Author Topic: OK, I AM NOT CONFUSED!!! (Read 4250 times)

Rafael Gonzalez · « **on:** January 25, 2013, 05:58:58 PM »

My apologies beforehand for my lack of info. Many moons ago I competed in Profile Carrier. I just bought a pair of 3 line sets and a new 3 line handle as a back up for my JR. Was planning to start again. I just read the new rules in the Carrier section at the AMA website.

I guess I've been under a rock as I've been paying attention to P.A. I am in total shock as they have approved the use of R/C on Carrier. Are they going to compete with the three lines together? That would be a tremendous advantage over the 3 lines!!! What about the Records? I am sorry but to me that is watering down the skill of the event... Is my equipment now obsolete to be competitive?

Disgusted here....

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #1 on:** January 25, 2013, 06:35:03 PM »

I notice that you have just joined up to this forum. Welcome and yes things are changing. However I suggest you start reading this section to catch up. There is a lot of information in this section. It is not as blique as it looks. There is no reason for you **** canning your three line system. There are a lot of us that aren't. Keep in touch and maybe you can make it to the Brodak contest in June and fly Carrier with us.
Wayne

john vlna · « **Reply #2 on:** January 25, 2013, 07:08:23 PM »

Rafael,
Two line systems have always been allowed in carrier. Fliers Using two lines have to use larger size lines than three line system, equalizing the advantage. The only new item is RC control, now allowable fo CL in general, and approved for scale and carrier competition. Records are not affected.
John

Joe Just · « **Reply #3 on:** January 25, 2013, 07:12:47 PM »

As I understand it there will be no change in records as 2-line usage has always been allowed. In profile that means instead of using 3-lines of .015 each you will now be using 2 lines of .020/1. Also, i seriously doubt that 2.4RC will out compete the standard previous line requirements. I personally am dabbling with 2.4 because it is intriguing, but will continue to use the old stuff if I make any of the contests this year (doubtful at best) Saying all that I do remain somewhat puzzled as to how this new ruling in Control Line ever got passed. Certainly 2.4 could be a flying advantage in Scale, but other than that I think the added weight problem in PA etc, will find too many new 2.4 planes for sometime. Also don't forget, these rules are provisional not ground into permanent CL rules. It remains a question as to how long it will be for the rules to be as they are. Time will tell. In the meantime I am having fun just dinging around with this stuff, awaiting some better weather so I can go out and play with my new toys.
Joe

Rafael Gonzalez · « **Reply #4 on:** January 25, 2013, 07:30:42 PM »

Thank you guys. The last time I flew Carrier was at the Nats in Westover AFB. Been taking my stuff out once in a while every few years since then. Carrier was big in N.E. but then it died. Those days I had a K&B 5.8 with a modified Perry carb and 65% nitro.

Sold the engine to some guy in Aus in 2002. Not to continue reflecting...
Thank you again!!! See you, hopefully, at the Brodacks!!

Paul Smith · « **Reply #5 on:** January 25, 2013, 08:45:42 PM »

You are correctomundo, sir.

The use of RC in control line has hit like an atomic bomb enhanced with the AIDS virus. Nothing will be the same. Unfortunately, those who want to use foam ready-to-fly electric RC planes in Control Line have a controlling interest in the Contest Board. Anything to "win" a prize.

No doubt, they will also extend RC to the so-called "nostalgia" and "old time" classes.

bill bischoff · « **Reply #6 on:** January 25, 2013, 09:38:20 PM »

Joe, the 2.4 rules are official, not just provisional. Paul, please read the nostalgia rules. They specifically prohibit the use of electronics, which includes 2.4 RC.

john vlna · « **Reply #7 on:** January 25, 2013, 09:52:27 PM »

To amplify Bill's comment, 2.4 is approved for general use, but each event has the right to include or exclude its use. I believe only carrier and scale have included it in the last rules cycle.

Rafael,
I hope you can make Brodaks. I am not sure how many 2.4 systems may show up, but I will have a couple of planes set up with it.

John

don Burke · « **Reply #8 on:** January 25, 2013, 11:31:24 PM »

Quote from: john vlna on January 25, 2013, 09:52:27 PM

To amplify Bill's comment, 2.4 is approved for general use, but each event has the right to include or exclude its use. I believe only carrier and scale have included it in the last rules cycle.

Rafael,
I hope you can make Brodaks. I am not sure how many 2.4 systems may show up, but I will have a couple of planes set up with it.

John

The rule that passed says 2.4 Ghz RC is prohibited in CL general UNLESS a specific event allows it, the SCALE and Carrier Contest Boards voted to include it for every thing but "elevation" controls.

john vlna · « **Reply #9 on:** January 26, 2013, 06:17:39 AM »

Don, you are correct in that each event must approve the use of 2.4, but para 2. Of the general rules allows it for sport flying
John

Joe Just · « **Reply #10 on:** January 26, 2013, 12:12:14 PM »

Quote from: bill bischoff on January 25, 2013, 09:38:20 PM

Joe, the 2.4 rules are official, not just provisional. Paul, please read the nostalgia rules. They specifically prohibit the use of electronics, which includes 2.4 RC.

