We hear that more & more airfields are lost or restricted due to noise complaints. The Competition Regulations 2009 - 2010 for Radio Control Scale Aerobatics covers Scale Aerobatic Sound Limits on pages SCA-2 & SCA-3. Do these rules apply for all IMAC events or they directed by the Contest Director or Airfield location.

If they apply to all IMAC events then maybe it is time to have a forum where the Pilots can share what works for their engines that gets them within the limits specified in the Competition Regulations 2009 - 2010.

The rules apply to all contests...all pilots....
While I have seen it several times, it is just not practical for the CD to have a dB meter all the time...

One of the reason so many of us use canisters is to be respectful of the field we fly at and the neighbors near by

The way I handle it is on my posters it says "sound testing at CD's discretion." When we have a concensus from the judges that a plane seems loud, then we test it. I test planes that don't have canisters before they fly if there is time... or if there is a combo I know won't pass like a 32x10x2 prop...

Most of the fields I have CD'ed at in Canada have far more restrictive noise policy than the IMAC rules. In those cases I try to negotiate with the club for that weekend to use the IMAC rules. Otherwise you have to publish the noise rule in your flyer and there is potential for angry flyers...

For the past 2 years it has not been too much of an issue. Normally I only see loud planes in Basic - 50cc with std "mufflers" or big glow engines turning huge RPM's. In these cases we try REALLY hard to accomodate people. I carry a spare 20x12x3 prop with me which will make a DA50 on std mufflers just barely pass the test.

To follow the rules is the right thing. If CD's are not following the Ground Test the CD's should file with AMA a Sanction Request and include a "deviation" on the Sound Test requirement, stating that the rules, 5.1 Maximum Sound Levels, 5.2 Standard Method of Sound Measurement and 5.3 Ground Sound Level Test will be exempt for all pilots. State in your deviation request that your contest will follow 5.4 In-Flight Judging Criteria, Known and Unknown Sequences. Find a lot more information here...http://www.modelaircraft.org/UserFiles/Scale%20Aerobatics.pdf

The problem is the ground test don't mean anything, anyone can set up a radio to make the loudest plane in the world pass the ground test, what matters is how LOUD it isd in the air!!!!!! So why waste time doing the ground test when it is SO EASY to beat it !

I am all for sound testing - but I try to be practical about it.

I agree with you that testing all planes take a lot of time. Like I mentioned above - normaly I only ask for a test when the judges score it a 0 for noise and tell me its loud. If I see a plane with no canisters and big 2-blade I'll talk to the pilot and make them aware that if they are loud we'll test it. Hearing it ripping in the air and not on the ground doesn't happen too often. If a really good pilot can fly a 32x10 2 blade with great throttle control and not RIP it then I don't care what it measures on the ground. So I totally agree - it's in the air that counts. I guess I'm not following the rules... but I have never seen any sound testing at contests other than the ones I have CD'ed. I don't think sound testing is the norm... but I could be wrong.

I actually tach the planes on a ground test even though its not in the rule book. I assume no one is cheating - the main reason I do this is because I keep a log of all the various engine/muffler/prop combos so I can advise people what works. I have a pretty good log now so I can normally tell by looking at a plane how loud it will be.

I'm the last person who wants to not let someone fly - but noise is a really big deal at most of the clubs in Alberta (there are a few lucky exceptions way out of town.)

I do agree... ground sound tests are not great. But they are at least repeatable. If you tach the plane during the test people can't cheat (well not easily.) I use the ground test to back-up the 0 the judges gave and then the pilot must do something about it.

In this day and age we should really just mandate canisters and 3-blades (or "known good combinations") IMO. Of course I have had to help local clubs try and find new fields - a very hard thing. So my views are tainted by that experience.

If you tack it on the ground and it is only turning 4000 rpms how can you prove that he is cheeting if he shows his throttle is all the way up and he says that is all it will do, then in flight he flips a switch and it turns 8000 rpms, what the plane dose on the ground do matter to the ones that don't like the noise what matters to them is what it dose in the air, so if the judge thinks it is loud GROUND the pilot ! No need waste time with a test that don't prove anything !
Mark.

