Level flight being flown too low.

[Paul Taylor]

I’ll be the first to admit -me and my plane are afraid of the ground. So I’m not going to hit a 2-3 ft bottom. And besides it’s against the rules.

The rule book states 3.9-5.9 ft ( 4-6 ft) for normal level flight being flown.
The bottom of maneuvers is 3.9 - 5.9 ft.  According to the rule book it’s in error if the bottoms are not within the 3.9-5.9ft range. Also flying too low below 3.9 ft is considered unsafe and can have points deducted or disqualified for unsafe flying.

The top 10 flyers will go well below 3.9 ft when flying. It does invoke the pucker factor but the maneuvers are not within rule book specifications and should be scored as such. Just like if a maneuver is flown too high.

I’m just reading the rule book guys.

[Shorts,David]

I have observed two of the"top" pilots flying low which my score card would reflect a deduction for. But I don't believe it is easy to observe as a judge. If it is observed, I hope all of our judges score appropriately.
Off the to of my head, I believe it is a minor deduction, not a major deduction, so if I hit 5 for bottoms and a great flier hits 3, his shape and intersections will still outscore me by a good margin.

[Paul Walker]

The problem is it is WAY easier to fly at 3 feet vs 6 feet.
The other thingbin the rules is tighter corners are to be scored higher...but in AMA scoring that rarely happens.

[Brett Buck]

The top 10 flyers will go well below 3.9 ft when flying. It does invoke the pucker factor but the maneuvers are not within rule book specifications and should be scored as such. Just like if a maneuver is flown too high.

  Ahem - SOME of the top 10 fliers go below 4 feet routinely.

    The correct height for level flight is 5 feet, not 3 feet, not 8 feet,  not 18 inches, not halfway up the judges shins.

    Brett

[Paul Taylor]

The problem is it is WAY easier to fly at 3 feet vs 6 feet.
The other thingbin the rules is tighter corners are to be scored higher...but in AMA scoring that rarely happens.

No disrespect but 3 ft is below the 3.9ft. (3.9 feet is equal to 46.8 inches.) I would put that at 48 inches at the thrust line to give you the 3.9 ft.

But judges are always going to score higher for two ft bottoms when actually they shouldn’t according to the rules. From the rule book:

[Brett Buck]

No disrespect but 3 ft is below the 3.9ft. (3.9 feet is equal to 46.8 inches.) I would put that at 48 inches at the thrust line to give you the 3.9 ft.

But judges are always going to score higher for two ft bottoms when actually they shouldn’t according to the rules. From the rule book:

   That will keep happening as long as it looks like it gets good scores.

     5 feet has been beaten into my head so often and for so long that I have to make a special effort to overcome my tendencies, as Paul notes, it's not terribly hard to jam it lower, but 40 years of Bill Fitzgerald and Ted Fancher coaching has beat it out of me.

     Brett

[Tim Wescott]

I deduct points for flying below 5 feet.  Perhaps not as many per maneuver as the same height above level -- unless you get to zero altitude during a maneuver, in which case you get a perfect score minus 30 points.

[GERALD WIMMER]

The problem is it is WAY easier to fly at 3 feet vs 6 feet.
The other thingbin the rules is tighter corners are to be scored higher...but in AMA scoring that rarely happens.

Hello I wish I found 3ft more comfortable then 6ft !
Old age and panic attacks at times finds me going higher and higher inverted till I'm doing 2 second lap times and I have to calm myself down and bring it down to a proper height and normal lap time . This didn't happen 30 or 40 years ago when I flew  and my wife says I fly like crap now compared to when I was young 
Oh well at least my sons are flying better then me now!

Regards Gerald

[Dave_Trible]

  Ahem - SOME of the top 10 fliers go below 4 feet routinely.

    The correct height for level flight is 5 feet, not 3 feet, not 8 feet,  not 18 inches, not halfway up the judges shins.

    Brett

And Ahem....fly at 35 degrees rather than 45 degrees as well-lest the manuevers look gigantic.

Dave

[Ken Culbertson]

When I was at my peak in the late 70's we had two circles to fly on.  If you could not fly bottoms at 5' consistently you did not fly with the "Big Dogs".  It became so automatic that I don't even see the ground when I fly anymore.  Now that I am older my planes have requested that I pay more attention to it.

Ken

[Brett Buck]

And Ahem....fly at 35 degrees rather than 45 degrees as well-lest the manuevers look gigantic.

Dave

     As in the other thread - the scoreboard is the only reality.

      It is an intrinsically subjective event. Have people win and do well flying a particular way, and the small cadre of guys who have the ability to adjust, will adjust to it.

     Brett

[EricV]

     As in the other thread - the scoreboard is the only reality.

      It is an intrinsically subjective event. Have people win and do well flying a particular way, and the small cadre of guys who have the ability to adjust, will adjust to it.

