ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: [IAC] alternate sequences
[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.
Thread: [IAC] alternate sequences
Message: Re: [IAC] alternate sequences
Follow-Up To: ACRO Email list (for List Members only)
From: Don Peterson <autotech at flash.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 14:51:37 UTC
Matt Chapman wrote: > > So, what do you guy's and girls think about the alternate sequences? > Personally, I hated to see the whole "alternate/low" sequence thing come about. The problem clearly needed addressing, as far too many contests were spent looking up at flyable weather with various members of the jury and competitor factions loitering about campaigning to fly/not-fly (perhaps depending upon their score positions at the time). Introducing the alternate sequence thing, IMHO, introduces merely another decision track that our juries/CD's will be hesitant to make. Worse, most competitors will simply be facing another unknown if the alternate is called. Not that I mind unknowns, obviously, but this was not the original intent I assume. Far better to have simply predetermined the break points and/or sequence shortening points from the existing knowns. The idea of establishing pre-set altitude heights for decision making is excellent (my previous posts on this point usually drawing substantial hate-mail). If we had simply figured out a way to modify and use existing knowns, I believe there would be less confusion, a quicker path to decision making, and better utilization of limited practice time. But was this what you were asking? Don Peterson Midlothian, Tx.