Everything Mark says is true. However, if only to keep the issue of sound at least in people's consciousness, I think the sound rules should stay in place, and I'd be happy to see more cd's implement sound tests - I'll bring a db meter if you need one. As for the time constraints of testing, in many cases a large number of contestants arrive during the practice day, have a test station setup for use on Friday afternoon - even if only for voluntary use.
The current established limits and requirements were created as an urgent response to a rules proposal (don't remember if it was a formally submitted rcp or not) that was submitted to the AMA by someone who is not an IMAC member, nor does he fly IMAC, or have anything to do with IMAC in any way shape or form. At that point in time, there had been several noise complaints to the AMA at the Muncie site during NATS. People were runnning stock mufflers on 150cc engines and flying full throttle horizontal lines with Menz 30/10 and 32/10 props with no thought to the noise. Returning to that standard is unacceptable. The point is that if we don't take care of the sound from within the organization, we'll find ourselves mandated to do so from the outside, and I don't think any of us want that.

Yes Ty I think we should do everything to control the sound of our planes and that is why all that is needed is for the Judges to do there job and if the plane is to loud in the air make the pilot land and if he can not fix the plane so it is not loud then he can no longer fly, that is the rules we have now and all we need to do is follow them.

I too am all in favor of keeping the sound rules. I've lost 2 fields in two years to sound issues (not from my planes) mainly from high rpm 2 stroke glow engines and straight muffled gas engines of any size. You can bet I'll be carrying around some things to help people quiet their planes at my contests this year. I'd much rather try to help them all I can than tell them they cannot fly

Some of the problem I see is most people are after the almighty light plane with gobs of pulling power and to get that, exhaust systems are compromised, two blade props are used, etc...but we, as IMAC pilots know differently and that you can have a successfull 3D plane and still have it be quiet and we should be setting the precedence when it comes to sound.

I've worked very hard at getting my 2.6M C-Arf to be powerful, about average weight and quiet and I've succeeded at it. It took loads of research but in the end it was well worth it.

Another avenue we could go further on is to make the K value of the sound score higher so that it would be more effective in the overall results, as well as the K value for the Airspace Control Score.
Wayne M

The only problem with that is that it is subjective and giving it a High K value means if a judge like someone they can give them a higher sound score and help that person win, if it is going to get a higher K value we must use db meters while they fly so you have something to base your score on.

I also think that if the K value were to be increased, then the assignable score should be changed to whole point values from 0 - 10 rather than the current 0, 5, or 10.

Posted By Ty Lyman on 22 Jan 2009 9:08
I also think that if the K value were to be increased, then the assignable score should be changed to whole point values from 0 - 10 rather than the current 0, 5, or 10.

I'm not sure that would work Ty. As it stands, it is pretty simple for a judge to give a sound score..too noisy = 0,acceptable =5, very quiet = 10. Anything else, in my opinion, could be deemed subjective.
Perhaps at our judging schools, the instrutors could give more time to this very important rule.

see you soon,
John

I agree completely . . . I should have been clearer in my point. Due to the already present subjectivity involved - my 5 could be a 10 from one judge and a 0 from another - I don't believe that increasing the K value on sound is the proper approach. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I am sure that we need to keep the issue alive and on people's minds. The sound scores, and ground testing, if done, are far from perfect, but they at least convey the message that sound is a real issue that must be dealt with.

Posted By Wayne Matthews on 22 Jan 2009 8:42
Another avenue we could go further on is to make the K value of the sound score higher so that it would be more effective in the overall results, as well as the K value for the Airspace Control Score.
Wayne M

Wayne - I'm not sure about increasing K factor for sound. If we did increase the K factor we would have to increase the education for judges as well. Plus - some of us (like me) are losing our hearing so we'd probably need a less hearing impared assistant to help us. The one good thing about a meter is that it is repeatable and the same for everyone.

I think the maximum sound level in the IMAC test is too high. It is far, far higher than any of the local clubs allow. 25ft is a good distance (some clubs test at 10ft which is much too close for accurate readings.) The loudest plane I measured last season was 93db (OS160 17x12 APC prop.) Most 150's or 100's with 3-blades and cans were 91db (over grass.)

