[50%300SFlyer]

This past weekend at the Toledo show, a RFA was submitted to the IMAC Secretary, requesting a rule change. This RFA was signed by myself, Bob H, Ted B, and Bryan M. The RFA process allows the IMAC BOD 45 days to review and respond.

Part of the 2004 rules are attached below in the PDF File. The other main part of the rules, is too large to attach. If you would like to view it, please contact me with your email address and I will send it to you.

For IMAC members, you can view both files here.

http://www.mini-iac.com/tabid/55/afv...5/Default.aspx

A copy of the RFA itself is pasted below.


International Miniature Aerobatic Club
Request for Action

Exhibit A
RFA # Postmark Date
(assigned by Sec) (entered by Sec)

RFA Type: IMAC Policy IMAC By-Law AMA Rule
(attach additional pages if needed)

Brief summary of RFA:

We the undersigned, request the IMAC BOD submit an URP to the AMA, to revert back to the 2004 judging criteria, as of Jan 1st 2010. This criteria includes the 3 zoned box, with its defined dimensions, and all of the other previous judging criteria established at that time. The only exception in these rules, would be the 60 degree altitude boundary, which should be eliminated. We would also request that the 2010 known and unknown sequences, be properly designed to accommodate the three zoned box.

Reason/Logic for Request:

Back in 2004, the IMAC BOD with Tom Wheeler as President, introduced the “zoneless box” and the current judging criteria for two reasons. The reasons are, and I quote, “The IMAC BOD and the AMA Competition Board believe we can reduce the overall airborne footprint by adapting this rule change now. It also of course gets us back in line with full scale CIVA and IAC.”

In reality, the zoneless box has not reduced our “footprint” at all, and in fact has had the opposite effect by making it bigger. With the elimination of the defined dimensions of the “airspace” or “box”, pilots are flying the sequences larger than ever. The ACS score while good intentioned, has been ineffective. This has had a very disturbing impact on the ability of clubs to host our contests, and as a result, a disturbing number of contests have been permanently eliminated due to overfly / noise complaints. Some of these clubs have even gone so far as to eliminate IMAC flying altogether, including practice flying. This is not conducive to promoting IMAC in any way, nor does it promote others to give IMAC a try when there are so few club fields that meet our “airspace” requirements. While we do understand that one of the goals of IMAC is to follow IAC as much as possible, the preservation of our club fields where we hold contests and practice our sequences, should be IMACs number one priority. Without them, there is no IMAC.

We hope the IMAC BOD will take this request seriously, and give it due and proper consideration.

Exact wording (if Rule or By-Law RFA):

The 2004 IMAC Rules. We can provide this in PDF format if requested.


Primary Sponsor:
Name: IMAC#:

Secondary Sponsor:
Name: IMAC#:

Secondary Sponsor:
Name: IMAC#:

[goneflyin]

Mike,

I don't think so...

there's nothing wrong with the zoneless box. In fact it makes for some very cool sequence design. Sounds like you want to fly pattern.

All you need to do is have CD's hold a meeting at the contest, and layout the field boundaries to the pilots, and ENFORCE it! Actually use the ACS!!

This is a misguided argument:

In reality, the zoneless box has not reduced our “footprint” at all, and in fact has had the opposite effect by making it bigger.

This has nothing to do with the zoneless box, it's all about pilots not respecting field boundaries, nothing more. Changing the IMAC rule here will do nothing to fix that!


Don

[50%300SFlyer]

Don,

You like everyone else, are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I thank you for your comments.

If I may suggest, you might want to contact those who have lost the ability to hold a contest at their local club during the last five years we have used this criteria, or in some cases, even the ability to practice IMAC, and present your argument to them personally.

I have no intensions of being dragged into a political shouting match with you or anyone else here on RCC.

[Randy Brown]

Well Don thats alright today.. long term how much longer will there be enough field to do this?

There alot of people want the box back the way it use to be for that reason

Originally Posted by goneflyin

Mike,

I don't think so...

there's nothing wrong with the zoneless box. In fact it makes for some very cool sequence design. Sounds like you want to fly pattern.

All you need to do is have CD's hold a meeting at the contest, and layout the field boundaries to the pilots, and ENFORCE it! Actually use the ACS!!

This is a misguided argument:

This has nothing to do with the zoneless box, it's all about pilots not respecting field boundaries, nothing more. Changing the IMAC rule here will do nothing to fix that!


Don

[Rick Kroeze]

Don't think I could support that in it's present form.

Not on board with a zoned box. Am on board for having a dimensioned box size, not sure how to enforce it. I would be willing to allow the judges to say if they think it is outside the prescribed area and therefore it is a zero. They may get it wrong at times but that alone should encourage a smaller footprint. Line judges are impractical.

Ultimately it comes down to the judging. If judges don't take it seriously enough to enforce it the pilots won't do it, regardless of the system in place.

[Ray]

I find the more complicated routines more demanding for air space. Especially the rolling circles.
It did not take long for our neighbors who have been there for many years to complain about airplanes flying over their house and noise they make. Trying to make the circle tighter is much harder. Now I am forced to fly the circle tight or go somewhere else. Once the neighbors are pi--ed off, it is not easy to put them at ease.
It would have been much better if the rollers did not exist. But they do and I think it is good to talk about it.

[Mike Sebastien]

Is it Cross - box maneuvers or the zoneless box causing us to lose fields. Doesn't matter which but we have a problem.

Will the IMAC Board go back to the 3 zoned box? Doubt it.

Maybe it's time for us Canadians to develop our own version of Scale Aerobatics that is reactive to Canadian problems and issues.

[bigguy]

It's not just a Canadian problem. I know of one field in the US (Port St. Lucie ) that is no longer holding Imac events.This needs to be addressed.

[rcpilot]

The root cause is the ever getting bigger size of planes, engines, noise. Just as there is a minimum IMAC legal limit, there should be a max limit as well similar to F3A.

The F3A FAI sequence is pretty complex and the 10lb planes do it very well, why is a 42% or 50% needed for IMAC unlimited?

Due to bigger size of the planes, its natural to have good visibility even though it is too far out, with a smaller plane, the pilots would naturally keep them close.

Also have to agree with Don, if the Cds enforce the field limit and enforce it with judeges handing out zeros for out of boundary, everyone will fly within limits.

Of course as everyone else, this is just my opinion.

[Rick Kroeze]

Originally Posted by rcpilot

Just as there is a minimum IMAC legal limit, there should be a max limit as well similar to F3A.

Not aware of a minimum IMAC legal limit and the max is set out by MAAC not IMAC, that being 35 kg. One could suggest that MAAC lowers the limit to 25kg to be in line with the AMA (55 lb) but that won't affect many IMAC planes.

Noise is another example of having a rule in place but no practical way to enforce it. IMAC states that planes must be checked and anything over 96 db can not fly. I've only been to 2 contests that had equipment to check it. Who is going to chip in to have it available at all contests? It ain't cheap and that still is not fair to the pilot that demonstrates good throttle management in the air.