I used this handle and others like it at The Nats and many other contests.  I have NEVER had an issue until this Wednesday. 
In order to utilize existing models and control lines, I shop-fabricated handle extensions using .047" music wire, copper wrapping, solder, and heat shrink tubing.  These handles have survived the burtal 75-100 pound pull tests in carrier.
On Wednesday, the carrier Event Director, who was also a serious contender of the Ely Awards (all Rule Book events combined), charged that I had more than two clips per line.  When I showed him that that extentions are not clips, he wouldn't give.  He went into a two-day vendetta trying to dredge-up a case or somebody to support him, with no success.
The role of an official is to prevent cheating to gain advantage and to exclude unsafe equipment and not use power to ward off competition.

I originally got the idea of handle extensions while flying Perky speed at the AMA Nats.  My lines came up a little short and the EVENT DIRECTOR suggested that I should get some wire and exend the handle.  As long as it's not a clip and it exceeds the strength limits, it's legal.

Did he file a protest?   I have done extensions, but the conection was inside the wing where you could not see it.   Did you get to fly with the connection?   I too have had people doing oull tests complain about some of my connections especially since I have started swadging my tubing.   Big difference between sadging and crimping.  I do not like crimping as I have had a wire or two cut.

I, Paul Smith am the owner of the handle.

Pete Mazur, who was Event Director and also the prime competitor in all Rule Book events, initially disallowed my handle, but "generously" conceded to "let" me use it this time only.  There was no need for a protest.  Two days of intense digging did not produce any grounds for Pete's complaint.  I plan to continue to use these handles, taking the failed attempt to disallow them as proof of their legality.

The role of the competitor is to be sure to have legal length lines ahead of time and avoid controversy.

Quote from: bill bischoff on July 13, 2026, 09:01:58 PMThe role of the competitor is to be sure to have legal length lines ahead of time and avoid controversy.

YES.  VERY TRUE.

I did exactly that.  Upon measurement at home I found that some leadouts and handles came up short, so I shop-modified a handle to GET LEGAL. The extentions are made of .047" solid music wire which massively exceeds all safety standards. My extenstions are strongest part of the system.

Nobody has ever complained, except one Event Director who was also a serious competitor in the event he was directing.  Despite exhaustive efforts by him, nobody backed his position.

Why not just use longer handle leads with the normal clips rather than the extentions?Seems pretty easy to change the handle wire rather than have anyone have an excuse to question it. Just my thoughts.

Best,   DennisT

If I were the CD I would have probably declared them illegal without seeing how they were made but would have allowed them if all of the other competitors agreed.  What is an extension anyway other than a very long connector unless it was directly soldered to the handle wire.  I read the carrier rules, and they don't appear to override the general as do the stunt in part. The problem as I see it is the lack of clarity in our rules. For example a connector is "a thing which links two or more things together".  An extension requires that the two parts be physically linked.  That would make your "extension" by definition a connector.

I am with Bill.  It is your responsibility to make sure your plane is legal before you enter.  The place to debate a rule is here, not at a contest.

Ken   

Paul, why couldn't you just put a new longer cable on the handle? No question that would be OK. The legality of what you did may still be in question, but regardless, most people would agree it's not best practice.

Some people get too hung up on 'rules'! They must take them to the 'N th' degree and where there is scope for interpretation they will argue their interpretation is the right one! If the rule on line length is, 'X' from fuse c/line to hold position of handle, how that is achieved is immaterial providing it meets / exceeds the ACTUAL safety test! People often make up for damaged lines with re-crimped / re-made ends and use over length connectors to re-establish overall length but no one worries about that! Life is too short particularly at (for a lot of us) our time of life to let pettiness cloud judgements and enjoyment of just doing stuff!

In this particular situation, I'd say having a 'rule enforcer' also being a competitor is a direct conflict of interest and would inevitably lead to some sort of confrontation or bias call. To be impartial, you can't have ANY 'skin in the game' !

Quote from: bill bischoff on July 14, 2026, 06:36:23 PMPaul, why couldn't you just put a new longer cable on the handle? No question that would be OK. The legality of what you did may still be in question, but regardless, most people would agree it's not best practice.

Isn't there a 6" rule for the handle?  I assume that the cables are considered part of the handle.  The only real solution is to make up a proper set of lines.

Ken

I think the 2 clips per line rule was made long ago when the slide lock clips would get sideways and yank apart if there were too many stacked together. The days before heat shrink tubing.

Your extention construction is sound with the heat shrink tubing keeping everything straight and proven by pull tests.  .047" wire is massive, might have used .032". I would be more worried about the cross bar bending and pulling out of the wood. That would probably hold until 250-300 Lbs. (I have tested many things to destruction).

MM  

Quote from: Ken Culbertson on July 15, 2026, 07:26:17 AMIsn't there a 6" rule for the handle?  I assume that the cables are considered part of the handle.  The only real solution is to make up a proper set of lines.

