Acro Image

Aerobatics Server

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.

[Usage Statistics]

ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: [IAC] alternate sequences


Thread: [IAC] alternate sequences

Message: Re: [IAC] alternate sequences

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

From: Don Peterson <autotech at>

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.


© Dr. Günther Eichhorn
Email Guenther Eichhorn