I guess I meant to say that the rules can be changed, either by the next rules cycle or by the oft used "safety" method. I will say this however, over the past year in several minor mentions in columns in MA it appeared that the AMA wanted the change to perhaps mollify certain advertisers. I really doubt he idea for change came from the rank and file. (just MHO)
Joe

Rafael Gonzalez · « **Reply #11 on:** January 26, 2013, 01:13:24 PM »

Quote from: Joe Just on January 26, 2013, 12:12:14 PM

I guess I meant to say that the rules can be changed, either by the next rules cycle or by the oft used "safety" method. I will say this however, over the past year in several minor mentions in columns in MA it appeared that the AMA wanted the change to perhaps mollify certain advertisers. I really doubt he idea for change came from the rank and file. (just MHO)
Joe

I totally agree Joe

It is funny that the votes are never asked to the interested public. It doesn't work like the election voting ballots where bills are voted on. I never got any ballot for voting. Only who I want to take a place in the AMA "carpet"

Had I received a ballot on affected rule changes for a vote, I would have voiced my choice. Only the "XX_ Board" decides. No vote counts. I maybe a dinosaur, but tradition keeps families and events stable. I see the 2.4Ghz rules as a dilution comparable to the elimination of BOM rules for P.A. However, in life one uses the cards that are dealt to play with. I am looking forward to have a blast, godwilling, at several contests this year. Building an F-8...

don Burke · « **Reply #12 on:** January 26, 2013, 01:55:54 PM »

Quote from: Joe Just on January 26, 2013, 12:12:14 PM

I guess I meant to say that the rules can be changed, either by the next rules cycle or by the oft used "safety" method. I will say this however, over the past year in several minor mentions in columns in MA it appeared that the AMA wanted the change to perhaps mollify certain advertisers. I really doubt he idea for change came from the rank and file. (just MHO)
Joe

POPPYCOCK!

The original proposal to allow 2.4 Ghz in the CL general section came from ME! I'm about as rank & file a member as there can be, since 1953 BTW. My proposal was modified to make it optional to each discipline.

Douglas Ames · « **Reply #13 on:** January 26, 2013, 02:50:38 PM »

Why are you disgusted? It's called PROGRESS.
The elevator is still controlled by your handle! What's changed is the throttle control and actuation of any secondary controls - flaps, line sliders, ailerons or rudder, depending on what class you fly in. The skill to fly the plane Fast or Slow is still there, your just smoothing out all the other stuff. NO, you can't control your elevator with a "stick"

Fred Cronenwett · « **Reply #14 on:** January 26, 2013, 03:17:50 PM »

All rule changes are posted on the AMA web site for all to see and any one can contact a contest board member and weigh in with thier opinion. These and other rule changes are also mentioned in the AMA magazine in the columns (most of the time), at least they were in the CL scale and carrier columns. The next batch of rule changes will start the 2 year cycle in 2013-2014 with the voting on the next batch of rule proposals in 2014.

I personally have three CL models all flying with 2.4 Ghz control for the flaps and throttle (CL scale). I have converted these from the down the lines electronic controls that I have been flying since 1991 to the 2.4 Ghz controls this past year.

Mike Gretz was one of the original folks that started flying with down the lines electronic controls way back in 1973 or 1975. I picked up on the use of electronic controls with two insulated lines back in 1991. Soon as I flew with the down the line electronic controls I never went back to the 3-line handle.

Electronic controls (down the line, or 2.4 Ghz) make setting up an electric powered model much easier. Since an electric speed control (ESC) is an electronic device there is no easy way to hook up a mechanical 3-line bellcrank to a electric system unless you have some electronics between them. Now with 2.4 Ghz you can skip the link between the 3-line handle, electronics and the ESC and use 2.4 Ghz to directly to control the ESC for throttle with an electric powered model.

Next time you are at a contest and someone is flying with 2.4 Ghz pay close attention to how it works and ask some questions.

Land softly,
Fred Cronenwett

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #15 on:** January 26, 2013, 03:34:19 PM »

Quote from: Joe Just on January 26, 2013, 12:12:14 PM

I guess I meant to say that the rules can be changed, either by the next rules cycle or by the oft used "safety" method. I will say this however, over the past year in several minor mentions in columns in MA it appeared that the AMA wanted the change to perhaps mollify certain advertisers. I really doubt he idea for change came from the rank and file. (just MHO)
Joe

The proposal to allow the 2.4 gHz control of any function except elevator was voted on by the NCS membership who attended the annual NCS meeting in Muncie, during the Nats. Here is the pertinent info from the NCS newsletter:

".....
The use of 2.4gHz radio control in control line was discussed at length. Several different proposals are currently in the voting process. One proposal in CL General would broadly allow the use of 2.4gHz in all events. Another would allow 2.4 to be used only as prescribed in different specific events. To this end, there are two proposals which are specific to the carrier events. One would allow radio control of the throttle only, the other would allow radio control of any function other
than elevator. By a 9 to 1 vote the group was in favor of allowing the use of 2.4gHz radio in the carrier events for any non‐elevator function. There was some concern about allowing too much technological freedom instead of limiting use to just throttle, but it was pointed out that electronic controls that send signals through the lines are not limited to throttle only, and nothing unwanted has happened. It was also mentioned that even if all these proposals failed and 2.4 was not allowed, its use in the proposed electric events was still desired. "

This was well before the final vote by the contest boards. This rule has gone through the normal rules cycle and was well publicized by the various rules-making bodies. There is no reason anyone should have been caught unaware or surprised. Anyone is free to make their wishes known to their district voting representatives.

I seriously doubt it will have much impact on carrier in general, on the Nats, the current records or on the state-of-the-art. It MAY get a couple of newbies to try the event. It shouldn't be reason to quit the event.

Trostle · « **Reply #16 on:** January 26, 2013, 04:10:15 PM »

Quote from: Rafael Gonzalez on January 26, 2013, 01:13:24 PM

It is funny that the votes are never asked to the interested public. It doesn't work like the election voting ballots where bills are voted on. I never got any ballot for voting. Only who I want to take a place in the AMA "carpet" Had I received a ballot on affected rule changes for a vote, I would have voiced my choice. Only the "XX_ Board" decides. No vote counts. I maybe a dinosaur, but tradition keeps families and events stable. I see the 2.4Ghz rules as a dilution comparable to the elimination of BOM rules for P.A. However, in life one uses the cards that are dealt to play with. I am looking forward to have a blast, godwilling, at several contests this year. Building an F-8...

Your post is wrong and based on a total lack of understanding of the rules change process.

