Why I am concerned, just as examples, a few recent actions:
Allowing (actually, defining) ARCs with no contest board action,
Trying ban Sharks by indirectly reinterpreting rules with no contest board action,
Trying to ban stranded lines with no contest board action,
Banning certain handles with no contest board action, (which took multiple urgent proposals to undo),
Unbanning sharks by overriding the ED
Banning ARCs (maybe) by fiat after someone noticing that it was put in by fiat the first time (3 months before the contest),
Adding Expert to the NATs,
Adding R/C to C/L (makes some sense for Scale, less for Carrier)
Rushing to make it allowable to use R/C in C/L Stunt.
Most of that happened since the 2010 NATs. All for something that WAS NOT and IS NOT broken in the first place. I built my own airplane including control hardware and handle, and I had no idea if it was going to be legal at the 2011 NATs until I got there. THAT is a real problem.
Brett
Hi Brett, I guess I need to make a comment about your "observations" listed above.
"Allowing (actually, defining) ARCs with no contest board action"
!. I think that the evolution of what a BOM compliant model has become has had little to do with any Contest Board action. (The BOM rule, except for an almost meaningless AMA imposed interpretation, now removed, has been in the rulebook for over 50 years.) That evolution started years ago when foam wings first appeared in a contest circle. Then, there was a BOM interpretation added to the rules by AMA HQ (for reasons we do not need to get into here) that had nothing to do with any Contest Board action. Then the AMA removed that interpretation, again outside the purview of the Contest Board. The ensuing aftermath has resulted in ARC's being allowed to fly as BOM compliant models. I think the Contest Board has been trying to address this situation and came close to establishing a meaningful BOM rule for our CLPA event, but failed in this last change cycle. There are ideas afloat now to get something done, positively, in the next cycle starting in two months.
"Trying ban Sharks by indirectly reinterpreting rules with no contest board action"
2. See comment 1 above.
"Trying to ban stranded lines with no contest board action"
3. This was the result of an AMA Nats official making an interpretation of the rulebook in response to a query from a Nats entrant. Given the words in the rulebook at that time, the interpretation was not really incorrect, but it could have been ruled differently given some insight as to the intent of the rules. You are correct that the Aerobatics Contest Board was not involved with that interpretation.
"Banning certain handles with no contest board action, (which took multiple urgent proposals to undo)"
4. See response 3 above. You are correct it took considerable collective effort by the CL Contest Boards to unravel that criticized "interpretation" that affected control lines, handles and all materials that connected the pilot to the CL airplane. Bill Lee was instrumental in getting that mess unraveled. But, that was one good use of the Urgent Change Proposal process.
"Unbanning sharks by overriding the ED"
5. This is something similar to what was involved with No. 1 above. Given the BOM rule as changed by the AMA (where the CB was not involved), the AMA essentially ruled that as long as the contestant stated/signed he was compliant with the rules (including the current BOM rule), then he was the builder of the model and the ED would have to accept that. It is possible that a CLPA specific BOM rule can be developed that will give an ED more authority to not allow an obviously prebuilt/pre-finished model to fly in a BOM required event. The contest Board is going to work on that and ideas are already being generated.
"Banning ARCs (maybe) by fiat after someone noticing that it was put in by fiat the first time (3 months before the contest),"
6. Again related to No. 1 above. The Contest board had its hands tied on this. The existing General BOM rule overides all when we fly an event that requires the BOM. The ED only had a few options to work with dealing with ARCs and the existing BOM rule.
"Adding Expert to the NATs"
7. This is an initiative considered by the PAMPA leadership. The Contest Board had nothing to do with this proposal. The PAMPA leadership chose to include Expert at the next Nats in accordance with PAMPA procedures and as allowed by the AMA rulebook and also in accordance with arrangements that PAMPA has with the AMA to administer the CLPA events at the Nats. Some feel this is a good idea. Others, obviously feel otherwise.
"Adding R/C to C/L (makes some sense for Scale, less for Carrier)"
8. There was no rush to judgement on this one. A proposal (in fact several proposals) were made in this current and just ended change cycle to allow the 2.4 GHz system for CL. This went through the initial, interim and final votes of the two year process. The concept that this could be used for CL models in the CL General rules passed the collective vote of all five CL Contest Boards with the provision that each specific event would need to have rules to allow it in each respective event. The Carrier Contest Board initiated a cross proposal to allow it in their event during this two year cycle and they approved it for their event. Unless one flies contest carrier events, one should probably not criticize the Carrier Contest Board approving what they did for their event. Same with CL Scale events.
"Rushing to make it allowable to use R/C in C/L Stunt."
9. If any CLPA enthusiast who might have wanted to see the 2.4 GHz system to be allowed in CLPA during this now ended change cycle, a Cross Proposal could have been submitted to initiate the process in the normal flow of processing such a change proposal. (Granted, the CL Aerobatics Contest Board might not have passed such a proposal) It was my understanding and in my communications with the CL Contest Board, that if the CL General rules proposal passed, we would be able to use the 2.4 GHz system on our CLPA models. What I missed (and maybe others) was the specific requirement of the CL General proposal that each event had to specifically adopt a rule to do so. So, I have submitted an proposal, under the Urgent Change category, to catch up as soon as possible after the new rulebook is published in January where we would have been if we had taken the initiative to consider this earlier this year. The AMA has not yet published this change proposal. Before that happens, the AMA will ask the Contest Board to agree that this is a legitimate Urgent proposal. That question has not yet been submitted to the Contest Board to consider. It will require a 60% approval of the Board to further consider the proposal. If that happens, there will then be a 6 week review process at which time the Contest Board will give a final vote, 60% approval required to pass. I have no idea how this will proceed through the voting process. There are some Board members who wish to go on as an Urgent proposal. Others do not. There are some Board members who favor the idea at this time. Others do not.
What happened to you at the 2011 Nats was totally unforeseen and the Contest Board had nothing to do with the initial interpretation but was much involved to get the matter fixed.
Things happen. We even got the Pattern Points put back into the rulebook, though the reasons for some not to understand the long standing F2B rules (which we essentially adopted when we eliminated Pattern Points) still escape me.
Our rulebook has been almost constantly evolving. I like to think mostly for the good. I think we do have a problem now with the rulebook because it is a hodgepodge of things added during different change cycles. There are the basic rules, then a judges' guide, then more rules on skill classes. Now there is talk that there will be a proposal to add an appearance judges' guide. All of this needs to be redrawn into a comprehensive, coordinated package.
Topic: 2.4 and CL Stunt (Read 10778 times)