Ken

The 6" rule applies to the RIGID  part of the handle which could be used for whipping.  Beyond the "point of flexibilty" there is NO LIMIT on the amount of flex.

When the predatory ED who was out to get me shopped around for supporters, he found out the the "six-inch rule" wjuld disqualify the majority of all CL handles.  That shut him up right quick.

Quote from: Paul Smith on July 15, 2026, 04:50:19 PMThe 6" rule applies to the RIGID  part of the handle which could be used for whipping.  Beyond the "point of flexibilty" there is NO LIMIT on the amount of flex.

When the predatory ED who was out to get me shopped around for supporters, he found out the the "six-inch rule" wjuld disqualify the majority of all CL handles.  That shut him up right quick.

Where in the rules does it say that it only applies up to "the point of flexibility"?  The term doesn't appear in either the general or carrier rules.

Ken

The 6" handle rule as written is incomplete, because it doesn't define just what constitutes "the handle". Since it goes on to talk about monoline handles,  my impression is that they mean the rigid part of the handle, and the purpose would be to deter whipping as Paul says. Furthermore, the "industry standard" 3-line handle used in carrier and scale definitely exceeds 6" if measured from the grip to the end of the cables. I don't believe there was ever a reason or desire to render these handles illegal. Looking in the 1964 rule book, the 6" rule is only found in CL Speed, reinforcing the notion that it is meant to deter whipping. If you choose to ignore everything except what the specific rule says, then I would say that the cables are part of the handle. They are not part of the lines, and they are not part of the line connectors. Following this interpretation would have lots of undesired consequences. All that being said, Paul seems to be relying on rules that are not in book.

I will take it upon myself to submit a CL General rule change to correct this problem.

The root of the issue was the fact that another contestant falsely claimed that my PERMANENT leadout extensions were CLIPS.  Rather than admit his error, he proceeded to try to build a bogus case agaisnt me.  He ended up opening a can of worms that, if taken to the extreme, would have disallowed the majority of the handles in use.

The concept of the rigid handle and flexible leadouts is not mentioned in the rule books.
In the absence of a rule to the contrary, everything is legal.
We need to just get along and not try to win by the Tanya Harding approach.

Quote from: Paul Smith on July 20, 2026, 10:24:40 AMThe root of the issue was the fact that another contestant falsely claimed that my PERMANENT leadout extensions were CLIPS.  Rather than admit his error, he proceeded to try to build a bogus case against me.  He ended up opening a can of worms that, if taken to the extreme, would have disallowed the majority of the handles in use.

The concept of the rigid handle and flexible leadouts is not mentioned in the rule books.
In the absence of a rule to the contrary, everything is legal.
We need to just get along and not try to win by the Tanya Harding approach.

The rule book uses the term connector.  Your extensions are clearly connectors.  What they wanted to describe were clips which implies temporary or removable. Connectors imply permanent. They were limiting removable but used a word that covered both.  They should have uses the term "Clips" and actually (OMG) defined it. What you have done is fine from a safety standpoint and most likely in the spirit of the rules.  But NOT in the letter of the rules.  There is a reason for not allowing multiple connectors/clips.  They can easily snag.  Your "extensions" do not have that problem because of the heat shrink covering them. Let Bill sort this one out.  He will get it right.

Careful about analogies. Tonya had nothing to do with the attack on Nancy.  It was her trying to defend her ex-husband that cooked her goose.

Ken

I have reached the conclusion that we actually need two different rule proposals to solve this problem. First, all evidence suggests that the 6" measurement for the handle should be to the point of flexibility as Paul stated. While the AMA rule book does not specify this anywhere (so it's not a rule), the term "point of flexibility" is found in the F2C Team Racing rules. Again, the point of a maximum length restriction on the rigid part of the handle  seems to be to deter whipping.

The other proposal will deal with the permanently installed extensions on the handle cables. As this would be a safety issue, the legal eagles at AMA may want to get involved. At any rate, it will be a decision about what is or isn't acceptable in the future, where the 6" handle proposal is more of just an interpretation of existing rules.

I just measured the Brodak stunt handles as well as several other commericial stunt handles and the J.Roberts 3-line handle. 
They are ALL illegal if the flexible leadouts need to be within the 6" limit.
They are all legal if only the rigid part of the handle is measured.
This issue only surfaced when a Tanya Harding-style contestant tried to get my equipment disallowed.  The end result that if accepted, the majority of handles in use would be disallowed.
I intend to submit a rules change to put  lid on this.
In combat, stunt, and scale, whipping is OK and there is no need for such a rule.
In speed, the pylon prevents whipping.
In racing and carrier the judges can penalize whipping, regardless of the handle size.
We do not need senseless rules that can be used as the basis for crank protests.

Quote from: Paul Smith on July 21, 2026, 06:06:20 AMThis issue only surfaced when a Tanya Harding-style contestant tried to get my equipment disallowed.

A contestant's ex-wife filed a protest

Ken