     Brett

Yes, and flying right after someone that fly's huge or after someone that fly's rulebook small, high bottoms or low bottoms, can affect (some) judges' perception of the immediate next flight too, making certain aspects glaringly obvious. (like audible sensory deprivation, then hearing a loud noise) But as your buddy Ted says, that's not our problem and we should just fly our pattern, and as you noted, most probably can't adjust to it on the fly anyway without inducing other more egregious errors.

EricV

[Dan Berry]

A fellow who was at the WC told me that if there had been a 2 1/2 ft high box in the circle 70% of the planes would have been destroyed when they hit it

[Dave_Trible]

I'm sure that had to be a little baffling for some of the overseas competitors.   The typical panel height markers were not used ( except for the judges warm up flights of which I flew one) with an exception of a marker standing on top of the crown down the center of the LPad.  If you were flying perfectly level and passed the marker on the crown you might appear to be flying at 6-7 ft. over the lower sides of the crown.  If you were not used to or not recognizing the crown you might find yourself trying to fly much deeper to find the bottoms if you normally flew on flat ground.  Many pilots were trying to follow the contour of the ground when there were no depth markers.  Then when the wind would blow straight down the crown the ground came up to you a lot faster in maneuvers and would yield some racy bottoms.

Dave

[Brett Buck]

But as your buddy Ted says, that's not our problem and we should just fly our pattern, and as you noted, most probably can't adjust to it on the fly anyway without inducing other more egregious errors.

    Interestingly, adjusting the bottom height down is, as Paul mentions, one of the easier adjustments, so more people can do that than fix the various shape errors that persist over decades. As long as you can't hear Bill Fitz' voice in your head telling to keep at 5 feet....

   Dave's point about the crown and how it was dealt with at the WC is interesting, and I am not sure what the FAI rule book says about the reference for the 5 feet. The AMA is 100% clear, it is a level plane 5 feet above the center of the pilots circle.

     The judges know the rules as well or better than the pilots. It remains subjective and so it is a matter of how it is being perceived. 

     Brett

[Steve Thompson]

Curious why it is WAY easier to fly at 3 feet vs 6 feet.

Do you mean easier to fly level or easier to pull out of a maneuver (say wingover) at 3 feet.

Ground effect?  Visual reference?

easier vs safer...  If my level is plus/minus 4 feet, I sense a problem for me...

[john e. holliday]

Now that I have read through this here is what I was taught many, many years ago when I was flying or judging.  Level flight and bottoms should be just below shoulder height.   Also level and bottoms should be consistent through the hole pattern.  Guess that is why I got beat by a person whose level and bottoms was at 10 foot but was consistent.

[Dave Simons]

    Interestingly, adjusting the bottom height down is, as Paul mentions, one of the easier adjustments, so more people can do that than fix the various shape errors that persist over decades. As long as you can't hear Bill Fitz' voice in your head telling to keep at 5 feet....

   Dave's point about the crown and how it was dealt with at the WC is interesting, and I am not sure what the FAI rule book says about the reference for the 5 feet. The AMA is 100% clear, it is a level plane 5 feet above the center of the pilots circle.

     The judges know the rules as well or better than the pilots. It remains subjective and so it is a matter of how it is being perceived. 

     Brett

Same for FAI rules, reference is centre of circle. Low level flight and low bottoms got downscored (by me anyway).

[Brett Buck]

 

Dave's point about the crown and how it was dealt with at the WC is interesting, and I am not sure what the FAI rule book says about the reference for the 5 feet. The AMA is 100% clear, it is a level plane 5 feet above the center of the pilots circle.

     The judges know the rules as well or better than the pilots. It remains subjective and so it is a matter of how it is being perceived.

     Brett

Same for FAI rules, reference is centre of circle. Low level flight and low bottoms got downscored (by me anyway).

   That's interesting, I have lost track of FAI rules since they made it impossible for me to be a member. Guess I am influencing FAI after all. Although this particular change was pretty obvious.

https://stunthanger.com/smf/rules-discussions/rules-proposal-(4-of-several)/msg148505/#google_vignette

   
Brett

[Mark Romanowitz]

Steve Smith, Mark Overmier and others have put great effort into developing a training curriculum to bring consistency and quality to the judging aspect of this sport. As a newly trained Judge (I was one of the Classic Judges this year), at this year's Nats and following, all of the Judges meetings and training I have attended and taken have strongly emphasized the rules as standards and the removal of subjectivity/personal rules interpretations as much as is humanly possible.

Regardless of how judges have historically scored bottoms lower than 3.9 feet or higher than 5.9 feet, I recommend doing everything you can to be consistently between those heights going forward.. Because the judging landscape is changing, for the better.

So as a pilot who wants to win, I recommend that you not assume that the judges are going to score bottoms or level flight at three feet higher than another flight that is within the standard.

This also assumes that once the height of level flight/bottoms are established, that it is maintained throughout the maneuver. 