1. "It is funny that the votes are never asked to the interested public." Rules proposals can be made by any AMA member and submitted to the AMA. Each proposal is posted on the AMA website. Proposals can be made any time during the first 12 months of a change cycle. So, those proposals are open for review and comment from 3 to 15 months, depending on when the proposal was submitted and when the Contest Board makes its Initial Vote by May 1 of the second year in the change cycle. Anybody in the "interested public" can comment to any and all members of the respective Contest Board.

2. "I never got any ballot for voting." The system simply does not work that way. The AMA contest Board Procedures are posted on the AMA website. It would serve you well to read them rather than to complain as you have here. This system has been refined over many years of experience. Is it perfect? Probably not, but there is a lot of experience and thought into refining and making the system operate the way it does.

3. "Only who I want to take a place in the AMA "carpet" Had I received a ballot on affected rule changes for a vote, I would have voiced my choice." I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here but if you do not think your Contest Board representative is "representing" your point of view, you can certainly contact the other CB representatives and also your AMA Vice President who is the one who appoints the Contest Board members from your District. You do have a voice and your comments direct to your Contest Board and your AMA Vice President is a much more effective tool than posting some inane comments on some relatively obscure CL forum after a change proposal has been approved at the end of that rules change cycle.

4. "No vote counts." You need to understand the system and make your thoughts known to the people who are in the responsible postions to make that system work.

Have fun with your "F-8"

Keith

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #17 on:** January 26, 2013, 04:26:40 PM »

Well, I wonder if Rafael knew how quickly he was going to get jumped on when he made his post. You guys are really getting testy.
Wayne

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #18 on:** January 26, 2013, 04:28:33 PM »

FWIW, in regards to what Kieth said:

I'm in the same club as one member of one contest board (Mark Hanson, CL Combat). I know for a fact that he made an effort to reach out to the community on the 2.4GHz general proposal, because he buttonholed me (and anyone else that would talk to him) at a club meeting last summer. (My answer, by the way was: I don't fly carrier or scale right now, I don't see it being a huge advantage to anyone, and as long as the elevator is ever and always controlled by wires and not electronics, I'm OK).

So -- having been personally chased down by a contest board for an opinion on part of this very issue, I don't have a huge feeling of being ignored.

And, while I was verifying what specific board Mark is on, I also noticed that all I need to do to personally talk to most of the members of any control-line related boards for my region is to just go to the contests that I go to anyway, and make it a point to go open my mouth. Even when I exclude the NW regionals, I think I've seen every one of them at the contests that I went to last year, and I only go to the contests that have CLPA events. So unless your region is a lot different from mine, you can't claim that you don't have access.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #19 on:** January 26, 2013, 04:36:51 PM »

Quote from: Wayne J. Buran on January 26, 2013, 04:26:40 PM

Well, I wonder if Rafael knew how quickly he was going to get jumped on when he made his post. You guys are really getting testy.

Rafael doesn't seem to understand the process involved; his misconceptions were being corrected.

Every time one of the rules gets changed you see these offended and astonished responses, with some variant of "I wasn't told" and "I don't have a voice". To which the short version of Kieth's many-point response is "yes you were" and "yes you do".

You get told in Model Aviation and on the AMA web site.

You have a voice because you can talk to your local contest board representative, in person or via email.

If you want to keep your head in the sand when it's time to find out what the proposed changes are, then keep your mouth shut when it's time to talk -- fine, do that. Just remember that's what you did when you go speak up about it later.

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #20 on:** January 26, 2013, 04:46:48 PM »

I don't think Rafael feels 'jumped on' or insulted. He seems a little surprised that the rules have changed but also seems willing to forge ahead, at least by the tone of his second post. The jumping is on those who seem insulted that the rules could be changed without their input. These replies only point out that the rules change process has been around for decades, and that it is up to them to keep abreast of possible changes and that those possible changes are published well in advance, in very public places.

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #21 on:** January 26, 2013, 05:21:59 PM »

Quote from: Mike Anderson on January 26, 2013, 04:46:48 PM

I don't think Rafael feels 'jumped on' or insulted. He seems a little surprised that the rules have changed but also seems willing to forge ahead, at least by the tone of his second post. The jumping is on those who seem insulted that the rules could be changed without their input. These replies only point out that the rules change process has been around for decades, and that it is up to them to keep abreast of possible changes and that those possible changes are published well in advance, in very public places.

Mike , I think you missed what Rafael was saying, that is, he doesn't feel that the process is a good one. He feels that he and others should be allowed to vote on proposals themselves up or down. Thats his point. I doubt that he appreciates someone saying he didn't pay attention to whats going on. I pay attention and I used the system and I didn't get a chance to vote on a ballot and see results either.
Thanks
Wayne

Joe Just · « **Reply #22 on:** January 26, 2013, 05:42:36 PM »

Quote from: don Burke on January 26, 2013, 01:55:54 PM

POPPYCOCK!

The original proposal to allow 2.4 Ghz in the CL general section came from ME! I'm about as rank & file a member as there can be, since 1953 BTW. My proposal was modified to make it optional to each discipline.

I stand corrected on the original source Don. Thanks for clearifying the original source. I still believe that the AMA was perhaps over willing to pursue the idea.

Ron Anderson · « **Reply #23 on:** January 26, 2013, 07:24:38 PM »

OK, What do the letters C/L stand for? Is the correct answer not ____CONTROL LINE____!!!

2.4 does not go down the lines...2.4= AIR WAVES!!!!

don Burke · « **Reply #24 on:** January 26, 2013, 07:38:36 PM »

Quote from: Joe Just on January 26, 2013, 05:42:36 PM

I stand corrected on the original source Don. Thanks for clearifying the original source. I still believe that the AMA was perhaps over willing to pursue the idea.

From what was told to me. No one had thought about making a rule for it so I submitted mine. "The AMA" doesn't really have a finger in the pie for rules changes, it's all a function of the Contest Boards. And there was a lot of resistance among several of the disciplines board members to adopting it. That's why the second proposal did pass and was accepted by more of the disciplines. Apparently only the Carrier and Scale boards didn't consider it a bad idea.

