Discrepancy on the Stunt Rules

[BillLee]

(I would post this in the rules forum, but it has been inoperative ever since the big server crash.)

Reviewing the rules in preparation for doing some judging tomorrow. I ran across the two paragraphs quoted here that seem to be in conflict.

-------------------------Pg CLA-4---------------
11. Execution of Maneuvers.
The maneuvers must be executed in the order listed
in Paragraph, Flight Maneuver and Scoring. The
contestant may attempt a maneuver only once in any
one flight. A score of 0 (zero) will be given for any
maneuver omitted or not attempted at all, for any
maneuver started but not completed, any maneuver
with an incorrect number of consecutive figures
(either too few or too many), any maneuver flown out
of sequence, and/or any maneuver flown without a
minimum of the nominal (two) laps interval after the
previous maneuver.

---------------------Pg CLA-25------------------
9. Scoring of Incomplete and Unattempted
Maneuvers. If a pilot starts but does not complete a
maneuver for any reason, the minimum award is given
zero (0) for landing and ten (10) for all others.
Unattempted maneuvers will receive no score (0)
---------------------------------------------

(Bold and underline added for emphasis.)

The first paragraph is taken from the opening section of the rules and are labeled there as "For event 322, 323, 324, 325,326.". The second is from the very end of the rules and is paragraph 9 of the section labeled "SKILL CLASS PRECISION AEROBATICS For events 323, 324, 325, 326"

It appears to me that these two paragraphs are in conflict.

Comments?

Bill Lee

[Steve Helmick]

Looks to me like the second paragraph (9) is a holdover from the old rules (last year's), waaay back, when there was something called "Pattern Points". Good on ya for studying the rules before the contest. Too bad you found a flaw that the rule changers missed.  Steve

[john e. holliday]

Keith Trostle has been very busy with Michele of AMA about the PA rules and trying to get them corrected.  He has been trying to keep us on the board up to date. 

Basically the only thing that really has changed is no pattern points.  To get the minimum of 10 points for a maneuver it must at least look like you tried the maneuver instead of doing a climb and dive.  I do beleive the landing will be scored unless the plane/pilot went over time or do not the 2 laps after the clover.  Must be nominal 2 laps between maneuvers.

Haven't checked over on the rules site of this forum lately, maybe it is over there.  Have fun, DOC Holliday

[Howard Rush]

I'm working on the Nats tabulation program.  I asked what to check for to make sure judges all interpreted missing maneuvers the same.  I got no response, so I just had the program complain if one judge gave a maneuver a zero and another didn't.  When you change rules that work fine as is, you should go to some effort to make sure you aren't doing any harm, because if you do, you are doing more harm than good.  This year's changes don't justify the work I had to do to change the program, let alone any scoresheets that have to be scrapped.     

[Trostle]

Bill,

That is one that was missed in the change cycle.    There are several other errors in the new rulebook currently on the AMA website.  Some of these are being corrected, some will have to be taken care of either in the "normal" rules change cycle that has just started.  Some appear to need being addressed now as an urgent change so that "discrepancies" do not remain in the rulebook for the next two years.  This is one of those that will be addressed by our  Control Line Aerobatics Contest Board.  The wording that is in the new rulebook in Paragraph 11 of the CLPA rules regarding how incomplete or omitted maneuvers are scored needs to be substituted in Paragraph 9 appearing in the Skill Classes section of the rulebook.

Other errors that appeared in the new rulebook that are to be soon corrected include the wrong metric lines sizes in the line size and pull test chart (which was also wrong in the 2007/2008 rulebook), the incorrect note regarding the horizontal intersections of the four leaf clover diagram, the omission of the scoring range for the horizontal square eights in the sample score sheet, the illogical position of the sample score sheet in the rulebook, and the correction of calling for two horizontal square eights in the Beginners sample score sheet instead of two horizontal round eights.

Stand by for more information as several "urgent proposals" will soon be submitted and acted on by the board.  Another item is being reviewed to change the weight of our stunt ships when .021 inch cables are required from 75 ounces to some nominal higher number.