Please also understand that we are trying to be as accurate and truly fair as possible. Mark Overmier said "Without judges, it's just a fun fly."

I have been very impressed with the sense of obligation Mark and Steve and others have to the community to root out inconsistency, predispositions, favoritism, and anything else that undermines the fairness of judging. The last thing I or any of the other judges I have met want to be is unfair or inconsistent.

Hope this helps..

Mark

[Doug Moon]

When someone misses low it can look less than the amount they miss it high. Maybe the scores reflect that. 

Sometimes I find it alot easier to set the plane at 4' vs 5'. Someone told me once that ground effect can mess with how comfortable the plane is at the same distance from the ground as the wingspan. I tend to agree in my experience. 6' or 4' is pretty solid. 5' can be at times a chore. 

[Mark Romanowitz]

That's a good point, Doug, and one that I completely forgot about. So I guess my next plane should be a Ringmaster or a Sweeper!
Although in my own case, it probably wouldn't matter as much, but it is something to consider during a contest, due to the variations of lift above and below that wingspan distance from the ground.

[the original Steve Smith]

Steve Smith, Mark Overmier and others have put great effort into developing a training curriculum to bring consistency and quality to the judging aspect of this sport. As a newly trained Judge (I was one of the Classic Judges this year), at this year's Nats and following, all of the Judges meetings and training I have attended and taken have strongly emphasized the rules as standards and the removal of subjectivity/personal rules interpretations as much as is humanly possible.

Regardless of how judges have historically scored bottoms lower than 3.9 feet or higher than 5.9 feet, I recommend doing everything you can to be consistently between those heights going forward.. Because the judging landscape is changing, for the better.

So as a pilot who wants to win, I recommend that you not assume that the judges are going to score bottoms or level flight at three feet higher than another flight that is within the standard.

This also assumes that once the height of level flight/bottoms are established, that it is maintained throughout the maneuver. 

Please also understand that we are trying to be as accurate and truly fair as possible. Mark Overmier said "Without judges, it's just a fun fly."

I have been very impressed with the sense of obligation Mark and Steve and others have to the community to root out inconsistency, predispositions, favoritism, and anything else that undermines the fairness of judging. The last thing I or any of the other judges I have met want to be is unfair or inconsistent.

Hope this helps..

Mark

Thanks for the support Mark. We want to standardize the application of the rules for all judges across the country. Anyone is welcome to take the training. It takes about 2 hours. Contact me or Mark Overmeier and we will can schedule a session for you.

[Ken Culbertson]

Doug is right on the depth of ground effect.  It starts at your wingspan and extends to the ground increasing in effect as you go lower.  I was shocked to read that, I thought it was much lower, around half that, so I did some research.

For most of our planes you are out of it at 6', entering into it at 5' and solidly in it below 5.   That changes my perspective on a lot of things, especially hunting if you are a 5' addict because you are bumping in and out of it.

I am going to re-evaluate my approach to bottoms.  I am more comfortable inverted at less than 5' but more comfortable above 5' upright.  My bottoms on squares are better at 6' but I get maximum consistency on rounds if I bottom near 4'.

If the trend in judging is to judge each maneuver as a stand-alone and the no deduction height ranges are just that then it makes sense to use ground effect instead of fighting it like I have been for 60 years.

Ken

[Paul Taylor]

Doug is right on the depth of ground effect.  It starts at your wingspan and extends to the ground increasing in effect as you go lower.  I was shocked to read that, I thought it was much lower, around half that, so I did some research.

For most of our planes you are out of it at 6', entering into it at 5' and solidly in it below 5.   That changes my perspective on a lot of things, especially hunting if you are a 5' addict because you are bumping in and out of it.

I am going to re-evaluate my approach to bottoms.  I am more comfortable inverted at less than 5' but more comfortable above 5' upright.  My bottoms on squares are better at 6' but I get maximum consistency on rounds if I bottom near 4'.

If the trend in judging is to judge each maneuver as a stand-alone and the no deduction height ranges are just that then it makes sense to use ground effect instead of fighting it like I have been for 60 years.

Ken

My understanding of the rule is like Mark stated.

“This also assumes that once the height of level flight/bottoms are established, that it is maintained throughout the maneuver.”

Once you level off after take off your telling the judge this is your bottoms on all maneuvers.

[Brett Buck]

My understanding of the rule is like Mark stated.

“This also assumes that once the height of level flight/bottoms are established, that it is maintained throughout the maneuver.”

Once you level off after take off your telling the judge this is your bottoms on all maneuvers.

 

    No. That is a very incorrect idea, the bottom it supposed to be 5 feet, taking off and flying level does *not* "establish a reference". The reference is clearly stated in the rule book as a horizontal plane 5 feet above the center of the pilots circle. It is an absolute reference, flying any maneuver including level flight as a different height, even within 4-6 feet,  is definitely wrong.