I'm satisfied that Carrier and Scale will be able to use this new equipment. I really feel there is NO competitive advantage using it, just a different way of accomplishing the same result. And BTW, a 3 channel pistol grip radio with receiver and battery is cheaper than a 3-line handle and bellcrank.

The guy who has been flying around here for the past several years uses a standard handle for control and hangs a regular, not pistol grip, transmitter from a hook on his belt, twiddles the throttle lever with his left hand while flying. Also he has the xmtr with him when starting and adjusting the engine.

The guys who have gone the distance and made handles to adapt the pistol grip type get my kudos. I wish one of them would post some pics of the details before assembly. Maybe they have I just haven't seen anything but finished assemblies.

don Burke · « **Reply #25 on:** January 26, 2013, 07:40:32 PM »

Quote from: Ron Anderson on January 26, 2013, 07:24:38 PM

OK, What do the letters C/L stand for? Is the correct answer not ____CONTROL LINE____!!!

2.4 does not go down the lines...2.4= AIR WAVES!!!!

The airplane's attitude of flight is still controlled by a human being holding a handle attached by wires to the airplane.

bill bischoff · « **Reply #26 on:** January 26, 2013, 08:32:05 PM »

I admit I was originally opposed to the use of 2.4 ghz, but here is how I convinced myself. Electronic control systems have been allowed for a long time. You could basically put a receiver and servos in your airplane, and control it (in some cases with an unmodified RC transmitter) by sending electrical pulses through the lines. Until recently, this meant paying the drag penalty of oversize, insulated control lines. Lately, people have been coating standard control lines with paint or varnish for insulation, effectively eliminating the oversize line issue. Nobody seemed to have a problem with any of this. So, we can already use a receiver and servos in the airplane, we don't have to use "fat" lines, and nobody minds. The only functional difference with 2.4 ghz is that now, the signals travel through the air, not the wires. When it gets down to this, I say why not? There is no performance advantage to 2.4 ghz over "old school" electronic controls. However, the use of 2.4 ghz will make the events easier and more accessable for everyone. It's another option, not a requirement. 2.4 ghz or not, the people who work at it will still win, but it might attract some new interest, and that's a good thing.

Trostle · « **Reply #27 on:** January 26, 2013, 08:38:21 PM »

Quote from: Joe Just on January 26, 2013, 05:42:36 PM

I stand corrected on the original source Don. Thanks for clearifying the original source. I still believe that the AMA was perhaps over willing to pursue the idea.

I guess any individual can hold whatever beliefs he wants. It would be good if those beliefs were based on fact. There is nothing in the recently ended rules change cycle where "the AMA was perhaps over willing to pursue the idea." As long as safety is not compromised and the actions are within the procedures, the Contest Boards are essentially free to do what they see is best for their discipline. There is nothing that the AMA did at any time that in any way influenced the Contest Boards on their action regarding the approval for the 2.4 GHz system for control line. If there is any proof of such action, and being a member of one of those boards, I would certainly like to know about it. Proof would be much better than a lame belief and poorly written charge, not based on any fact, that any AMA representative, acting in any way in behalf of the AMA to influence the outcome of the proposals regarding this proposal. All the AMA does in this process is send out a call for the votes to be taken.

There is nothing positive in throwing out ill-conceived statements, not based on any fact, that the AMA is somehow acting in a nefarious manner. Such uncalled for statements only undermine the work of many dedicated staff members at the AMA headquarters.

Keith

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #28 on:** January 26, 2013, 11:41:41 PM »

Quote from: don Burke on January 26, 2013, 07:38:36 PM

I'm satisfied that Carrier and Scale will be able to use this new equipment. I really feel there is NO competitive advantage using it, just a different way of accomplishing the same result. And BTW, a 3 channel pistol grip radio with receiver and battery is cheaper than a 3-line handle and bellcrank.

$20 from Hobby King, for both transmitter and receiver if you want to go cheap. That plus a Sullivan handle and a standard bellcrank is still way less than a 3-line setup.

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #29 on:** January 27, 2013, 08:53:08 AM »

Quote from: Wayne J. Buran on January 26, 2013, 05:21:59 PM

Mike , I think you missed what Rafael was saying, that is, he doesn't feel that the process is a good one. He feels that he and others should be allowed to vote on proposals themselves up or down. Thats his point. I doubt that he appreciates someone saying he didn't pay attention to whats going on. I pay attention and I used the system and I didn't get a chance to vote on a ballot and see results either.
Thanks
Wayne

I never said he wasn't paying attention -- HE said it. From the original post:

"My apologies beforehand for my lack of info. Many moons ago I competed in Profile Carrier. I just bought a pair of 3 line sets and a new 3 line handle as a back up for my JR. Was planning to start again. I just read the new rules in the Carrier section at the AMA website. I guess I've been under a rock as I've been paying attention to P.A. I am in total shock as they have approved the use of R/C on Carrier."

All I said was that these rules changes were not sprung on us without time to react and that the rules change process was not short-circuited or behind anyones back. There has never been a vote by the membership at large on any rule or change and the proper channel is to keep up on the proposals and give your voting representatives your opinion. As I said, Rafael seems eager to take up where he left off and compete whatever rules are in force. I applaud that and wish him the best of luck. I applaud your continued efforts also, even knowing that you don't agree with some of the changes (neither do I, by the way) you don't bad mouth anyone or any decision - you continue to do things the way YOU please and have fun doing it. That is what it's all about.

Rafael Gonzalez · « **Reply #30 on:** January 27, 2013, 09:49:05 AM »

Quote from: Trostle on January 26, 2013, 04:10:15 PM

Your post is wrong and based on a total lack of understanding of the rules change process.

1. "It is funny that the votes are never asked to the interested public." Rules proposals can be made by any AMA member and submitted to the AMA. Each proposal is posted on the AMA website. Proposals can be made any time during the first 12 months of a change cycle. So, those proposals are open for review and comment from 3 to 15 months, depending on when the proposal was submitted and when the Contest Board makes its Initial Vote by May 1 of the second year in the change cycle. Anybody in the "interested public" can comment to any and all members of the respective Contest Board.

