![]()
|
Aerobatics Server
ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: Elimination of Aerobatic Box [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] |
Thread: Elimination of Aerobatic Box
Message: Elimination of Aerobatic Box
Follow-Up To: ACRO Email list (for List Members only)
From: "Allyson Parker-Lauck" <princess at brigadoon.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 04:24:26 UTC
I have just read the April, 1997 issue of Sport Aerobatics, which if I may add was among the best yet, and am puzzled by the continuation of support for doing away with the standard aerobatic box. Luca Salvadori made a post on this exploder several months ago regarding this issue, and if my memory serves me right, I was just about the only one to respond to his recommedation that we do away with boundary infringement penalties. Back to the magazine... I just read the round table discussion he had with Alan Cassidy, Sergio Dallan, Dominique Roland, Patty Wagstaff, and Carl Whittle and Patty was the only one of the 5 who was in favor of keeping the standard aerobatic box. Also included in this issue in the "Letters to the Editor" section is a letter from a long time IAC member, Sam Burgess, who also supports doing away with the box. I am wondering why there isn't more support for keeping the current box. For those of you who haven't looked at this year's Unlimited sequence, there isn't a single center box figure. In addition, the sequence only contains 11 figures, 3 of which are cross wind correctors. Granted, I don't fly unlimited, but it seems that it would almost be hard to go out on this sequence. End to end figures, vertical lines on the upwind end, looping figures on the downwind end, no spin, no tailslide... Don't get me wrong, the maneuvers are extremely difficult, but they are not drifting type figures and without center box figures, this sequence should be easily kept within the confines of our 3000' square box. Another point I'd like to add is that if the reason for eliminating the lateral box boundaries is to accommodate higher horsepowered aircraft, then wouldn't it also make sense to do away with the top and bottom box boundaries to accommodate lower horsepowered aircraft. If it is unsafe for a pilot with 300 horsepower to operate within 3000' laterally, isn't it equally as unsafe to require a pilot with 200 horsepower to operate within 3172' vertically? I guess I'm just wondering if Patty and I are the only ones who think that we should keep the current aerobatic zone including boundary infringements? If not, I would like to hear some more discussion on this side of the argument since we've heard so much on the other side. Thanks for reading this post. Sincerely, Allyson Parker-Lauck IAC #15590