Scale Aerobatics
By Ed Alt
7 Parkview Rd., Randolph, NJ 07869
The SCALE AEROBATICS National Championships was held at the AMA National Flying Site from June 30 through July 3. This was the fourth consecutive year the event has been held in Muncie, which pleases some and leaves others unhappy. It's a terrific site, and I have no complaints about the location since I can make the trip in one 10- to 11-hour effort from northern New Jersey.
The location is wonderful for reasons beyond the world-class flying facilities. The museum is a priceless showcase of model aviation history and is a must-see. The AMA staff is helpful and does everything it can to help things run well and make members welcome.
That said, it may be time to consider rotating the Nationals to other venues periodically. Although fliers attended from as far away as Texas, Florida, Georgia, Oregon, California, Colorado, and Arizona, the travel is an extreme undertaking for many.
It is also evident that the ability to support the event from IMAC’s base is being stretched. It’s a big commitment for all involved, whether running the event or competing in it. I’ve competed in the IMAC Nationals at Toledo, Ohio (1998), and in Muncie in 2000, 2002, and 2003, and I have seen things peak and ebb in terms of commitment.
IMAC has tried to do many things right, especially over the last two to three years. As I wrote in my coverage of the 2002 IMAC Nationals, it has tackled the noise issue with some initial success and, with most competitors’ cooperation, has been able to reduce the impact of aerobatics flying at the Muncie location.
This year brought a major initiative to improve the quality of judging nationally with the introduction of the National Judging School. This is much needed at both regional and national levels. As with any new initiative, it takes time to get into full swing, and this year’s IMAC Nationals helped bring that into sharp focus.
One minimum expectation I have as a competitor is that there be a sufficient number of IMAC Special Interest Group (SIG) members to help the contest director run a successful event. There was virtually no support for IMAC President Tom Wheeler and IMAC Treasurer Steve Evans this year until the third day, when Bobby Stout was able to help with scoring duties. This is not a complaint about Bobby—he has given much of his time selflessly in the past—but how can two people be expected to properly run two separate flying sites simultaneously? That is what Tom and Steve tried to do this year.
Fortunately, since most in attendance knew the drill, the flightlines kept moving reasonably well. However, many other logistical tasks required Tom and Steve to press competitors and their pit crews, girlfriends, spouses, and kids into service. That’s fine to a point if there is a group of noncompetitor workers providing core support, but it’s no way to run an entire contest. Tom and Steve also got as much help as possible from the AMA contest staff to keep scoring tasks moving, but it is primarily the SIG’s responsibility to make the event run smoothly.
Nearly every IMAC contest I’ve attended has required a mix of dedicated judges and contestant judges. That’s a reality we accept, but a balance is required to make it reasonable for competitors. I have been to many regional contests at which I’ve sat in the judge’s chair for most of the contest and then had to scramble to get my airplane together and fly my rounds, not to mention try to learn a new Unknown sequence a few minutes before flying it. I never minded helping, but there is a limit.
Because of a near-complete absence of dedicated judges at this year’s Nationals, judging duties were unfairly placed on a small number of pilots. Two flying sites were in use all four days—one for Sportsman and Intermediate and another for Advanced and Unlimited. Owing to the separation of the sites, the competitor-only judging logistics problems worsened.
For the most part, the five Advanced pilots were almost always required to judge Unlimited rounds since both flightlines were active. At least one of those five was emphatic about not wanting to judge because he felt unqualified—but he was pressed into service. To their credit, Tom and Steve worked out a rotation to bring some Intermediate and Sportsman pilots over to help judge Unlimited; some Unlimited pilots judged Sportsman and Intermediate rounds.
However, several of these judges were completely unqualified and confused by the complexities of the Unlimited sequence and the proper judging criteria. Judges were observed asking scribes for scores.
There were other issues and controversies that might be expected at a large event, and some that might have been handled with greater consistency if officials had not been spread so thin. A protest one Unlimited pilot lodged against another seemed to have technical merit depending on rules interpretation. It involved an aerobatic figure (a roll) being done between the time one flier’s round was completed and the time he landed. Under a strict reading of the rules, the round can be zeroed.
However, there must be consistency in applying that rule. A similar prior infraction resulted only in a warning, whereas this occurrence resulted in a zeroed round and a probable change in the outcome.
Sometimes score sheets were not available until the next day, making it difficult to question results if necessary. Though somewhat understandable given the lack of help, it added to the overall sense that outcomes might not be as reliable as hoped.
I finished 11th of 14 in Unlimited, and I don’t think any of this affected my standing in a meaningful way. There was good competition, and I didn’t fly as well as I would have liked, so this is not sour grapes. However, I spoke to several pilots who genuinely felt shortchanged and said they would not return—some who have made 2,000-mile trips before. They were committed and had reasonable expectations for a quality event that were not met.