2. "I never got any ballot for voting." The system simply does not work that way. The AMA contest Board Procedures are posted on the AMA website. It would serve you well to read them rather than to complain as you have here. This system has been refined over many years of experience. Is it perfect? Probably not, but there is a lot of experience and thought into refining and making the system operate the way it does.

3. "Only who I want to take a place in the AMA "carpet" Had I received a ballot on affected rule changes for a vote, I would have voiced my choice." I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here but if you do not think your Contest Board representative is "representing" your point of view, you can certainly contact the other CB representatives and also your AMA Vice President who is the one who appoints the Contest Board members from your District. You do have a voice and your comments direct to your Contest Board and your AMA Vice President is a much more effective tool than posting some inane comments on some relatively obscure CL forum after a change proposal has been approved at the end of that rules change cycle.

4. "No vote counts." You need to understand the system and make your thoughts known to the people who are in the responsible postions to make that system work.

Have fun with your "F-8"

Keith

Mr. Trostle, et al:
Mr. Buran explained exactly my point. Some read my initial post and perhaps “misinterpreted” my point. I do not feel that there is a need for me to explain/justify my knowledge of the theory of electronics or the proposal process. I have proposed rule changes previously. I KNOW how 2.4 works. Let’s just ignore the assumptions that have been made and the personal innuendos.
At no instance I have felt insulted or jumped on. As I said on my post, there has to be an improvement in place for just a few people to determine the total direction of the specific classes.
1.   - I believe that any proposal should be up for a general vote instead of a few. I JUST started getting back into Carrier. I specified that. There were many good proposals, in my opinion, to eliminate the BOM issue. My favorite was 13-1 by Mr. Rush. I proposed my own after many years of abstaining. Seems that the consensus was to water down the BOM to be able to buy the “components” and assemble them. 13-3 was also a sensible proposal, in my opinion.
Mr. Trostle, et al;
2.   I am aware the system does not work that way. “Is it perfect, no” But there is a lot of improvement left to work on. Please do not let your assumptions take over. I have sent on many occasions my feelings and opinions to AMA. Last one was about UAVs. I disagree, but I do not consider my comments inane and Stunthanger a “relatively obscure” forum/website. I value the knowledge and experience that many of the contributors share with most of us.
3.   I was referring to the fact that the vote is only by a few. Many times over the years I have voiced my feelings to different members of the “Contest Boards”. And in sharing the opinions seemed that the wish of a few was propagated. There is no feedback as to why any proposal(s) is/ are failed.
4.   Yes, the votes do not count. “As long as safety is not compromised and the actions are within the procedures, the Contest Boards are essentially free to do what they see is best for their discipline”--- Mr. Trostle.
5.   EXACTLY.
Again, if anyone feels it would be a waste of their time, re-reading the first post was an opinion, not a complain. Perhaps, if a ballot is sent to ALL AMA members listing the proposals for the different schools, we would all feel more valued in the rule change decisions.

Reminder, OPINIONS are not wrong as has been stated. WE all know that, given we are a very intelligent group. However, when we start demeaning or detracting value from an input, cannot continue an exchange of ideas and/or opinions, we end the intelligent communication. And that my friends, occurs with too much continuance by some folks.
To me, the C/L contest and activities are being watered down. I do appreciate all the vounteering done by the AMA members.
MY OPINION.

Joe Just · « **Reply #31 on:** January 27, 2013, 10:35:49 AM »

I have a question that I ask in all seriousness. Why wasn't the entire shrinking membership of the NCS asked to vote on any Carrier rule change? At the 2012 Nats only 10 members of the NCS voted on 2.4 as shown in one of the threads above. With an excellent newsletter going out via the internet, how much trouble could it have been to ask the remaining 50 or so members of the NCS to offer their
chance to have a say? Perhaps it was because in the recent Summer delay of the HI-Low newsletter, which under the pressure faced by the editor is understandable. With all the recent mentions of the SIGs having the right of input in the rule changing setup why were the rank and file members of the NCS left out?

Also, once again I apologise for any um-bridge felt by any who feel I have cast negative thoughts about any hard working members of the contest board. I have read several mentions in MA by staff people that indicate the AMA's positive views on electric and 2.4 inclusion into the hobby of CL flying. I now give away all MA magizines after reading them and can not offer chapter and verse, so I guess my statements are a reflection of an old man's poor memory. For that I am also sorry.
Joe

don Burke · « **Reply #32 on:** January 27, 2013, 10:41:14 AM »

Quote from: Tim Wescott on January 26, 2013, 11:41:41 PM

$20 from Hobby King, for both transmitter and receiver if you want to go cheap. That plus a Sullivan handle and a standard bellcrank is still way less than a 3-line setup.

I have been looking at HOBBYPARTZ but the cheap one is always "out of stock", so I got the other one. Looks like the HOBBYKING one is the same thing $19.80

john vlna · « **Reply #33 on:** January 27, 2013, 10:50:34 AM »

Don,
Hobbyking normally has the car radios in the USA warehouse, I have bought the HK brand they work very well.
John

Trostle · « **Reply #34 on:** January 27, 2013, 12:37:59 PM »

Quote from: Joe Just on January 27, 2013, 10:35:49 AM

With all the recent mentions of the SIGs having the right of input in the rule changing setup why were the rank and file members of the NCS left out?

I have read several mentions in MA by staff people that indicate the AMA's positive views on electric and 2.4 inclusion into the hobby of CL flying. Joe

1. You state "the recent mentions of SIGs having the right of input in the rule changing setup...". This is not new. Over the years, I am sure that the Contest Boards for the different events would welcome any coordinated SIG recommendation regarding any rules change for their respective events. And I think that the Contest Board, collectively, would normally heed the recommendations from their respective SIG. This is not new and is not a change. I am not aware, however, that the different SIGs, including PAMPA have been regularly contributing to the Contest Boards in that manner. In the case of the CL Aerobatics Contest Board, each Board Member is a member of PAMPA, but there has been little involvement of any official PAMPA input to the Contest Board on recommending any action on any CLPA change proposal. (There are plans for that to change in the future.) I have an idea that the same is the case with the Carrier Contest Board, the Racing Contest Board, the Speed Contest Board and the Combat Contest Board.