Keith Trostle

(Edit to take care of a very careless statement regarding the beginner horizontal eights.  The sample score sheet in the new AMA rulebook is to be corrected to show the Beginners horizontal eights are round, not square.)

[Clancy Arnold]

Keith

Please look at the last line in the next to last paragraph. 

and the correction of calling for two horizontal square eights in the Beginners sample score sheet instead of two round horizontal square eights.


Are they round horizontal eights, not square horizontal eights?

If round square is correct then I have mastered the manuver.  LOL
Clancy

[Howard Rush]

I apologize for being assholistic above and for being wrong in saying that I got no response for my plea for help in accommodating the new rules into the Nats tabulating program.  Both Brett and Keith responded.  If anybody else can think of weird situations that might come up in using the new stunt rules, please tell me.  I want the program to catch any judging errors it can.   

[Trostle]

Keith

Please look at the last line in the next to last paragraph. 

and the correction of calling for two horizontal square eights in the Beginners sample score sheet instead of two round horizontal square eights.


Are they round horizontal eights, not square horizontal eights?

If round square is correct then I have mastered the manuver.  LOL
Clancy

Guess who again proof what he just wrote.  I will correct my post.  Thanks for politely pointing this out.

Keith

[EddyR]

Howard I am sending my two 20 lb attack cats after you for your brash statement. Well the only thing they attack is the lizards in the yard so I guess you are safe.
Ed

[Steve Fitton]

Howard I am sending my two 20 lb attack cats after you for your brash statement. Well the only thing they attack is the lizards in the yard so I guess you are safe.
Ed

Weren't those beasts on Monster Quest a few weeks ago?

[john e. holliday]

Well I got there just in time for the late pilots meeting in St Louis.  As Bob A. interpreted the rules, if maneuver is unrecognizable you get a zero,  but, if it looks like it could be called the maneuver in the sequence it would be judged 10-40.  Lack of two laps between maneuvers causes a big zero for the next maneuver.  Now if three laps are done the maneuvers is judged.  I guess all went well as I didn't hear any complaints with the exception of one competitor getting a score that the score sheet didn't agree with.  He was given a higher score than the score sheet showed.  I think everyone had fun.  I know the grand kids did.  Hopefully the results will be posted on here somewhere. 

[dale gleason]

In reply to the possibility of an "Urgent Proposal" to increase the weight at which the line diameter(two line stranded, for example) goes from .018s to .021s - raised to something nominally greater than 75 ozs, I can think of ample examples of planes in the 80-84 oz weights flying without incident on .018s. I think my Impcat #1, a porker from birth, is pushing the 75 oz mark, I'm hoping to fly it all this year, and it has flown through some tremendous winds (the "Windy Nats" and just about any Kansas contest) and done far more of its share of "winding up", using either solid .014s or stranded .018s. To the point that if something were to give, it would have. A lot of veteran ships would thus avoid being mothballed. I'm all for it.

I will contact my CLCB guy immediately to relate my position, Keith being the Chairman, having read this post, will already know.

"ample examples", I like that phrase....      dg

[phil c]

If you're going to modify the line size/pull test chart yet again, it would probably be best to do it in a scientific manner.  The way the pull test chart was originally set up  back in the 60's after several well known speed fliers proved that the line sizes specified were inadequate for speed.  The CLPA chart was based on weight and pulled 10g's, I believe.  That came to be considered too complicated to administer and it was simplified to weight and line size, and then to engine size and line size.

It's time to go back to square one and do some reasonable testing for shock loads and wind effects.  Planes have come off the lines when flown in high winds, and it happens also when somebody gets in trouble and the plane goes off across the circle and hits the end of the lines.  The rules should be written for safety and cover more than just a few expert pilots who rarely have problems.  I don't think the lines can really be considered safe if the normal, level flight calculated line pull is greater than 50% of one line's tested strength.  A more usual safety factor would be 33%, or even 20% in uses where a line failure could be castastrophic.

[Alan Hahn]

As a simple information quest, is there some (logical) connection between wire diameter requirements and the pull test?

