Opening up a possible can of worms but...!

[Daren Hudson]

So, a valid question was posted on the IMAC NE Region FB Group regarding SFGs in Sportsman (and above). The responses were appropriately no for Sportsman or above due to the 10% and / or scale rule. The comments digressed a bit with mentions of “what about Basic?” I thought it was a simple answer and the same I’ve always given to new pilots. “In Basic you fly what you bring as long as it has one prop and can do the maneuvers and fly for 6-7 minutes to complete a sequence.” Basically “anything prop driven”. I was surprised at the comments and interpretations concerning this (what I assumed to be) cut and dried interpretation.

Then I started thinking about the 10% scale rule and wondered how many interpretations and variations we have for that? From my experience the past several years at least it has been a “well, it’s close enough” or half blind eyes are turned. I’m not trying to be a pain but bring up a valid point that was brought to the forefront by a seemingly easy question and answer that turned not so clear.

We (IMAC) spend a lot of time on rules. Judging rules, point deduction accuracy, judging integrity, etc. It appears that this scale “rule” may need some looking at. Do we need to clear up interpretations, intent? Does it need a tweak or amendment given new ARFs on the market that may or may not fit into the “spirit” of the rule? Does it really matter as much as other rules? We have contests in all classes that come down to 10s of points on occasion. Is there a consistency problem?

This is not intended to antagonize but to do what we always strive to do. Judge by the rules with as little bias as possible. To ignore or brush aside the issue is not setting a good judging example.

Rather than holding fast to a rule that may or may not represent fairly the models we are actually flying in competition I would suggest taking a good look at the rule and make it better fit the practical application of what we are actually doing in order to be in compliance without any variable interpretation. .

I have my flack jacket on!

Daren

[Jamie Hicks]

Hi Daren

Well first off. Basic can fly anything. A trainer, warbird, your wife's over cooked pizza, it dont matter. Fly it.

As far as the 10% its a slippery slope, and when one has been aloud to fly in the past then its really slippery. Even more so now that IMAC is very much international.
If someone would call out an issue it would more than likely take a lot of measurements and de-engineering to prove one way or another.
I dont have a comment besides making that point. I havent heard of this being a problem, minus some slight talk on some of the Krill airframes.

Not sure clearing up the rule is needed unless its an issue. SFGs-show me a plane flying IAC with them then you can fly them on that particular model in my opinion.

Can you clarify the "spirit of the rule"?

Side note. Minus widely manufactured IAC planes lets say the Extra, those are very consistent from plane to plane.
I have been to a few IAC contests and wondered what "those" planes were, they were all different and they were all Lasers, as lasers are homebuilt and every one of them is different in their own way.

What problem minus SFGs are you seeing in the 10% debate?

Fun fact, did you know a Cub has flown in IAC and is technically IMAC legal?

Sincerely
Jamie Hicks

[Primo Rivera]

So, a valid question was posted on the IMAC NE Region FB Group regarding SFGs in Sportsman (and above). The responses were appropriately no for Sportsman or above due to the 10% and / or scale rule. The comments digressed a bit with mentions of “what about Basic?” I thought it was a simple answer and the same I’ve always given to new pilots. “In Basic you fly what you bring as long as it has one prop and can do the maneuvers and fly for 6-7 minutes to complete a sequence.” Basically “anything prop driven”. I was surprised at the comments and interpretations concerning this (what I assumed to be) cut and dried interpretation.

Then I started thinking about the 10% scale rule and wondered how many interpretations and variations we have for that? From my experience the past several years at least it has been a “well, it’s close enough” or half blind eyes are turned. I’m not trying to be a pain but bring up a valid point that was brought to the forefront by a seemingly easy question and answer that turned not so clear.

We (IMAC) spend a lot of time on rules. Judging rules, point deduction accuracy, judging integrity, etc. It appears that this scale “rule” may need some looking at. Do we need to clear up interpretations, intent? Does it need a tweak or amendment given new ARFs on the market that may or may not fit into the “spirit” of the rule? Does it really matter as much as other rules? We have contests in all classes that come down to 10s of points on occasion. Is there a consistency problem?

This is not intended to antagonize but to do what we always strive to do. Judge by the rules with as little bias as possible. To ignore or brush aside the issue is not setting a good judging example.

Rather than holding fast to a rule that may or may not represent fairly the models we are actually flying in competition I would suggest taking a good look at the rule and make it better fit the practical application of what we are actually doing in order to be in compliance without any variable interpretation. .

I have my flack jacket on!

Daren

Hello Mr. Hudson I hope this message finds you well.