2. You state "mentions in MA by staff people that indicate the AMA's positive views on ... 2.4 inclusion into the hobby of CL flying." I would be interested in the specific quotes ("mentions") by any "MA staff person" or any AMA "positive view" for the inclusion of "2.4 into the hobby of CL flying." I do not doubt that it could have happened. I would just like to see it.

Keith

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #35 on:** January 27, 2013, 02:12:41 PM »

Quote from: don Burke on January 27, 2013, 10:41:14 AM

I have been looking at HOBBYPARTZ but the cheap one is always "out of stock", so I got the other one. Looks like the HOBBYKING one is the same thing $19.80

I bought two from Hobby King for a couple of planes I built for my nephews; I had no problems. I've only bought from Hobby King twice, but both times I was quite happy with the transaction.

Search through what they have and do some thinking, though: the ones I got were 2.4GHz, but they aren't compatible with Spektrum receivers. Hobby King also sells the Turnigy radios that are compatible with Spektrum radios, so you'll be jumping onto a big happy bandwagon as far as being able to get compatible receivers for your TX, or compatible transmitters for your RX. You'll just be spending a bit more money to do it.

Rafael Gonzalez · « **Reply #36 on:** January 28, 2013, 03:00:27 AM »

In 2.4Hz there are several ways to transmit the info. The algorithms are married to both when the Tx and Rx "bind". The TX has a unique number to send to the RX. Once the RX is locked to the TX it only sees that unique key. Choose the systems that show the same signal format for both TX and RX. GFSS, GFSK, Futaba and Jr have their own, etc.

The cheapest is the Gxxx. If you use the Li-Po compatible receiver with a battery that will last 7-8 min (slow run), you can use a mini-micro servo for the throttle which will render a very light addition in weight!! Just remember to charge before the next flight...

Good Luck!

Clancy Arnold · « **Reply #37 on:** February 06, 2013, 01:28:41 PM »

Rafael
I think I can say that I am as knowledgeable as most anyone on using Electronics in Control line models. LOL

I often feel the same as you do when it comes to seeing rules get changed. I remember back in 1953 voting on rules changes listed on a post card, the biggest change proposed that year was increasing the minimum weight of a FF model from 100 Oz / Cu In to 150 Oz / Cu In.
I never found out how the voting ended as I was in the Air Force by then.

The Control Line Scale fliers met at the 2012 NATS and held a meeting concerning the C/L Scale rules. The fliers present approved a panel of 9 active contestants to review all of the C/L Scale rules and to come up with a recommendation for all of the contestants to review prior to them being submitted as a Rules Change Proposal. I am happy to be serving on that panel. One person has since dropped off but the remaining 8 are busy at the task. During the 2010 / 2011 Rules Change cycle I submitted 20 proposals and 14 of them were approved.

I would suggest Navy Carrier should do something similar.

Clancy

Rafael Gonzalez · « **Reply #38 on:** February 06, 2013, 09:26:55 PM »

Quote from: Clancy Arnold on February 06, 2013, 01:28:41 PM

Rafael
I think I can say that I am as knowledgeable as most anyone on using Electronics in Control line models. LOL

I often feel the same as you do when it comes to seeing rules get changed. I remember back in 1953 voting on rules changes listed on a post card, the biggest change proposed that year was increasing the minimum weight of a FF model from 100 Oz / Cu In to 150 Oz / Cu In.
I never found out how the voting ended as I was in the Air Force by then.

The Control Line Scale fliers met at the 2012 NATS and held a meeting concerning the C/L Scale rules. The fliers present approved a panel of 9 active contestants to review all of the C/L Scale rules and to come up with a recommendation for all of the contestants to review prior to them being submitted as a Rules Change Proposal. I am happy to be serving on that panel. One person has since dropped off but the remaining 8 are busy at the task. During the 2010 / 2011 Rules Change cycle I submitted 20 proposals and 14 of them were approved.

I would suggest Navy Carrier should do something similar.

Clancy

That is fantastic!! I believe that that system is sound and employs the general democratic principle. Regardless of whether one flies in every competition or a few, every individual involved in that facet of the sport (intentionally do not call it a hobby as it is a competition for many) should have a valued vote. I was uninformed. However, every member should have a notice on all rules proposals. A member will be able to vote on their particular interest. THEIR VOICE SHOULD BE HEARD.

I researched this site on the Carrier RF use on the rule proposal. Of the posts that I found, some agreed but most were opposed to it. If that were a cross section of a sample, it brings doubt of the approval. Due to the lack of info, I can't say that the majority approved. It is beyond my scope. I CAN say that the majority of the Carrier C.B. approved. Why is it left to the individual to pick/find all of this? I can not find any location in which a poll was taken before this was passed.
Yes, Clancy. Your system is more fair and accurate in reflecting the group.

I like the Scale system. And YES, I wish they used it for the Carrier rule proposals. I would feel that the general Carrier group approved it.

It is here, so let it be done. I will fly my Carrier ship regardless of going against any

. My ships are much more capable/better than my flying! And after 20 yrs off, I will have a good time.

Trostle · « **Reply #39 on:** February 07, 2013, 12:07:05 AM »

Quote from: Rafael Gonzalez on February 06, 2013, 09:26:55 PM

I was uninformed.

Why is it left to the individual to pick/find all of this? I can not find any location in which a poll was taken before this was passed.
Yes, Clancy. Your system is more fair and accurate in reflecting the group.

I like the Scale system. And YES, I wish they used it for the Carrier rule proposals. I would feel that the general Carrier group approved it.