   This was all clarified with the rule change I put in a few years ago, there was a 3-way argument/discussion between Dave Cook, Keith Trostle, and myself, ith Dave eventually admitting that the "establish a reference" idea was not supported by the old rule, he just wanted it to be that way, Keith made a decent argument that the 5 feet was relative to local terrain/ground, which at least made it unclear if you were supposed to fly  wavy flight to follow the terrain or a plane. The rule change clearly defines that it is supposed to be a planar figure, and that it is 5 feet, and the 5 feet is with respect to the center of the pilots circle (since you had to pick something, and that is about the only unambiguous reference. That means it might be 4.5 feet above the ground at the bottom of the maneuver over a high spot, or 7 feet above the ground at the bottom of the maneuver over a low spot.

   This actually matters at a lot of sites, the L-pad in particular, the pilot's circle for 1-2-3 is at about the crown of the surface, so if you are flying over the long axis (roughly east-west), it really is about 5 feet AGL, and maybe 6.5-7 feet AGL if you are flying to the north or south, the low spot being the northeast corner of Circle 3. On a completely level surface (like Whittier Narrows, Napa,  etc.) it really is just 5 feet AGL more-or-less everywhere.

     If you set out height poles, you want to take this in to account, and setting up a laser level at 5 feet in the center can easily result in different heights above the base, depending on where you put it.

     Brett

[Ken Culbertson]

... the bottom it supposed to be 5 feet, taking off and flying level does *not* "establish a reference". The reference is clearly stated in the rule book as a horizontal plane 5 feet above the center of the pilots circle. It is an absolute reference, flying any maneuver including level flight as a different height, even within 3.9-5.9 foot range,  is definitely wrong.
     Brett

Although my personal belief as to how it should be agrees with your statement, I can find nothing in the rule book or judges guide supporting a deduction for level flight or maneuver bottoms that are within the 3.9-5.9 foot range but not at 5'.

Ken

[Dave_Trible]

For these reasons I for one like the idea of flying with proper height markers (maybe just four rather than the FAI eight).   I think it too easy for pilot and judges to eyeball the daylight between the airplane and the ground as there reference since there is little else to use regardless how that spot relates to the circle center.  I think it rather hard to judge where the five foot mark from center might be out that far and from especially looking sort of down the lines or from the pilot’s backside outwards to the airplane without some visual point or line of reference.

Dave

Enjoying the holiday in some of this rarified California Stunt Air in La Quinta / Palm Springs

[Brett Buck]

Although my personal belief as to how it should be agrees with your statement, I can find nothing in the rule book or judges guide supporting a deduction for level flight or maneuver bottoms that are within the 3.9-5.9 foot range but not at 5'.

Ken

  The use of the "4-6 feet" reference is a holdover from the days of error-counting, the same notion also permits the idea that you can cycle back and forth between 4.1 and 5.9 feet in a sine wave and that is "not an error" which is definitely not true.

    Brett


p.s.

11.2 ...... Level, or purposes of Precision Aerobatics, means flight along a horizontal plane (perpendicular to vertical); it explicitly does not mean a constant height above the terrain over which the airplane flies. The portions of certain maneuvers which require normal level flight elevation must be
accomplished between 1.20 and 1.80 meters (3.9 and 5.9 feet) for maximum points. The elevation reference shall be the height at the center of the pilot’s circle. In cases where uneven terrain makes this impractical or unsafe, and alternate reference shall be determined by the organizers and announced at the pilot’s meeting.  Fliers and judges alike shall note that maneuvers shall be flown and judged in relation to two (2) or three (3) reference points, depending upon the particular maneuver.For example, loops shall be performed with bottom track at approximately 1.50 meters (4.9 feet) elevation, and the top track at 45 degree elevation of the lines; the vertical eight shall also have the approximate 1.50 meter (4.9 foot) lower track elevation, and the top of the figure(s) shall not be more or less than 90 degrees from horizontal, or directly over the flier’s head. The reference points (level flight, angular dimensions, etc.) are absolute references and independent of each other. The execution of one maneuver does not affect the references for another. For example, flying lower than 5 feet on the takeoff and level flight does not alter the 5 foot reference altitude.

Emphasis added. The metric stuff is a holdover and leads to the erroneous "4.9" feet description - it's supposed to be 5 feet. I leave it to the experts to determine whether or not the 1.2" error matters.

     I am sure that Paul's original point was not about 1.2" discrepancies, more like the 3ish or more feet discrepancies that you sometimes see.

   Otherwise, I think this is clear - 5 feet is the reference, the reference is a planar figure 5 feet from the pilot circle.  Flying around at 2 or 4.1 or 5.9999 feet on the takeoff doesn't "establish a reference" that should be replicated. Making a mistake low or high on one maneuver doesn't mean you should do them all with the same mistake.

