Acro Image

Aerobatics Server

ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: [Acro] Re: IAC rules amok?? -- just another r ...

[International Aerobatic Club] [Communications] [Aerobatics Images]

Disclaimer: These aerobatics pages are developed by individual IAC members and do not represent official IAC policy or opinion.

[Usage Statistics]


ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: [Acro] Re: IAC rules amok?? -- just another r ...



                


Thread: [Acro] Re: IAC rules amok?? -- just another r ...

Message: [Acro] Re: IAC rules amok?? -- just another real world solution

Follow-Up To: ACRO Email list (for List Members only)

From: Don Peterson <autotech at flash.net>

Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 14:17:15 UTC


Message:

  Hmmmm.

As I understand it, the goal of the new primary category is to increase
contest participation and draw in new members.  If it does that, then it
will have been a success within its own definition.  If nothing much
happens, then we've just rearranged the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The question of "qualification" to fly an IAC contest gets bounced around a
great deal, but in fact, how often do we have an entrant that is truly not
safe/unqualified to fly?  I've seen only two flights in over a decade that
raised a question of qualification to my mind, and both entrants had several
previous contests to their credit, so would have passed anybody's entrance
rules.  I've seen other "unsafe" flying by people that I knew, so that
wasn't a qualification question, it was a judgment question.  Different
subject.

The UK has a "Beginners" sequence that is just a bit harder than our current
primary.  I think it includes the spin, and has a hammerhead as well.  Also
the half cuban.  I think how you define the height of the first bar is
somewhat arbitrary, as people will usually train to whatever standard is
required.  Apparently, a more difficult "Beginners" category has not been an
impediment to new entries over there, so I question whether ours will find
an audience that has thus far stayed away.  Seems reasonable to give it a
couple of years to find out, but I'm a big believer in defining what success
will look like if it occurs.

Don P.




Bob Scherer wrote:

> Me thinks the current "implementation" does achieve both objectives.
> While promoting spin training for the pilot, it also allows aircraft
> prohibited from intentional spins to be used in the category.
>
> Let's leave the spin out of the sequence, but have the pilots spin
> capable.
>
> Bob Scherer
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruns5051J at aol.com [mailto:Bruns5051J at aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 8:32 AM
> To: BlackEagle540 at musclebiplane.org; acro at gf24.de
> Subject: [Acro] Re: IAC rules amok?? -- just another real world solution
>
> This brings up another question.  A couple years ago we seemed  to be
> intent
> on increasing spin awareness, even to the point of making documented
> spin
> training mandatory for competitors.  Now we've taken the spin, the
> cornerstone maneuver of aerobatic training, out of our entry-level
> sequence.
> I've heard the reason to eliminate the spin is to open our contests up
> to
> more pilots and airplanes, but this seems like we're lowering our
> standards
> of proficiency and safety for the wrong reasons.  Perhaps the local
> chapters
> should poll their membership to determine if the majority of pilots feel
> we
> should put the mandatory spin back into the primary category.  Then we
> could
> take the results of the poll to the IAC Board and ask them to reevaluate
> the
> ruling.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill Bruns
>


                


© Dr. Günther Eichhorn
Retired
Email Guenther Eichhorn