Rafeal,

I will be blunt. You are still "uninformed." All of the Contest Boards (all 15 of them) operate under the same AMA Contest Board Procedures. Any AMA member can submit any kind of proposal that member desires. The process of acting on any proposal is the same. It is all spelled out in that Procedures document. There is no polling process unless some group or organization chooses to do so and then submits such a polling to the Contest Board. The members of those contest Boards would welcome any comments from any individual or group.

Clancy might correct me on this, but the initiative to change the scale rulebook started at this last Nats is for a group to "reconstruct" the AMA CL scale rules. The current rules have evolved over the years to a real hodge podge (as in morass) of parts. These are "left overs" from once having a set of unified scale rules that applied to most if not all scale categories (RC, CL RC), then various CL events were added over a number of years to the scale rulebook and somewhere the unified rules section was removed, then Precision Scale was removed since it paralleled the FAI rules, so FAI rules applied, then FAI CL Scale is ceasing to exist, so there are no rules in our current AMA rulebook for CL Precision Scale. (And there are no rules anymore in the AMA rule book for any kind of a FF scale event - not our concern here.) The current CL scale rules hardly form any kind of an integrated, easily assimilated package. (Over the years, some of this reverse evolution could be expected since the Scale Contest Board has mostly been represented by those from the RC community and apparently, nobody was systematically looking at the overall CL rules and how they were evolving. This is not meant to be any criticism of the current Contest Board Chairman, Mike Gretz, who has made a good effort to keep a perspective for the CL enthusiast, but that has not been the case in previous years prior to Mike becoming the Board Chairman. During the last change cycle, Clancy Arnold tried to get a CL Precision Scale event reestablished in the rulebook, but for whatever reason, that did not work out so well. Now, there is almost a year (cutoff date is Dec 31) for a sweeping proposal or perhaps several proposals to get the CL Scale rulebook organized into a meaningful, comprehensive manner and also reestablish a Precision Scale event. I am sure that group will welcome any ideas and constructive suggestions during the next eleven months. Then, starting next year, the Scale contest Board will act on those proposals in accordance with the AMA Contest Board Procedures, just like all of the other Contest Boards.

(Regarding the recent situation where the Scale Contest Board decided to remove CL Precision Scale from the rulebook - yes, there was a proposal to do just that - the justification was that the FAI CL Scale rules were "somewhat" similar our own CL Precision Scale rules. I do not think any of our specific AMA events should be governed by FAI rules. The FAI rules might not reflect how those in this country would like the event to be structured. Also, the FAI rules change process is cumbersome at best and as a single member nation, the US has little voice or control in making any changes or corrections. I do not think any of our scale events should be so constrained. Besides, those FAI CL Scale rules were or are a total hindrance in trying to promote or to advance such activity in this country.. -- Just my own humble opinion.)

And one more thing, the AMA posts all change proposals on the AMA website when they are received and determined to be a valid change proposal. Also, the actions of the Contest Boards are also posted when they make their initial vote, their interim vote, and their final vote.

Now, maybe you are a bit more enlightened.

Keith

eric david conley · « **Reply #40 on:** February 07, 2013, 07:42:01 AM »

Thank you so much Keith. Eric

Clancy Arnold · « **Reply #41 on:** February 07, 2013, 03:08:11 PM »

Thanks Keith
I agree with all that you said.

As for the CL Scale rules being reviewed by the committee, I hope all contestants will understand the size of the task the committee has undertaken. Most AMA rules are written for the top event in a discipline and then exceptions are added for the lower level events. When CL Precision Scale was deleted all of the rules had to be redirected to the new top event CL Sport Scale. Some of them missed the mark or the numbering system got confused.

In the 2011 Rules Change Cycle 2 of the proposals I had submitted were for FF Scale. My proposals were to add a note in the Indoor FF event rules to tell the contestant that they would be judged per the Outdoor FF Scale Judges score sheet. They were both defeated, not because of the proposals but because there were proposals submitted by others to eliminate ALL AMA Indoor and Outdoor FF Scale events in favor of using the FAC Club rules! The reason given was that they could modify the FAC Rules easier. Those were the only FF Scale proposals that were accepted.

Clancy

Rafael Gonzalez · « **Reply #42 on:** February 08, 2013, 09:50:06 AM »

Quote from: Trostle on February 07, 2013, 12:07:05 AM

Rafeal,

I will be blunt. You are still "uninformed." All of the Contest Boards (all 15 of them) operate under the same AMA Contest Board Procedures. Any AMA member can submit any kind of proposal that member desires. The process of acting on any proposal is the same. It is all spelled out in that Procedures document. There is no polling process unless some group or organization chooses to do so and then submits such a polling to the Contest Board. The members of those contest Boards would welcome any comments from any individual or group.

Clancy might correct me on this, but the initiative to change the scale rulebook started at this last Nats is for a group to "reconstruct" the AMA CL scale rules. The current rules have evolved over the years to a real hodge podge (as in morass) of parts. These are "left overs" from once having a set of unified scale rules that applied to most if not all scale categories (RC, CL RC), then various CL events were added over a number of years to the scale rulebook and somewhere the unified rules section was removed, then Precision Scale was removed since it paralleled the FAI rules, so FAI rules applied, then FAI CL Scale is ceasing to exist, so there are no rules in our current AMA rulebook for CL Precision Scale. (And there are no rules anymore in the AMA rule book for any kind of a FF scale event - not our concern here.) The current CL scale rules hardly form any kind of an integrated, easily assimilated package. (Over the years, some of this reverse evolution could be expected since the Scale Contest Board has mostly been represented by those from the RC community and apparently, nobody was systematically looking at the overall CL rules and how they were evolving. This is not meant to be any criticism of the current Contest Board Chairman, Mike Gretz, who has made a good effort to keep a perspective for the CL enthusiast, but that has not been the case in previous years prior to Mike becoming the Board Chairman. During the last change cycle, Clancy Arnold tried to get a CL Precision Scale event reestablished in the rulebook, but for whatever reason, that did not work out so well. Now, there is almost a year (cutoff date is Dec 31) for a sweeping proposal or perhaps several proposals to get the CL Scale rulebook organized into a meaningful, comprehensive manner and also reestablish a Precision Scale event. I am sure that group will welcome any ideas and constructive suggestions during the next eleven months. Then, starting next year, the Scale contest Board will act on those proposals in accordance with the AMA Contest Board Procedures, just like all of the other Contest Boards.