   I can tell this is turning a simple problem into an exploration of the mysterious runes, but it's generally a simple issue. I will grant that the 4-6 foot "tolerance" stuff is misleading and should be removed. This was Dave Cook's original reason for wanting takeoff to "establish" a reference height, since wandering between 4 and 6 does not provide enough definition to distinguish between the better pilots.

[Mark Romanowitz]

Hi Brett,
So I'm trying to understand the implications of what you are saying..

Not challenging you here, just asking for more clarification.

Regarding "establishing the bottom for a maneuver", what I am saying is that with square eights, for example, if you enter the maneuver at 4.9 feet, then that is the bottom you should use for the entire square eight. But my understanding, and I will get clarification from Steve and the judges committee, is that that doesn't necessarily carry over to the other maneuvers, and they are taken individually as such, as long as the bottoms are between the min and max, there isn't an error, with the understanding that the bottoms of that maneuver are all at the same height.

Are you saying then that the vertical eights, hourglass, four leaf clover, and previous maneuvers should also be at that 4.9 feet also?

I think it is obvious that if a person has all of the bottoms of the maneuvers at 4.9 feet, regardless of which maneuver is being flown, then that flight would deserve a higher score, but then in a sense, you are rescoring the earlier maneuvers on each subsequent maneuver.. Should pattern points be variable also? So the flyer who is consistent with bottoms throughout get the full 25, and those (like me) who aren't get less? It seems proper, but I think in practice it will quickly become too complicated.

Regarding the flat horizontal plane with the reference being the center of the circle, (which I fully understand, but being new to the judging world and only twice Nats contestant, this year and 1980, with a long hiatus in between, I don't know the many discussions or history on this point) one contest I was at would have put the one side at ~2' and the other at ~8'. I wasn't judging then, and assumed that I would follow the terrain. And in these cases, I think the contest judges should discuss that prior to the pilots meeting and let the pilots know how they will score that. I think in most cases that wouldn't be necessary, of course. But this was at a local contest and so the stakes weren't nearly at the level of the Nats or Team trials, of course.

Again, please don't take any of my comments as a challenge or contention.. Just trying to get context and clarification of what you are saying.

Thoughts?

Mark

[Doug Moon]

  The use of the "4-6 feet" reference is a holdover from the days of error-counting, the same notion also permits the idea that you can cycle back and forth between 4.1 and 5.9 feet in a sine wave and that is "not an error" which is definitely not true.

    Brett

This is a good conversation. I decided to look at the 2024-2025 rule book online.

This is from the "Judges Guide"

14.5.1.
Recognition of level flight altitude of 1.5 meters (4.9 feet),
plus/minus 30 cm (1 foot)

Doesn't say anything from the center of the circle in that section??

On the maneuver descriptions by which the scores are derived from it says, for example..

 Takeoff.
A correct takeoff consists of the
model rolling smoothly along the
ground for a distance of not less than
4.5 meters (14.8 feet), but not greater
than one quarter of a lap. The model
then rises smoothly into the air with a
gradual climb and a smooth level-off
to normal flight level over the point at
which the model commenced its
ground roll. The model continues on
for two (2) smooth laps of normal
level flight to point of original level-
off.
Maximum 40 points. Minimum 10 points.
Errors: The model bounces or becomes airborne too soon, or too late.
Takeoff, climb or level-off is not gradual and is not smooth. Level-off
occurs too soon, or too late. Level-off and normal flight level are not
within a height of 1.2—1.8 meters (3.9—5.9 feet).

Also the drawings, which are aids, show the normal level flight to be looked at on the path of the model and not from the pilot. I can see why this has been a point of discussion for many years. 

While 4-6 may be a hold over from the old days 3.9-5.9 is everywhere in the rules right now. It would appear that as the pilot on each maneuver you have that area to work within and still be in the rule book. That doesn't mean hunting all around within that range. I would think it to mean if I set the bottom of my first maneuver 3.9' the rest of them need to be there for the best score possible on that portion of the maneuver. Then on the next maneuver once again I have all of the 3.9-5.9 work with until the entry point where the height is indeed set by me...

[Brett Buck]

Hi Brett,
So I'm trying to understand the implications of what you are saying..

Not challenging you here, just asking for more clarification.

   You are perfectly welcome to "challenge" me any time you want, so don't worry about how you phrase things!

Regarding "establishing the bottom for a maneuver", what I am saying is that with square eights, for example, if you enter the maneuver at 4.9 feet, then that is the bottom you should use for the entire square eight. But my understanding, and I will get clarification from Steve and the judges committee, is that that doesn't necessarily carry over to the other maneuvers, and they are taken individually as such, as long as the bottoms are between the min and max, there isn't an error, with the understanding that the bottoms of that maneuver are all at the same height.

Are you saying then that the vertical eights, hourglass, four leaf clover, and previous maneuvers should also be at that 4.9 feet also?