How about another idea... appoint a sound officer at each event. Allow them to scrutenize/discuss the judges sound scores and to conduct the ground-sound tests. At least if it is one person it should be consistent at that event. More work I know, and likely no one will want to do it...

As far as the airspace control - I thinkt he K factor REALLY needs to go up on this one. And there should be more defined rules and examples for judges to assign a score. But that is a whole other topic

BTW - Wayne, off topic but the crate you gave John shipped my new Yak very nicely all safe and sound Thanks again. I will use it to ship something to a new owner next year. Thats going to be one well travelled crate!!!

I am a stauch supporter of sound control at our meets and often remark to the Warbirder's at my own club about their racket and what it may do to us someday. But, I also wish that there was a more fair and enforcable means of applying the rules at our contests - there is no easy answer. The DB meter test days showed us that we could "cheat" the results (not a very honest response to the rule and I admit I did it like most everyone else when I ran standard muffs).

Now, I believe that putting it on the scorecard is just too subjective and too easly abused by some folks. I've been at contests where my airplane with a three blade and tuned pipes got 5's and my buddy with a 3B and STANDARD muffs got 10's (no it doesn't rip). Other times I hear that certain judges give their sound score on the ground before the airplane takes off based on whether he SEES a 3 blade and cannisters on the plane. Isn't he supposed to LISTEN to the airplane in the air first?

More education on the sound rules and how to apply them fairly would be in order but you can't overcome all preconceived notions by all judges. Perhaps, as was somewhat mentioned in an earlier post, a qualified "Sound Judge" (or the CD) might be used to make a judgement call and back it up with a DB test for an obviously offensive airplane. By far the majority of IMAC pilots these days are in agreement and compliance with the sound rules. The strict enforcement with newcomers and maybe a few hardheads could be handled without putting another non-performance factor into the scoring.

Enjoying these discussions on our new website!

Chris

Education is the key with this issue. Throttle managment can be taught to just about everyone out there. I've seen a plane on stock mufflers be less noisey with proper throttle management, then another guys with cans and a three blade prop!

Rick

Our Radio Club likes to have the CD's sanction all events flown at the field. We recently lost one field and could lose the remaining field if we do not enforce sound limits. The Competition Regulations 2009-2010 state that sound testing must be completed at the sanctioned contest site by the Contest Director or his/her designee. The only guidelines provided are for the Ground Sound Level Test.

I am currently running the test on soft and hard surfaces with a DA 100 with a Mejzlik 27 x 10 two blade prop and Mejzlik 25 x 12S three blade prop. The DA 100 is equipped with stock DA canisters.

I am trying to gather as much information about the engines, canisters and prop combos as I can. This will hopefully help out the Pilots at the IMAC April 2009 event at our airfield. The last thing I would like to see is someone travel hundreds of miles and not be allowed to fly because of noise.

The information provided in this forum is great and will definitely help our club support IMAC in years to come. We have went as far as posting club members at given points to record inflight readings with dates and times so we answer the complaints received from the city.

I think that sound should be a contest entry requirement only, with the criteria choosen and published by the CD/host club. Not a scoring criteria.

In my outlying opinion:

Clubs should implement and inforce sound restrictions as nescessary to keep their field. IMAC pilots however, do not need to care about it about it during a sequence.

If the contest field does not have to worry about sound, then say no limit/ no testing in the contest posting.

If the contest field does have to worry about sound, then the CD/club they should set the limit/testing method that works for them as entrance criteria and publish that. If you can't meet it then you can't fly at that field.

Sound is a location/field issue not an IMAC issue. Let the hosting club determine what restriction they need for their location.

HINT - if your going to b...tch all weekend about pilots using too much power during their sequence with cans/pipes and a good prop -----that field is probably not suited to hosting an IMAC contest


I'm not saying we should all be noisy. Like most of you, I have a home field with restrictions. I guess the point I'm trying to get across is this: We don't need to be quiet because were flying planes ----We may need to be quiet because of WHERE were flying planes

Brian - I agree with some of your points. Clubs do have to work to protect themselves and not all fields are IMAC suitable.