My name is Primo, I am the Regional director for the South East region and the new IMAC Chief judge. I hope that at some point we can have the time to chat some. A short personal Bio.
Been flying Rc planes for over 35 years, almost quit until I found IMAC 14 years ago, it has been a life changing experience for me and my family. I have created a lifetime of memories with my family not to mention the countless amazing friends.

The rules committee is well aware of the questions that have been raised about the 10% rule and it will be the first topic that will be addressed.

In regards to the Basic class, the answer is simple. They are allowed to fly any plane, but it has to conform to rule 4.1 One prop, one engine, if electric motors are used then it may have two, SFG's will be allowed, however if I was the CD of the contest I would recommend removing them. If a Basic pilot choses to fly Freestyle, he just move to a category that resembles IAC, therefore he or she MUST remove the SFG's

This is not a can of worms, it has been discussed before, but this time I can assure you we, the rules committee will address it fully

Respectfully yours
Primo

[Daren Hudson]

Primo,

Thanks so much for the reply. I too hope we can meet some time in person or online.

My intent with this post was exactly what you replied, to address an “elephant” that has been in the room (let’s be honest) for a while. To discuss a known issue (whether anyone complains much or not) is the way to making our organization as precise as our judging and flying while increasing integrity. I applaud the rules committee for making this an agenda item as the discussion does have merit.

As to the Basic question. It was not so much my question but the surprise I felt when reading some of the comments on the FB group post. Of course I agree with the interpretation you and others present. It appeared some personal opinion was entering into a rules question. This is where the “slippery slope” (mentioned in a reply) meets the “can of worms”!

[Daren Hudson]

Hi Daren

Well first off. Basic can fly anything. A trainer, warbird, your wife's over cooked pizza, it dont matter. Fly it.

As far as the 10% its a slippery slope, and when one has been aloud to fly in the past then its really slippery. Even more so now that IMAC is very much international.
If someone would call out an issue it would more than likely take a lot of measurements and de-engineering to prove one way or another.
I dont have a comment besides making that point. I havent heard of this being a problem, minus some slight talk on some of the Krill airframes.

Not sure clearing up the rule is needed unless its an issue. SFGs-show me a plane flying IAC with them then you can fly them on that particular model in my opinion.

Can you clarify the "spirit of the rule"?

Side note. Minus widely manufactured IAC planes lets say the Extra, those are very consistent from plane to plane.
I have been to a few IAC contests and wondered what "those" planes were, they were all different and they were all Lasers, as lasers are homebuilt and every one of them is different in their own way.

What problem minus SFGs are you seeing in the 10% debate?

Fun fact, did you know a Cub has flown in IAC and is technically IMAC legal?

Sincerely
Jamie Hicks

Jamie,
Thanks for the reply. See my reply to Primo.

I wasn’t so much asking the question myself but offering it as an example (a current one from an IMAC FB group) where opinion merged with a rules question. Basically to facilitate this discussion.

The 10% rule is the elephant in the room that some wish to avoid because it hasn’t been much of a problem or it would be difficult to address, not necessarily. However, Primo indicates that it is recognized and will be addressed by the rules committee which is great. Given evolving model designs and the fact that there has been “talk” creating what you called a “slippery slope” is enough justification to address the issue. Viable solutions can be found. Again, I’m not here to offer suggestions or solutions at this point but to help facilitate and urge the rules committee and BOD to simply address the elephant. It sounds like there is commitment to do just that and for that I am thankful. For us to be as unbiased as possible “in the spirit of our rules and judging” it is necessary to review, from time to time, our rules and our mission for that matter. We all evolve and go through change in order to be successful and so do our organizations.

Thanks and kind regards,
Daren Hudson

[David Pierce]

Fun fact, did you know a Cub has flown in IAC and is technically IMAC legal?

When I first started thinking about IMAC, I contacted IAC for a list of planes that have competed. They did reply with one. The list had numerous planes we don’t see such as Citabria types, a Jungmann and other stuff. But the rules also allow for an airplane built with intention to compete in IAC which likely opens the door much wider. Several Pitts types were there too but not all. The list was not really long, they did not have good records before about 10 years ago. I thought a Jungmeister would be awesome but decided against it.

Not sure how we verify something flew in IAC given the list they gave me.

Dave

PS. I don’t want IMAC to be overly picky but if you open this issue, it’s another good point to consider. Scale aerobatics are fun stuff and I think attracts a good crowd. Our judging has slightly different criteria which probably eliminates some full size airframes from our events because of their characteristics. I think it should be as open as possible to encourage as many as possible, what that means is a good topic for discussion.