I think it is obvious that if a person has all of the bottoms of the maneuvers at 4.9 feet, regardless of which maneuver is being flown, then that flight would deserve a higher score, but then in a sense, you are rescoring the earlier maneuvers on each subsequent maneuver.. Should pattern points be variable also? So the flyer who is consistent with bottoms throughout get the full 25, and those (like me) who aren't get less? It seems proper, but I think in practice it will quickly become too complicated.

Regarding the flat horizontal plane with the reference being the center of the circle, (which I fully understand, but being new to the judging world and only twice Nats contestant, this year and 1980, with a long hiatus in between, I don't know the many discussions or history on this point) one contest I was at would have put the one side at ~2' and the other at ~8'. I wasn't judging then, and assumed that I would follow the terrain. And in these cases, I think the contest judges should discuss that prior to the pilots meeting and let the pilots know how they will score that. I think in most cases that wouldn't be necessary, of course. But this was at a local contest and so the stakes weren't nearly at the level of the Nats or Team trials, of course.

   I think the posts above tell you what I think about it. It is indeed possible that the current definition of "5 foot" will result in the bottoms being 6-7 feet or 2-3 feet AGL (above ground level where the ground is the ground in the direction of the maneuver) if the site is not level. That is mentioned in the rule I quoted above. What the rule is intended to do is define a completely unambiguous reference plane, you can fly to it, everyone's manevuers are the same size, and they are all trying to hit the same reference.

   I note that if, say, you are flying on Circle 3 on the LPad, the wind is coming from the southwest, if you *did* think it was 5 feet AGL. your maneuvers would correctly be larger than if you did it with the wind coming straight out of the north, since 45 degrees elevation is constant and the bottom is not.  Meaning depending on luck, the required maneuver angular dimensions would change. To preclude that and make the playing field even for everyone, the maneuver sizes are referenced to the "bottom" - 5 feet (0 degrees elevation) and the "top" (45 or 90) and it the same regardless. That's why this is in the rule:

The reference points (level flight, angular dimensions, etc.) are absolute references and independent of each other. The execution of one maneuver does not affect the references for another. For example, flying lower than 5 feet on the takeoff and level flight does not alter the 5 foot reference altitude. "[/quote

[Mark Romanowitz]

OK.. Cool.. So we are on the same wavelength here.. Maybe different wording or incomplete wording on my part to adequately describe things.

" You are perfectly welcome to "challenge" me any time you want, so don't worry about how you phrase things!"
Thanks.. I just seem to have the knack of unintentionally stirring up controversy at times, so I like to be careful.
It's easy to get things misconstrued in forums like this.

BTW, someone told me you went to EKU and lived in the Richmond, KY area for a while.. I grew up in Lexington, KY and worked for Lew at X-Cell/MidAm for a number of years during High School and early college. We are also about the same age. Were you a LMAC member? Just wondering.. I went off to the Navy in 1984 and sold off almost everything when I did.

Best regards,
Mark

[Doug Moon]

Now I see it center portion being referenced in 11.2, thank you for that clarification.

[Brett Buck]

Now I see it center portion being referenced in 11.2, thank you for that clarification.

    You are welcome. Of course, at least Keith's idea could be reasonable, too, it's more a matter of picking how to define the references. Obviously I like my interpretation, and I like it because I think everyone should be trying to fly the same dimensions and angles regardless of the field or wind, how tall they are, etc.

   Brett

[Ken Culbertson]

While 4-6 may be a hold over from the old days 3.9-5.9 is everywhere in the rules right now. It would appear that as the pilot on each maneuver you have that area to work within and still be in the rule book. That doesn't mean hunting all around within that range. I would think it to mean if I set the bottom of my first maneuver 3.9' the rest of them need to be there for the best score possible on that portion of the maneuver. Then on the next maneuver once again I have all of the 3.9-5.9 work with until the entry point where the height is indeed set by me...

Doug's comment is exactly what I have been trying to say and is the only gray area of this subject as far as I am concerned.  I would very much like to see this added to the rule book as a general comment before the individual maneuvers and a caution in the judges guide not to deduct for differences between maneuvers.  However, there is another school that believes that 5' was on the lost third tablet that Moses dropped on his way down the mountain.  So, my only concern at this point is what are the National judges going to be taught.  It is fairly easy as a judge to see that a plane is within the 2' zone and that the bottoms and tops of individual maneuvers are the same.  Without markers which I support, especially on crowned and uneven circles it is not so easy.

For me this ties directly to the ongoing thread related to ground effect.

Ken

[Brett Buck]

Doug's comment is exactly what I have been trying to say and is the only gray area of this subject as far as I am concerned.  I would very much like to see this added to the rule book as a general comment before the individual maneuvers and a caution in the judges guide not to deduct for differences between maneuvers.

   ?? Why would the differences between maneuvers matter?  It already says that the reference points are absolute, everyone should be trying for 5 feet, and that one maneuver doesn't affect another.