That said - I think IMAC needs to have some procedures in place to police ourselves. We need to have a reputation of caring about our noise footprint. We also need to realize that there are less and less ideal places to fly IMAC so we will have to continue to adopt policies to fit in to this new reality. Our policies should be such that the IMAC rules fit the majority fo flying sites... otherwise mistakes might happen and pilots could go to a lot of expense to go to a contest where they can't fly due to noise. IMO anyway...

Hilary - send me your email address and I will send you my sound test data. Or maybe we can have a thread here for sharing sound test results? My email is nitroracer@shaw.ca

True. Another Idea would be that we could do preflight sound checks for all but IMAC publishes an exemption list. A preapproved list of combinations of prop,exhaust,engine combos for exemption. It wouldn't be a very big list to waive sound checks on 90% of contestants. Just another idea to throw around.

Posted By Brian Foveaux on 23 Jan 2009 22:50
True. Another Idea would be that we could do preflight sound checks for all but IMAC publishes an exemption list. A preapproved list of combinations of prop,exhaust,engine combos for exemption. It wouldn't be a very big list to waive sound checks on 90% of contestants. Just another idea to throw around.

That wouldn't work very well. Example two pilots flying same airplane. Both fly the throttle differently than the other. One is loud and one is quite. It really doesn't matter you do on the ground. It's what is happening in the air.

Anybody can pass a sound test on the ground. Few can be quiet in the air. Proper setup of throttle and management is the key.

Thats exactly what I have been thinking and more or less doing. There are only so many combos we commonly fly. Its not a tiny number - and it depends on RPM's but you can pretty much tell on 90% of the cases if it will be okay. Assuming the fuse isn't resonating or somethe else is wrong then we know what likely works. Exempt those from an initial sound test, test the rest.

Here is a sample of my data... I have a bunch more including glow engines for 40 - 180 size. I also have data for DA50's and ZDZ 80's...

DA100 MTW RE2 Pipes PT Models 27 10 7200 94 RIPs - loud
DA100 MTW RE2 Pipes PT Models 28 10 6600 92 Quiet
DA100 MTW RE2 Pipes Mejzlik 25 12 6200 91 Quiet 3bl
DA100 MTW RE2 Pipes Mejzlik 26 12 6700 90 Quiet
DA100 MTW TD75K Cans PT Models 27 10 6600 93 Not too bad
DA100 MTW TD75K Cans PT Models 28 10 6150 92 Quiet
DA100 MTW TD75K Cans Mejzlik 25 12 5800 89 Quiet 3bl
DA100 MTW TD75K Cans PT Models 27 10 6600 92 Very loud
DA100 MTW TD75K Cans Mejzlik 28 10 6800 98 OUCH!!!
DA100 MTW TD75K Cans Mejzlik 26 12 6400 91 Really quiet
DA150 KS 95 RE Canisters PT Models 32 10 6300 97 Wow - loud
DA150 KS 95 RE Canisters Mejzlik 28.5 12 6150 91 Quiet 3bl

Chris, Thanks for the info! This is what I am looking for, as you might know a lot of events have been held in Las Vegas. Housing has been built close to the airfield and the most noise complaints came in after the last IMAC. I recently retired and want to get more involved in IMAC flying but I need to make sure the airfield will be around for a long time. I am trying to gather as much information on noise levels as I can get so we can keep the noise levels at acceptable limits. Thanks again for you information.

Chris could you post the DA50 info. I'm new to the IMAC arena and am not sure where my planes are going to run as far as the ground sound test and I don't have access to a DB meter around here.


Thanks,

Christopher

Chris,
If it is not to much trouble could you post the rest of your data. I am sure a lot of people would be interested in your findings.

Posted By Rick Byrd on 23 Jan 2009 23:27

Posted By Brian Foveaux on 23 Jan 2009 22:50
True. Another Idea would be that we could do preflight sound checks for all but IMAC publishes an exemption list. A preapproved list of combinations of prop,exhaust,engine combos for exemption. It wouldn't be a very big list to waive sound checks on 90% of contestants. Just another idea to throw around.

That wouldn't work very well. Example two pilots flying same airplane. Both fly the throttle differently than the other. One is loud and one is quite. It really doesn't matter you do on the ground. It's what is happening in the air.