When I agreed to write this coverage again I did not anticipate focusing on the negative, but for the sake of the future of national- and regional-level competition in IMAC, the problem must be clearly understood. Two people can’t run a national event with two separate flying sites by themselves.
Given a better commitment from competitors within IMAC, these problems can be overcome. Sometimes you have to go out and help run the event and leave your transmitter at home. Even when you are a competitor, anticipate that there may not be enough dedicated judges and you may have to judge a few rounds. It is incumbent on those who want to benefit from a well-run event to also do the prep work to help make it happen—at least once in a while.
What put the icing on the cake was what I experienced a couple of weeks after the 2003 IMAC Nationals. Northeast IMAC Regional Director Rob Sarlan worked with me to capitalize on the IMAC National Judges School initiative. IMAC incurred the expense to bring one of the best in the business—Ray Rose—to teach folks how to judge better. Ray gave up a weekend to come to our location in eastern Pennsylvania, and only six participants attended.
The main loss from such low attendance goes beyond the money IMAC spent; it’s the missed benefits that come from more widespread participation. Ray did a terrific job. Many people I have seen in judges’ chairs, who run contests, and who absolutely needed to be there (or be represented by proxy for their events) were absent. It was their loss, and a loss for every competitor who reasonably expects better competency in judging. Obviously not everyone can attend training events at once, but we should have and could have done better. Hopefully we’ll fare better in the future.
So why recommend rotating IMAC Nationals sites occasionally? Maybe it’s time to give far-off competitors a better chance to compete and time to get fresh replacements to run the event for a while. I won’t attend again until I see some indication of commitment to support those who try to make the event successful.
If you’ve been patient enough to stick with me so far, thank you. I’m off the soapbox.
There were contestants from several far-western states, Texas, Florida, and Jamaica. Participant numbers were:
- 14 Unlimited pilots
- 5 Advanced
- 8 Intermediate
- 10 Sportsman
A larger turnout was expected, hence the plan for two flying sites. The World Aerobatic Championships (WAC) in Florida ended the Sunday preceding the IMAC Nationals and may have contributed to the low turnout and possibly to the lack of officiating help.
John Schroder and Mark Leseberg made the all‑night trek from the WAC and started the competition with just a few hours of sleep. You could not tell from the results: Mark jumped out to a solid lead in Unlimited and never lost it, and he put in a spectacular Freestyle on Thursday to win that competition.
Mark’s scores were the highest combined overall, earning him the first-time honor of taking home the Bill Bennett Cup for the year. The cup will be inscribed with each winner’s name and passed to a new recipient at the Nationals each year.
There was tight competition for the remaining top spots in Unlimited. Several pilots flew excellently, with scores clustered within a fairly narrow range. Kurt Koelling, Bryan Welton, and John Schroder all delivered strong performances, with scores ranging roughly from the mid-250s up to around 310 points; John Schroder scored 255 points in his placing.
John Schroder added streamers to his FiberClassics G-202’s wingtips and used them to good effect in his routine. He showed a good performance range for the model, used the aerobatic box fully, and held everyone’s attention to grab a top finish with 255 points.
Mark Leseberg put on a truly impressive Freestyle—certainly Tournament of Champions quality. He set up his 37% Godfrey Extra with almost the fastest roll rates I’ve seen on one of these large gas aerobats and was completely on top of it at all times.
The music was mostly high energy and fast paced, with many opportunities to synchronize pitch, yaw, and especially rapid rolling movements. Mark did this with rolling turns, rolling loops, and everything in between. He transitioned into low-level 3-D with the fastest, slowest, lowest, and most on-line 3-D rolling sequence I’ve ever seen, which then brought him into some standard low-level torque-roll activity. Mark’s performance put him on top with 320 points.
Some fine flying was done throughout the event. Although the first-place finishes in Unlimited and Advanced were probably deserved, there is room for doubt about the proper outcomes for a few of the other top Unlimited fliers given the judging situation. The rough ordering of the top, middle, and bottom thirds probably would not have changed much with proper judging, yet I remain doubtful about the fairness to several pilots.
I didn’t witness much flying at the Sportsman and Intermediate site, so I can’t be certain that their outcomes were noticeably affected, but I assume they faced similar challenges.
These observations contrast with the quality of judging at last year’s IMAC Nationals. Hopefully we’ll see improvements in the future to bring it back to at least that level and give the dedicated people who try to put on a good event the help they need to pull it off next time. Judging is an imperfect craft to learn, but those in attendance at a Nationals deserve better than what we were able to provide this year.
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
