?

I tried to address your question in my post above about what happens on a calm day or those days (like Clovis this last weekend) when the drift (I would hardly call it wind) shifted during some flights. I will admit my statement might have been ambiguous when I wrote:

"(I am not going into the situations where there is shifting winds, light winds and when the judges are not in the "optimum" upwind position. Such circumstances can be handled on a case-by-case basis, giving as much consideration as possible to each idividual flyer while still be as fair as possible to all of the other competitors.)"

I have encountered the situation, as a judge, where the pilot claimed he was flying the maneuver with respect to the wind as he determined the wind to be at that time, even though as a judge, the wind seemed to be in a different direction. I would give the benefit of doubt to the pilot. On the other hand, I have seen flights where the pilot thinks he is very clever by orienting his wingover or his overhead eights so that the judges cannot accurately view the wingover paths or the intersections of the eights. The pilots, in these situations do not gain anything. If anything, they loose even more points for two reasons. Judges are not to give a good score for a maneuver they cannot see. Judges can respond to a pilot's devious methodology by an "appropriate" score. As I have suggested before, the pilot should be showing the judge how well he can fly, not by how innovative he may be.

I also thought I alluded to the fact that these wind direction arrows are subject to different interpretation as we have seen in this thread when I wrote

"These are questions that I think the PAMPA rules committee and/or the competition/judging committee could address. Standards could be adopted as recommendations on how to deal with these matters until specific changes could be made in the rules."

What I did not make clear is that this is one of those areas in the rulebook where different interpretations have been made. I have been at contests where pattern points were lost because one or several maneuvers were not oriented with the wind arrows in the rulebook. Other contests have allowed that. I would think that a "standard" could be recommended by one of our standing PAMPA Committees (either the rules committee or the competition/judging committee - or both). This "PAMPA Wind Arrow Standard" would provide a recommended interpretation of these wind arrows so that a competitor could enter any contest anywhere in the country and expect a consistently applied interpretation of the rule. To me the arrows are important to make the job of the judges easier. These arrows require that each of these maneuvers are to be flown in the same manner, one flight to the next. The judges do not have to essentially recalibrate how they view each of those maneuvers to come up with a consistent assessment and a fair award of points for each of those maneuvers. Here again, if a pilot chooses to fly his pattern differently than the "accepted norm" he should be prepared to suffer the consequences, if for no other reason, the wind arrows show where the judges can best assess how well those maneuvers are flown.

> I would give the benefit of doubt to the pilot.
>On the other hand, I have seen flights where the pilot
>thinks he is very clever by orienting his wingover or his
>overhead eights so that the judges cannot accurately view
>the wingover paths or the intersections of the eights.

Hey, a couple of people did this too, this weekend - wily veterans who pretty much had to know what they were doing. Bill and I applied an appropriate, uh, "weighting factor" since we couldn't really see the maneuver. The one time I did see these pilot's overheads, I understood why they did it....

hear hear Ted. The wind arrows were added during the rulebook editing process sometime in the 70's, with no discussion. They are a good reference. If the pilot follows them he will fly better maneuvers. Both the rwingover and the oh eights are much harder to do with the wind at other angles.

As a judge I appreciate the lap to write down the scores. Takes me a second or so to look down at the scoresheet and cogitate the maneuver. 2-3 seconds to write down. When I look up the plane is generally passing the pilot across the circle. it comes around in front of me again and then shortly after that the pilot starts his next maneuver.

I see no problem if the pilot starts the climb for the oh eight as the plane comes by me. It takes another quarter of a lap to get to the maneuver entry point. However, if the pilot rushes things and skips a lap I may miss the entry of the maneuver and it won't get as high a score as it might.

A bigger problem from the judges point of view is the pilot who can't make up his mind about the wind and keeps changing his entry points. The judges can only move about 10 yards at a lap, unless the pilot takes a few extra level laps between maneuvers. It gets very hard to concentrate and give good scores when the pilot is waving for the judges to move after every maneuver. They'd be better off picking a decent average spot and doing the maneuvers there, even though a few of them might get bounced around funny. There is a lot to be said for the F2B method of the pilot designating a spot for the judges and they stay there for the duration of the flight.

I suspect that this question has been posed here because this precise issue occurred at Huntersville on the Intermediate circle over the weekend. (or maybe it happened elsewhere also) It didn't seem to be a huge thing, but generated some discussion among competitors as to whether the judges would award pattern points.

The flier entered the overhead from the downwind side, flew the manuever and exited to the judges at the upwind side. Sounds like the real problem was he then only flew 1.5 laps before the clover.

From the pilot, I was told that he Was awarded the pattern points. No further discussion took place that I know of but there were opinions on both sides of the "proper" orientation of the manuever.

But you know, the sun kept shining as bright as ever, the sky was Carolina Blue, and everyone was having a great time!

>The flier entered the overhead from the downwind side, flew
>the manuever and exited to the judges at the upwind side.
>Sounds like the real problem was he then only flew 1.5 laps
>before the clover.
>
>From the pilot, I was told that he Was awarded the pattern
>points.

I think this is pretty obviously incorrect. Didn't do a nominal 2 laps between maneuvers.

PaulyP was OK, because he did his 2.5 laps after his upwind exit. 2.5 laps at entry altitude, of course, because that makes it run leaner, and takes less time, thus saving fuel.

My Buck's on Buck....as a judge, I like to see the airplane pass opposite from my viewing position twice. A half a lap is too short. If the requirement was for exactly two laps, or that the maneuvers be flown exactly "downwind", several prominent flyers would scratch real hard for pattern points....those that bias maneuvers frequently fly less than two full laps between maneuvers.

See Ya

>those that bias maneuvers frequently fly less
>than two full laps between maneuvers.

Absolutely!

Way too much emphasis on filler time IMHO.