Anybody can pass a sound test on the ground. Few can be quiet in the air. Proper setup of throttle and management is the key.

I agree with Rick !

That is what I have been saying !!!! The ONLY thing that matters is how loud we are in the AIR !!!!! If a pilot is to loud in the air then as a Judge it is in the rules ALREADY and it is your Job as a Judge to give him a ZERO, and then it is the CD's job to make that pilot do something to make his plane not so loud In flight so that he can still fly in the contest if he is still loud in the Air then he must land and not fly that plane anymore that dose not mean he must go home just that he can not fly that LOUD plane anymore !

Guys, George Hicks (an Aerospace engineer par excellance) did an indepth sound study about 5 years ago on generation of sound (noise) by/from out IMAC-style planes. His article was most informatve - his conclusion was that a sound score taken on the ground did not correspond to what sound happened in the air. Maybe Roy B. can dig that article up from the previous website and post it here on the new website. I don't think the basics of sound have changed and the "new" guys will greatly benefit from the information.

Bobby

Yes I remember that and I think it is a GREAT ideal !

As a CD for an IMAC contest here in the NC, I am not planning on conducting sound testing. I do not currently have access to the necessary equipment and sound levels have not historically been a problem at our field.

Should I be requesting a rules deviation when I submit the sanctioning paperwork?

-Jason

Yes ! Just say that there will be no sound test. But you will still do sound scores on each flight.

At least 1/2 of the loudest planes at an IMAC meet (say the loudest 4 planes there) are brand new guys that have not been informed of our rule, or not informed that we are serious about our rule. Let's all commit to letting the new guys and gals that we are helping this winter and early spring to educating them about the rule. You already know that they are loud. It's not really their fault, it's our fault for bringing them to their first IMAC with a loud plane. Ya just have to tell them, "You can't fly that in IMAC, and here's why".

As for the other half. I've seen zero's in sound go unattended by the CD. I've also seen "ear piercing" ripping of the prop get 5's on the card. The rules are there, let's follow em'. Those that show up loud will not be loud at the NEXT contest if we implement the rules.

Posted By Hilary McGartlin on 24 Jan 2009 15:06
Chris, Thanks for the info! This is what I am looking for, as you might know a lot of events have been held in Las Vegas. Housing has been built close to the airfield and the most noise complaints came in after the last IMAC. I recently retired and want to get more involved in IMAC flying but I need to make sure the airfield will be around for a long time. I am trying to gather as much information on noise levels as I can get so we can keep the noise levels at acceptable limits. Thanks again for you information.

Actually that information is incorrect (if you are referring to the North Field). There were only 2 complaints from the residence on the last contest. 1 was a home owner stating planes flew over his house. The contest had not started yet and no airplanes had flown. It was determined to be a low flying civilian plane. I spoke to that person directly at the field and ensured him that planes would not overfly his home and showed the insurance forms we had for the contest to help ease his mind. He was not angry, just concerned. The home owner that has complained since she moved in didn't complain about noise but did complain about RV's parking overnight.

The clubs and Parks dept have decided to no longer have contests at this field due to the one resident complaining. This resident complains daily about noise, even when no planes are flying due to the high temps and the clubs felt that future contests would only help the chances of the field being closed so we chose to discontinue them.

I was the CD for the past 3 contests and was in direct contact with the City Parks dept on what complaints were filed if any as I have the paperwork that was filed and thus sent to me. I also went door to door in the neighborhood inviting residences to watch the IMAC competition. Not one neighbor along the street complained about noise. Infact 90% said they typically watched the planes from the comfort of their back porches. It does take only one bad seed to cause problems and that can be on either side, resident or R/C flyer.


As for noise at the field currently. The field is going to institute its own noise program. Sound will be checked on the ground and at the property line of the one residence. You must pass both places (one flying and one on the ground). I'm not sure of all the specifics but if you contact the Propnuts or Rebel Squadron presidents they would know more on that and when the implementation will start.


The TOC field is also having some noise problems but not as serious as the North field.

