<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
Earl:<br>
Inasmuch as the language in the rule book seems to suggest that the
distance is set, rather arbitrarily, because of visibility problems
caused by (possibly) excessive distance, it would seem that your idea
is reasonable. If you can see it, then it is judgeable.<br>
The only downside, as I see it, is there would need to be another
definition of "downgrades." It was suggested to me in the past that
"if an airplane is so far out it can't be seen well as far as mistakes
go, then you can't give the pilot credit for those things he does
correctly." But, we are using downgrades solely as penalties. So if,
for whatever reason, (including excessive distance) we are unable to
see the airplane well enough to assess penalties, then the judges only
remaining option is the "N.O." on the score sheet. "If you can't see
it, you can't score it." We could be painting ourselves into a corner,
here.<br>
I agree that this subject should be revisited by the relevant
committees and possibly a "clean sheet of paper " type of thinking may
be required, particularly in light of the new distance requirement in
performing the rolling circle.<br>
Or so I see it, from the sidelines.<br>
<br>
Bill Glaze<br>
<br>
Earl Haury wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid001201c47af4$f1883160$0200a8c0@PC">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name="GENERATOR">
<style></style>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Don, et al</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Bob's answer is a reasonable enough
position on an untenable application of the rules for the roller. But
why not then apply the same reasoning to other maneuvers as well -
forget the distance verbiage and rely on visibility? Am I the only one
concerned that Bob Skinner (well intentioned as he may be, and with all
due respect) seems to have become the czar of F3A rules interpretation?
There is a CIAM F3A Subcommittee (of which Bob is chair) that should be
addressing these issues and fixing the wording of the rules, rather
than allowing one person to make the calls.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Earl</font></div>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>