[Daren Hudson]

Not so much “what flew in IAC” but what is used for aerobatics competition. With the advent of Red Bull Air Races and highly customized aircraft like Rob Holland’s competition MXS-RH and others we really do need to look at our IMAC “scale rules” to make them more applicable and more widely adhered to. CARF just finished an MXS-RH , AJs Lasers? It’s not about insisting on the current 10% and eliminating planes that have been accepted. It’s about adapting. Or, remove the rule. What’s a rule that is “stretched”? That trickles to the judging too and we tend not to tolerate that.

We have tight competitions and always insist on integrity. I don’t feel that has occurred in the 10% or “Scale” rules. What’s wrong with considering a realistic, reasonable amendment that can truly be followed?

[Ty Lyman]

[QUOTE What’s wrong with considering a realistic, reasonable amendment that can truly be followed?[/QUOTE]

Not a thing. But I will say that in doing this since 1999, I've seen this suggestion a couple times, and to date no one has been willing or able to produce "a reasonable amendment that can be truly followed."
FWIW, you're actually talking about two different rules - 3.1 and 6.5.
I doubt very much anyone anywhere would suggest the a Red Bull race plane would be incapable aerobatic competition within the aerobatic airspace and likewise would be certainly legal in IMAC. However, the RB Race planes do not utilize SFGs, but rather winglets, which, as I'm sure you know are two very different bits . RH's MX may be customized, but that's moot as it has and does compete in the "aerobatic airspace." As far as Lasers - 200 / Z200 230 / 260 Lazer 2300 / Z2300s,to name a few variants - well, they are all kit built planes and I'd be willing to wager no two are the same, heck even the first one wasn't even a Laser; good luck coming up with any reasonable standard by which to measure.
I'm not really sure what sort of amendment people have in mind but I have a hard time seeing where this is going.

[Daren Hudson]

Let’s drop the SFG subject. That’s not the issue. That was the FB Group post and I think it was resolved. Basic flies anything (3.2). The issue is for Sportsman and beyond and the use of “...shall not exceed 10% of scale” (6.5). Since we don’t measure (I’ve never seen it done in 8 years!) and some very likely are outside this apparent arbitrary measure and some full scale aircraft, as stated, are kit built so therefore “replicas” (3.1) will also have variances as models of “kit built” aircraft, why include a percentage at all? If it looks like an aerobatic competition full scale plane and flies like a full scale competition aerobatic plane... If I read correctly, this is essentially what Ty is referencing when he states “...they are all kit built planes and I'd be willing to wager no two are the same, heck even the first one wasn't even a Laser; good luck coming up with any reasonable standard by which to measure.”

Why do we have a 10% rule if we don’t measure? Why not just use 3.1 and 6.1-6.4) and lose the sometime questionable and sometimes “stretched” 10% verbiage of 6.5? Wouldn’t a “reasonable amendment” be to drop the numerical reference in favor of the intent: full scale counterpart and operate within the competition aerobatic airspace?

If you listen to comments (Ty’s remarks above for instance) when “10%” comes up it is very challenging or impossible to completely follow so why have it? Why not eliminate 6.5?

“Where this is going” is to attempt to have our rules better fit what we actually do vs having a rule that we don’t fully follow clutter the rulebook and cause possible controversy now or in the future.

Is “10%” an arbitrary, obsolete gauge of what we fly or are trying to accomplish within IMAC? I’d argue yes!

According to Primo the rules committee will be addressing it, I thank he and the committee for considering this “cleaning up” of the rule book.

Respectfully,

Daren

[Primo Rivera]

Hello Mr. Hudson,

We had our first meeting last night, and many to come. From the topics that the committee discussed, the 10% rule will be addressed first. I will not disclosed what was said at this time, it will be done by presenting an RCP. Any AMA or IMAC member is welcome to submit one. It needs to be presented by January 15, 2022. to take effect January 1, 2023, if approved by AMA.

Thank you
Primo

[Daren Hudson]

Hello Mr. Hudson,

We had our first meeting last night, and many to come. From the topics that the committee discussed, the 10% rule will be addressed first. I will not disclosed what was said at this time, it will be done by presenting an RCP. Any AMA or IMAC member is welcome to submit one. It needs to be presented by January 15, 2022. to take effect January 1, 2023, if approved by AMA.

Thank you
Primo

Primo,

Thank you very much. I assume there will be a notice for anyone wanting to submit an RCP. It’s normal and needed that we occasionally review, discuss and if necessary, amend our rules and even our mission to meet changing conditions, technologies and needs.

I’m confident that IMAC can have a resurgence in the US. We’ve been seeing hopeful results in the NE by trying to adapt and think outside the box.

Thank you,
Daren