The query about the noise is relating to the last IMAC event at TOC field. The club is being pro active in finding out what works and does not work. Random tests have been performed at different points around the field and near the housing area. The club wants to have it facts together in the event of additional complaints. The club has purchased sound meters, as well as a couple of flyers in a effort to address the problem before the city takes action without all the information.
As you can see from the inputs addressing noise inputs is a touchy issue.

Hilary - sorry I have not posted that other sound data... I'll dig it up later today.

My recommendation to you on your sound testing is to pay an engineering company to do the testing and collect the data. This makes you MUCH more legitimate in the eyes of your neighbour and your claims to not being noisy are better supported because it is a qualified 3rd party saying so. It costs a lot, but its worth it.

I can tell you this saved our new field... and the results were quite surprising. The yard and farm equipment being used in the area was FAR FAR louder than even the loudest airplane we could find. The golf course that was complaining had far higher sound levels from their own equipment (blowers, mowers etc) than our field 1.5km away... and of course highway noise overshaddowed everything. It was very credible to have an engineers report for this.

The engineering company is a good ideal, about what did this cost ?

One of the club members is an engineer and did the work via the company he works for. I believe the final cost was in the $1200 range but I'll email him to get a solid number - expect to pay more as this was an "at cost" kind of deal.

The engineers spent about 8hrs on site taking measurements and a couple of days doing analysis and a report to the county. They had some surveyors involved too to get accurate distance measurements. So figure on 3 to 4 days for costing.

Thanks !
Mark

What about the clubs that do not own the equipment and don't have such rules?

Our club is generally self policed, we have many louder planes than you will hear at an IMAC. It would be pretty hard for the CD to convience the membership to purchase sound testing equipment when maybe 5 out of 180 actually participate in the event.

I have been in and out of IMAC over the last several years for one reason or another and it seems that the overfly area is as much of a problem if not more so than the noise. The planes are way quieter today than they were only 10 years ago, that said, we are still flying multiple flight lines that force the end points farther out from the center of the club fields. I can name at least 3 clubs we fly IMAC at here in the SE that the Cd has to remind everyone not to fly over a certain area or we get into trouble. While sound is very important, and great strides have been made in that area, i think a large reason we dont have more clubs receptave to IMAC is our over fly footprint. Most of our planes are the quietest ones at the local field on any given weekend compaired to the nitro burners, and we usually recieve comments about it, but its flying thru the sequences that everyone allways asks why we fly out so far! Just my observation......Gene

Yes Gene, you are correct in your observation. Understanding the importance of our Airspace Control Score(ACS) will allow the pilot to tighten his overall footprint and hence better his overall score. By doing this we will not encroach our neighbors.
I really do not know of many fields around our parts (North Carolina) that will get shut down because of sound. However we still have to enforce the sound limits to stay in line with our national standardization program.
I would like to see more comments from other IMAC'ers in other areas. (Their overall view of Sound Score and Airspace Control Score.)

Gene: Your sequence committee also reconizes the need for tighter and smaller designed sequences that don't promote the neeed to fly out so far. It is a challange, but can be done, that is writing sequences that keep the plane "in" closer to the flight line. There will always be that pilot or two that feel that they need to draw an 800' line down to a hammer head only to draw another 1200' line (threw the center box, out the other end) to a sharks tooth that displaces back to them. We can all keep learning, and keep trying to fly in closer.
All the best, Dan.

I agree with this also. Some input from a relative newbie for you folks...
I find at home in Alberta where most of us are flying Basic and Sportsman in smaller planes that we fly a much smaller box.

The few times I have travelled to events I am always amazed how "BIG" everyone seems to fly. HUGE comes to mind. I have found myself deducing guys on the ACS because the planes are really hard to see at the ends of the box.

At our home filed last year I enforced a box due to fly-over issues with a farmhouse and another farmers property where they were picking berries. The box was 1000' long at 400 ft out. We laid out bright colored "pool noodles" every 100' for the pilots to have a line to follow and to give some reference to the judges. It sure seemed huge when we were laying out the nooldes but from the pilots perspective it was really not that large - especially if you got going too fast.

