<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Buddy:<br>
I like the way you are exploring lots of options. It can only help to
get these (and other) ideas.<br>
By way of information, only:<br>
I just returned from judging at the JR Challenge in Punta Gorda, FL.
Having to leave Greensboro, NC with it's 30 and 40 degree weather, for
Florida with it's 70 degree weather, was a real sacrifice. Nasty job,
but someone had to do it.<br>
Anyway, while there, the box situation came up.<br>
Following the International Aerobatic Club, and applying it's
rules/thinking to model airplanes doesn't always work, despite what
some elements in IMAC seem to think.<br>
The box situation is one of those things that simply hasn't worked.<br>
Originally, the 3 zone box was eliminated; no more left/center/right
zones. Then, the box itself was, in effect, nullified. Would you
believe that the thinking at the time was that such a rule change would
make for a smaller (yes, smaller!!) noise foot print? Maneuvers no
longer had to be centered; they could be flown way, way off center;
this of course made the turnarounds nearly in a foreign country. At
the conclusion of the flight, the judge was asked to award a
"positioning" score which, we were assured, would level the playing
field for those folks who ignored the centering completely. (and many
did ignore it.) It certainly had no effect on positioning. And it
made the maneuvering area absolutely huge; judges had trouble seeing
airplanes as big as 42%, with wingspans as large as 116" It certainly
didn't help the precision when the pilot couldn't really see the
airplane, and the judges had a very hard time judging it.<br>
<br>
Now, to the crux of the matter: there is a definite move afoot to
re-establish the box, and to re-install the zones. After suffering
through the zoneless box, then the boxless box, they have finally begun
to realize that there has to be some territorial limit, or the whole
scheme of things becomes ridiculous.<br>
Look for it to be changed. Some things must happen first, but they
will be changed.<br>
Sorry to be so long winded, but the only other person I know on this
list who is intimately familiar with the above is Ed Alt. I felt there
might be some interesting information here.<br>
<br>
Bill Glaze<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:BUDDYonRC@aol.com">BUDDYonRC@aol.com</a> wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mide3.ecbdba0.2f5f2a45@aol.com" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name="GENERATOR">
<font id="role_document" color="#8000ff" face="Arial" size="2">
<div>
<div>There seems to be valid reasons to <strong>not change</strong>
the present pattern box.</div>
<div>There are also two seemingly valid questions / problems that the
present box arrangement presents.</div>
<div>1. Pilots flying optimum distance out increase the chance of mid
air collision.</div>
<div>2. Pilots who are somewhat vision limited who would prefer to
fly closer in.</div>
<div>A possible solution would be to revise the box rules to allow a
person who in advance of his flight accepts a 2% total flight score
downgrade to fly in closer and violate the 60 degree box lines without
further downgrade.</div>
<div>How about some comments and opinions and any other ideas which
would address these issues. </div>
<div>Please don't boot me off of the list again I'm just trying to do
my Job.</div>
<div>Buddy</div>
</div>
</font></blockquote>
</body>
</html>