What I mean by this is that lets say 15 thousandths wire is rated for some strength. Wouldn't it make sense that the line strength specs naturally mesh with the pull test requirements?  So if 0.015 lines are (15/12)²=~1.5 times stronger than 0.012 lines, then shouldn't the weight limits for the lines scale about this way?

I hope you understand what I am trying (inelegantly) to get at. I realize that the line force in level flight is >= mv²/r, the > coming from any outward offset of the plane path, so more than just weight come into it. However this can be re-written as m(2pi/T)²r. T is in the 4.5-5.5 s (20% effect from 5s center) range and r in the 50-70 foot range (~20% effect), while m varies by a factor of 2 or so. Naively mass seems to be the biggest variable ---not counting on a runaway lean run (but that might get you into the 4s lap range).

I don't know (or haven't heard) how the current rule book values are set. Maybe I missed it. Maybe it does scale with strength.

I think the argument that "I used this last year and it didn't fail" doesn't imply that it is ok. It is a necessary condition,  but perhaps not a sufficient condition.

[john e. holliday]

My Primary Force was pulled off the hook for the Ice-O-Lated contest.  I had to use the .015 X 60 cable as James was using my .012 X 60 on the Magician.  10 ounce weight difference in the two planes.  James has the Brodak 25, the force an LA 25.  I think the P Force will stay on the .015's as it seemed to handle better to me.  Isn't there somewhere on this forum about stretchy lines, especially on heavier planes.  If a pilot wants to take a chance on flying on smaller lines that still passes pull I hope him well. 

After spending as much as several hundred hours building and finishing a plane, why take a chance by using minimum diameter lines.   Emmy's plane pull tested less than what it used to because of weight, but, we still used .015 lines with that Fox 35 stunt.  James plane was pulled 3 pounds more than what it would have pulled under the old .25 size engine, 25 pounds pull. 

Too bad this wasn't hashed out when the rules were still proposals.  Now before going hog wild on new proposals they need to be tried, talked about and retested before making a proposal.  DOC Holliday

[Dick Fowler]

Seems that early contests will be very, very interesting. I'm sure it will be properly "interpreted" .

[Howard Rush]

"In reply to the possibility of an "Urgent Proposal" to increase the weight at which the line diameter(two line stranded, for example) goes from .018s to .021s - raised to something nominally greater than 75 ozs, I can think of ample examples of planes in the 80-84 oz weights flying without incident on .018s. I think my Impcat #1, a porker from birth, is pushing the 75 oz mark, I'm hoping to fly it all this year, and it has flown through some tremendous winds (the "Windy Nats" and just about any Kansas contest) and done far more of its share of "winding up", using either solid .014s or stranded .018s. To the point that if something were to give, it would have. A lot of veteran ships would thus avoid being mothballed. I'm all for it.

I will contact my CLCB guy immediately to relate my position, Keith being the Chairman, having read this post, will already know."

My reading of the rules says you are out of luck for this year.  An urgent change won't "become mandatory", whatever that means, until 2010. 

[john e. holliday]

Any rule can be put into place if it relates to a major safety issue in most cases.  Also if it looks like a major conflict might arise.  Don't ask as we don't talk BOM anymore.  Or I don't anymore.  DOC Holliday

[Wayne Foster]

Bill,

[Stand by for more information as several "urgent proposals" will soon be submitted and acted on by the board.  Another item is being reviewed to change the weight of our stunt ships when .021 inch cables are required from 75 ounces to some nominal higher number.

Keith Trostle]

Hi Keith,

Has anyone contacted the Electric Flyer's to see what they have to say.  They have been living with the 75 ounce limitation and .021 lines for at least 4-6 years or so.

I don't see where this should be an "Urgent Rule Change".  You wanted to make the rules equal for the Gas and Electric airplanes, now why don't you try them out for this cycle to see if you made a wise choice.

I thought that once everyone had to weigh their airplanes, we would see a big difference in what people use to claim their planes weighed and what they really weigh.

As someone else pointed out, you really need to stop basing all your Safety Related Issues on what a few "Expert" flyer's can do.  The majority of flyer's just aren't as good as the few Experts.

Phil made a good point that maybe it's time to do some scientific study of the forces involved with these airplanes.