One pilot flew fast and ended up way outside this area a couple of times, I flew a 35% plane in Intermediate and used the whole box but stayed inside, everyone else flew basic and stayed WAY inside this box. You are definately more busy when resticted like this... but at the same time without all those huge long lines in some ways you do yourself a favour. It is also FAR easier to judge as you get a lear view of the plan all the time. There is still plenty of vertical room to take the plane up for spins etc.

In some ways it would be nice to have a defined or recommended box to help with the ACS score and also to allow the CD/judges to suggest to pilots when they are getting too "BIG." I fly Pattern as well as IMAC and I try to keep my plane inside the Pattern box and to center the center manuvers. I think this is more of a help to the pilot than a hinderance.

Of course I cannot seak to Advanced or Unlimited... when I rear those Areti it seems you really do need a lot of space. Especially for the rollers.

I totally agree with you Chris and Gene, I also see this trend.

I think the sound issue is quite easy to control as we all know what works and what doesn't. The area I see as causing the bigger issue is the box size and I believe that its time to revisit the idea of a true "box" once again. That is a defined center, ends and outer limits. The rollers in Advanced and Unlimited are getting bigger and bigger and this is the one area that really needs to change. This really struck home at the 2007 Canadian Nationals at the 400 club near Barrie. The 400 highway was measured at about 2200 feet from the flight line, and it was observed by some pilots wives that some planes were overflying the shopping mall on the other side!
Perhaps its time to introduce rolling loops instead? Vertical for us is unlimted so maybe emphasis on maneovers in this plane should be encouraged for future sequences.

Lee Prevost
Co-CD Canadian Scale Aerobatics Nationals 2008
Co-CD NOIC
IMAC 3705
MAAC 9551

Lee... The REAL problem is the pilot!! I attended a contest over the weekend in the SE & I saw Joe Cutright flying the Unlimited 2009 sequence roller (outside, inside outside 3 rolls) in such a small airspace that the "burning bush" finally lit up for me.

Let me repeat: "the PROBLEM" is the pilot!!" Until the penalty is great enough, pilots will continue to fly LARGE.
Wayne

Posted By Lee Prevost on 30 Mar 2009 10:52
The area I see as causing the bigger issue is the box size and I believe that its time to revisit the idea of a true "box" once again. That is a defined center, ends and outer limits.

Lee,

There is no known way to enforce box infringements in IMAC. At full scale events where they still use a "box", they have boundary judges posted. These events are held in open spaces designed to accommodate full scale planes and the judges would not be sitting in a swamp, a corn field, a gully, etc. or any of the other 100s of natural obstacles located at the average R/C field.

Judging boundaries via angled lines is still used in pattern but with larger planes and larger "boxes" has proven itself to be not only inaccurate but inadequate over MANY years of use in controlling the airspace used.

Wayne is 100% correct...until the ACS reaches a meaningful K factor, pilots will continue to underweight the attention paid to HOW they use the space in front of them. They spend more time on flying the perfect hammer and almost zero time on how the overall sequence is flown. We have to change this thinking.

I suspect that we will see a significant increase in K factor for ACS in this year's RCPs...so starting in 2011, the ACS will likely have significant impact on a pilot's overall score.

Roy

I agree with all statements, and I know that even the unlimited sequence can be flown in tight, but you hit the nail on the head. If the ACS isn't judged critically and doesn't have a major impact on scores, people will continue to fly rollers into the next county. I still think that the box would have an impact on tightening up the footprint however, as newer pilots coming in have never used one so don't have the placement that is so obvious when you see former pattern pilots (me included) fly IMAC.
I also think that basic pilots should be judged on takeoff and landing, but that's another story!

Ain't this fun!
Lee

Lee,

The problem is that everything you learned flying pattern is fundamentally wrong for IMAC flying today...there is no placement...no centering...no left or right box maneuver...this is a major problem with the mindset of many pilots today.

You have to think of the sequence as a whole...without "center figures" or "end figures". The idea is to position your figures with the minimum distance between them that is conducive to proper judging of the figures.

The No 1 mistake seen in pilots flying today's sequences is the long lines/trips from one end of the sky to the other...that is just flat wrong and when judged they SHOULD receive a very low ACS. Not only that, but the long lines give you much increased opportunity for downgrades BEFORE YOU EVEN GET TO THE FIGURE ITSELF!!! How many times have I seen pilots pull into a hammer after having lost 2 or more points on the long line into the figure. Shorter lines equals better scores...!

