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]

ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: Elimination of Aerobatic Box

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

Message:

  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