      If I was going to put in another change, it would be to remove the 4-6 references entirely, it is extremely misleading. Just say it is 5 feet and not give a tolerance, because you don't need a tolerance, since the error assessment is an analog function, rather than a discrete error. 5.1 feet is only a small deduction if you notice it at all, 7 feet or 3 feet is a moderate deduction, and 1 foot or 9 feet is a pretty big deduction. I would also remove any metric measurements, of course.

   BTW, the judges guide is a definite double-edged sword and I at least have not spent a lot of time trying to make sure it was consistent with the other rules. It wouldn't be a bad idea to go through and clean up discrepancies and make sure it reflects current best practices. My one input to is the statement that it is only advisory, and that any inconsistencies are resolved by looking at the rules, not the guide.

   BTW, this is deviating quite a bit from the original post, I don't think it is a problem with the definition of 5 feet or where you measure it from.

  I also note that there are some "tactical" aspects about this  that neither Doug nor I am inclined to discuss here.

     Brett

[Ken Culbertson]

   ?? Why would the differences between maneuvers matter?  It already says that the reference points are absolute, everyone should be trying for 5 feet, and that one maneuver doesn't affect another.

It would be nice if the 4-6' range was not in the rules and I would support your effort to remove it if you so choose, but it is there and as long as it is there judging should follow what is in the book.

Ken 

[Brett Buck]

It would be nice if the 4-6' range was not in the rules and I would support your effort to remove it if you so choose, but it is there and as long as it is there judging should follow what is in the book.

Ken

   As far as I can see, there is no actual conflict, once you realize that you can't count errors.

     Brett

[Ken Culbertson]

   As far as I can see, there is no actual conflict, once you realize that you can't count errors.

     Brett

Now I see where you are coming from, and I agree.  I spent the better part of the summer of 1978 working with some of the other judges in our club (the old Dallas Rounders) on a new judging system that we wanted to propose.  It was heavy into error counting and separate locations and responsibilities between the judges.  After about 5 contests using the system, we decided that error counting was too difficult to learn and would never work.  Prior to that we wrote an article for Stunt News about our efforts.  A couple of years later my oldest daughter started ice skating and I started a business. My flying days were over for 30 years.  When I came back in 2016 one of the first things I did was get a rule book.  I was shocked to find error counting was now the official method.  It does work if you don't have to judge at the same time and can just keep a running total going in your head.  Great for practice or sizing up the competition, but as a judging technique it is impossible.

Happy Thanksgiving - Ken

[Dave_Trible]

Now I see where you are coming from, and I agree.  I spent the better part of the summer of 1978 working with some of the other judges in our club (the old Dallas Rounders) on a new judging system that we wanted to propose.  It was heavy into error counting and separate locations and responsibilities between the judges.  After about 5 contests using the system, we decided that error counting was too difficult to learn and would never work.  Prior to that we wrote an article for Stunt News about our efforts.  A couple of years later my oldest daughter started ice skating and I started a business. My flying days were over for 30 years.  When I came back in 2016 one of the first things I did was get a rule book.  I was shocked to find error counting was now the official method.  It does work if you don't have to judge at the same time and can just keep a running total going in your head.  Great for practice or sizing up the competition, but as a judging technique it is impossible.

Happy Thanksgiving - Ken

I have to agree.  There is too much going on too fast to watch, judge, calculate, and record a score in less than ten seconds and look up to get the next maneuver.   I believe all you can realistically do is take a mental  snapshot of what you just saw and be impressed with a score value.  If it were simple math all judges should come up with the same score-  they don’t.

Dave

[Doug Moon]

>>>>
I think it is obvious that if a person has all of the bottoms of the maneuvers at 4.9 feet, regardless of which maneuver is being flown, then that flight would deserve a higher score, but then in a sense, you are rescoring the earlier maneuvers on each subsequent maneuver.. Should pattern points be variable also? So the flyer who is consistent with bottoms throughout get the full 25, and those (like me) who aren't get less? It seems proper, but I think in practice it will quickly become too complicated.
<<<<
Mark

The pattern points are not a reflection of how well the pilot flew the maneuvers. That is left to the individual maneuver the scores. I have heard that in the early days completing the pattern in the prescribed order with the proper amount of laps between etc. was a feat in itself. So they added a little bonus for those who could do it. It was removed for a while with an argument that losing pattern points was a double hit or something of that nature. But then it was added back. I like having it as it is a throwback to the stunt roots.

[Steve Helmick]

After our contest last fall, I mentioned to one of our entrants that if he'd gotten his 5' bottoms (by my view) down to 4', he might have scored better. Not because the bottoms were lower, but because each maneuver would be that much larger and the straight legs would have been longer, resulting in the maneuvers looking better and the airplane perhaps looking "happier".

This particular contestant had come from an area where air density was significantly less and made his bottoms a struggle (tending to be high), but he managed to get them down to where I saw them as consistent 5'. No idea what the other judge thought of this guy's bottoms, of course. 