Proper sequence flying requires actual thought and planning about how tall/how long/how deep/how fast you are going to fly... so you actually PRESENT your sequence to the judges. This is more difficult than just flying from one end of the old "box" to the other. Once pilots actually start thinking about these issues, we will see the overall footprint getting smaller...especially if it will impact their score significantly.

However...judges and CDs have to do their part as well to encourage this behavior. For a CD to allow judges to ignore the ACS just put down all 10's should be banned from holding events...and it happens.

And...Judges have to understand how and what the ACS is all about...and it is really VERY simple...on a scale of 1 to 10, how well did the pilot present the sequence to me as a judge so I could properly judge it....did they fly too far left or too far right or too close or too high or too deep.

Everyone tries to make this ACS out to be some kind of subjective judging nightmare when it is simplicity in itself. Just because you as a judge believe that the pilot should get a 5 and I think as a judge he did a little better and give him an 8...that is perfectly OK - since I will be judging all the pilots in the group with my eyes and you will be judging all the pilots with your eyes.

Lee...Please don't take anything here as being directed at you...I just happen to vent a bit and your post provided a good opportunity...

Roy

If every IMAC pilot would watch a full scale IAC contest, they would understand what we are looking for!
Between fig. they fly maybe 100'/150' and right into the next fig.
They don't have the power to weight ratio, so they don't waste any time to do their rolls or snaps on uplines.
Very Interesting!!!

Roy, I agree with you, ASC is simple if a judge will utilize their common sense with the rule as stated.
I have sometimes thought if IMAC used the same score for ASC as we do for sound, it would be less subjective, or maybe the better word would be easier to apply. 0= to big, 5=acceptable, 10=small sequence. Now the K factor may not have to be raised because the span would be in factors of 5. Of course this would be an evolving rule, as sound is now, because what is acceptable today won't be tomorrow. It would be continually trying to acheve a 10.
Now this is just some of my thoughts, for what it is worth.

How should judges assign ACS scores? Should they have a pre-determined mental picture of what a 5 is as opposed to a 7?

Posted By Kurtis Waites on 31 Mar 2009 0:20
If every IMAC pilot would watch a full scale IAC contest, they would understand what we are looking for!
Between fig. they fly maybe 100'/150' and right into the next fig.
They don't have the power to weight ratio, so they don't waste any time to do their rolls or snaps on uplines.
Very Interesting!!!

Roy, I agree with you, ASC is simple if a judge will utilize their common sense with the rule as stated.
I have sometimes thought if IMAC used the same score for ASC as we do for sound, it would be less subjective, or maybe the better word would be easier to apply. 0= to big, 5=acceptable, 10=small sequence. Now the K factor may not have to be raised because the span would be in factors of 5. Of course this would be an evolving rule, as sound is now, because what is acceptable today won't be tomorrow. It would be continually trying to acheve a 10.
Now this is just some of my thoughts, for what it is worth.

Man, I was hoping they would change it to 0.5 increments.

Kp

Kent
By my understanding, that is exactly what the rules comittiee is presenting to the board of directors, .5 increments.
I don't know because I am no longer on the rules comittiee as I was kicked off!!

Step one is education. Just looking at the score sheets from some of the 09' meets. No score for sound, no score for ACS, no score for sound from one judge (and the scorer did not go out and get the 2nd score), no score for ACS from one judge (and the scorer did not go out and get the 2nd score), no score for sound in round 1 but there is a score in round 2, no score for ACS in round 1 but there is a score in round 2. And the DADDY of them all,,,,, scores other than 0,5,10 for sound. I've also seen judges give a bunch of 0,0 to the round (both sequences) for ASC, hard to believe that the pilot did not at least get a 1 in one of the sequences.

If sound and ASC is going to carry more weight (agreed), then the pilots that are asked to judge need to be educated as much as we are educating them on rolls not centered on lines. The ASC and sound score is about to become very important, the "hit'' might be like zero-ing a spin. Some regions need a whole bucket load of help with this still.