(Regarding the recent situation where the Scale Contest Board decided to remove CL Precision Scale from the rulebook - yes, there was a proposal to do just that - the justification was that the FAI CL Scale rules were "somewhat" similar our own CL Precision Scale rules. I do not think any of our specific AMA events should be governed by FAI rules. The FAI rules might not reflect how those in this country would like the event to be structured. Also, the FAI rules change process is cumbersome at best and as a single member nation, the US has little voice or control in making any changes or corrections. I do not think any of our scale events should be so constrained. Besides, those FAI CL Scale rules were or are a total hindrance in trying to promote or to advance such activity in this country.. -- Just my own humble opinion.)

And one more thing, the AMA posts all change proposals on the AMA website when they are received and determined to be a valid change proposal. Also, the actions of the Contest Boards are also posted when they make their initial vote, their interim vote, and their final vote.

Now, maybe you are a bit more enlightened.

Keith

With all due respect, I do not need to be "enlightened". Perhaps many folks were also unaware that a few people could change the course of the general Carrier section. I understand all the rules and processes, no need to keep getting "enlightened" and getting beat up with a stick. I GET IT. I don't get that unless one lives and breathes rules changes proposal submissions, the stuff gets passed right by your nose.

Check the post http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=25810.0

Along with many other POSTS, which anyone can search here, is the general opinion that folks did not want RF. It is understood that unless one makes it known that the proposal is not accepted by the general members, it will pass. MY FAULT. Let it be said, Let it be done. I accept the new rules. But it doesn't stop me from giving my perceptions, wrong or right. May be others feel the same or disagree. Had I had been interested in getting back to Carrier, know the rules at jeopardy,breathe rule proposals, dream rule proposals and check every hour on rule proposals, I would have enabled a poll to all Carrier members about the acceptance or rejection of RF in Carrier. Whether it passed or failed,, I would have been satisfied. This is only my opinion and only my opinion, I BELIEVE THAT THE MAJORITY WAS NOT REPRESENTED.By their fault (My fault) or by the lack of informational dispersion.
I believe that in the future, I will be more "aware". By now, my point should be well understood. The Horse is dead.
Thank you.

Trostle · « **Reply #43 on:** February 08, 2013, 03:52:38 PM »

Quote from: Rafael Gonzalez on February 08, 2013, 09:50:06 AM

With all due respect, I do not need to be "enlightened". Perhaps many folks were also unaware that a few people could change the course of the general Carrier section. I understand all the rules and processes, no need to keep getting "enlightened" and getting beat up with a stick. I GET IT. I don't get that unless one lives and breathes rules changes proposal submissions, the stuff gets passed right by your nose.

Along with many other POSTS, which anyone can search here, is the general opinion that folks did not want RF. It is understood that unless one makes it known that the proposal is not accepted by the general members, it will pass. MY FAULT. Let it be said, Let it be done. I accept the new rules. But it doesn't stop me from giving my perceptions, wrong or right.

The Horse is dead.
Thank you.

Rafael,

Yes, the horse is dead regarding the recently ended rules change cycle.

The part that I was trying to explain to you in my previous post was that you apparently misunderstood that the scale rules could be changed by a different process/committee or whatever you were writing about than how the carrier rules were changed. My response to that is that all of the rules changes for all events are governed by the same process involving the specified Contest Boards, not some special committee as you implied. I was commenting to something that you wrote that was wrong. If I misunderstood what you wrote, then please explain what I misunderstood.

But now, I need to make another comment. You state that "the general opinion that folks did not want RF" in the carrier events. What poll is there that supports "folks do not want RF"? Certainly, the opinions of a few vocal malcontents on a forum do not represent any statistical basis that there is a strong consensus against using any form of RF in the Carrier events. Did you and all of those other "folks" take your opinions/arguments to the Control Line Carrier Contest Board? Or another alternative would be to have approached the Navy Carrier Society which is the Special Interest Group (SIG) to promote the Carrier events. That SIG would have significant influence on how the Contest Board would respond to any proposal involving the Carrier events. (I would wager, however, that the majority, if not all, of the representatives on the Carrier Contest Board are members of the Carrier SIG.) Are you even a member of that SIG? No, you do not have to be a member of the SIG to have your voice heard by the Contest Board, but contacting the SIG and/or the Contest Board before the Contest Board votes on any proposal will certainly be more effective than words on some forum before or after the Contest Board votes on any proposal. Please be aware that the proposals for any Contest Board action and their schedule to act on those proposals are open for all to see and with plenty of time to know about them and for any modeler to initiate comments to the Board. There are no secrets or closed door actions.

Certainly, you can have your opinions and "perceptions" and you are free to complain all you want. But you should not be too disappointed with the system if you did not make your opinions known to those who can make a difference in the change process.

It is good that you "accept the new rules".

Keith

Clancy Arnold · « **Reply #44 on:** February 09, 2013, 07:57:04 PM »

Everyone
I hope you did not think the committee's decisions are final for CL Scale rules.

As Keith said there are procedures listed on the AMA web site that defines the Rules Change process that must be followed. What the Committee comes up with will be presented to all interested fliers for comments and those comments will be considered for incorporation into the committee's recommendations. Then a set of Rules Change Proposals will be submitted and the Contest Board members will vote on them.

Anyone disagreeing with a written proposal may submit a different Rules Change Proposal for the Contest Board to consider and vote on or you may submit a Cross Proposal against a specific Rules Change Proposal.

Clancy