Regarding Ken and Doug's home circle with the crowned circle center...I find that bizarre...we're used to sloped and lumpy sites here & there, but that seems just weird. I would probably give low scores for having level flight and bottoms at 7'-8' above the ground at the airplane's radius, even if that is chest level and per the rulebook. It seems like it would be a challenge to both trim and fly at that site due to the crown. Is the circle center really 2' higher, like I recall Ken saying, or is that an exaggeration? I wonder who thought that crown would be a good idea? Seems to me like 6" crown would have been more than adequate for drainage.    Steve

[Mark Romanowitz]

The pattern points are not a reflection of how well the pilot flew the maneuvers. That is left to the individual maneuver the scores. I have heard that in the early days completing the pattern in the prescribed order with the proper amount of laps between etc. was a feat in itself. So they added a little bonus for those who could do it. It was removed for a while with an argument that losing pattern points was a double hit or something of that nature. But then it was added back. I like having it as it is a throwback to the stunt roots.

Yes, Doug, I agree.. That was just for the sake of argument.. More to explore how quickly things can get out of hand here rather than a serious consideration.
The secretary of one of my clubs has said repeatedly that Stunt is a subjectively scored event and to fly it you have to be able to deal with that. So there are always going interpretive challenges and differences opinion and ideas that can easily get out of hand. It's though these discussions and what if's however, that someone newer to being a judge, (although I have been in and out of control line & stunt several times for over 50 years) can gain perspective and context on these topics that for most of my Stunt "career" I haven't been a part of.

BTW, I met your son, Jake at the Nats (I was a classic judge). He's a fine young man, and I am sure you are proud of him, and rightfully so.

Best regards,
Mark

[Ken Culbertson]

Regarding Ken and Doug's home circle with the crowned circle center...I find that bizarre...we're used to sloped and lumpy sites here & there, but that seems just weird. I would probably give low scores for having level flight and bottoms at 7'-8' above the ground at the airplane's radius, even if that is chest level and per the rulebook. It seems like it would be a challenge to both trim and fly at that site due to the crown. Is the circle center really 2' higher, like I recall Ken saying, or is that an exaggeration? I wonder who thought that crown would be a good idea? Seems to me like 6" crown would have been more than adequate for drainage.    Steve

It is not as bad as it sounds but it is different.  I don't know the actual drop.  It is somewhere between 18" and 2' for drainage. Most of us fly around 5' to the ground just because it looks so weird to be doing squares way up there.  I will admit that it is easier to hold 6' from the ground on our circles than it is 5'.  Perhaps that is because 6' is closer to chest high and out of the ground effect.  The picture on the left is close to rule book on our circle, perhaps a bit low.  The one on the right is where most of us fly.  It is roughly 5' to the ground.   Definitely outside of the rule book range but from a visual it is right on.
Sorry about the pix quality, cropped from a video and blown up.
Ken

[Crist Rigotti]

Ken, our circle gets lower further out on its diameter.  About 12 to 18 inches at its widest.  How does that figure in your calculations.

[Ken Culbertson]

Ken, our circle gets lower further out on its diameter.  About 12 to 18 inches at its widest.  How does that figure in your calculations.

About right.  I would like to get a laser level to know for sure and would really like some day to get F2B like markers.  I can barely see the ones we have painted on the posts!  Just saw your Agenda build thread.  Nice plane.

Ken

[Brett Buck]

About right.  I would like to get a laser level to know for sure and would really like some day to get F2B like markers.  I can barely see the ones we have painted on the posts!  Just saw your Agenda build thread.  Nice plane.

Ken

   I am not sure why you refer to them as "F2B-like" markers. Markers like that have been around since the 50s, and we have used them periodically at the NATs. I and many other people were using markers of some sort 50ish years ago. For several years I rarely flew a flight without them. They are nothing new and if you want to make some, make some.

   I will caution you about trying to fly to the markers on the first flight, you will be surprised by how fast they come up if you haven't done it before.

    Brett

[Ken Culbertson]

   I am not sure why you refer to them as "F2B-like" markers. Markers like that have been around since the 50s, and we have used them periodically at the NATs. I and many other people were using markers of some sort 50ish years ago. For several years I rarely flew a flight without them. They are nothing new and if you want to make some, make some.

   I will caution you about trying to fly to the markers on the first flight, you will be surprised by how fast they come up if you haven't done it before.

    Brett

I referred to them that way because you only seem to see them anymore on videos from F2B contests.  I had a set back in the late 70's.  I think we had pipes for 8 around one of the circles.  2' white squares.  Even one or two would be nice.  You are right about looking for them!

Ken

[Abi]

The problem is it is WAY easier to fly at 3 feet vs 6 feet.

We used to have a great flier in New England: Dave Cook. I once saw him fly an entire pattern with 3" bottoms. He was flying his  ST60 powered Lightning at the time. Must have been early 2000's