stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Bruce Hautamaki on September 18, 2008, 06:24:32 PM
-
Are the pattern points going away next year?
Thanks, Bruce H
-
Are the pattern points going away next year?
Thanks, Bruce H
Yes.
Brett
-
Good! Pattern Points are just a pain anyway. Instead of judges, how about letting everyone fly, and then have a poker hand to see who wins. I always get low scores, so maybe no flying points will give me a better chance.
Oh. Perhaps you mean "flight pattern" bonus points?
Floyd
-
We could just send in out score, and then not have to go to the contest!
Chris...
-
With all the whining about appearance points and the loss of pattern points we could score each maneuver ,excellent,good,fair and poor that would be easy for the score keepers and judges.
-
Who whined about pattern points? I never knew that to be an issue. I think eliminating pattern points is a bad idea. Pattern points keeps an edge on. An impetus to complete every maneuver, despite a bobble or difficult wind conditions. Besides, WE ALL KNOW STUNT IS A MACHO SPORT. Eliminating pattern points diminishes the manliness of our endeavor.
-
The proposal to eliminate pattern points was submitted by Keith Trostle, I disagree with it but I am only one little voice..
Everyone needs to study up on the rules change cycle, read the proposals and beat on your contest board member.. They typically do not solicit your input so it's up to you to look at the proposals and say you piece before the vote.
The proposals are always published on the AMA web site, here is a link to what was proposd and if you do a little looking you will find a list of what passed and what failed...
http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/ruleproposals/claerobatics.aspx
http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/ruleproposals.aspx
-
"Killing" is too harsh a word for an administrative change.
I don't see that it makes any difference at all. Virtually everybody who's in contention to win anything got pattern points points every time, therby making ALL the score 25 points higher. Pattern points were a reminent of OTS when completing all the stunts was in doubt.
If you get a 0 or a 10 on a stunt, you've beat yourself already, pattern points or not.
----------------------
ps: This will end all the hair-splitting arguements about exactly what triggers a loss of pattern points.
-
Although I agree somewhat about the "manliness" of desperately trying to finish a maneuver I got blown out of in order to get the 25 points, I basically agree that at that point I am out of the hunt anyway due to the low score of the maneuver [usually I am out of the hunt when I signal the judges to start the timer! :'()
Sometimes we argue over items that really don't matter.
-
Kieth may step in here and explain his point in detail, but here is my understanding. Today's pattern points result in a double penalty for a single error. If you completely blow a maneuver, you lose the points for the maneuver plus the pattern points. A zero score for a maneuver is enough penalty that you won't win, so why the additional 25 point hit?
IMHO, pattern points are important in beginner and intermediate, but have little impact in advanced or expert.
Steve
-
This will make the anti BOM people very happy.
But every change has a consequence.. Maybe we should perform maneuvers in any order that we want... The judges would just love that!
But I have another question... FAI is going to eliminate K factors.
I have never liked K factors because everyone does the same maneuvers, therefore from take off to landing there is no change in difficulty for any pilot. It is not like diving where you can choose you dives.
But here is the BIG question: Does no K factor mean that each maneuver is worth only 10 points? Does that mean that scores will be given in 0.1 increments? That makes the USA system of 40 points max look a whole lot better.
It seems that the Pattern that was brilliantly installed by George Aldridge and others is slowly being torn apart by people who want a personal change.
Do a maneuver out of order... that hurt ME... change it.
I forgot a hand signal before I started the pattern... that hurt ME... change it.
(People look at me funny because I still signal as a courtesy to the judge telling them I am starting the pattern on the upcoming lap)
I don't work as hard to finish my airplane and got less appearence points... that hurt ME... change it.
I don't build my airplane and got no appearance points because some judge actually asked me if I built the airplane... that hurt ME... change it.
I am so disgusted about the endless trivial changes, that I almost don't care anymore
-
Steve,
Blow a maneuver, the maneuver is scored for your mistakes, but you DO NOT lose pattern points.
Leave out a maneuver, you can do it out of order, but lose pattern points, because it was not done in the prescribed order that the judges expect.
You only lose twice if you completely eliminate the maneuver, since the prescribed maneuver was not performed. Zero points for the unperformed therefore no pattern points. No need to change this rule.
Please read my above post...If it hurt ME,,, change it!!!?????
-
Tom, welcome to the "I made a mistake" generation.
Phil
-
I think this is a great change. I can do the maneuvers in any order I want. Cool. I can do the reverse wingover at the end of the flight when the tank is mostly empty and I'm warmed up.
Why would we want rules after all.
-
Too bad, my goal in competing was to take the plane home in one piece and to get pattern points. If I got a trophy along the way that was nice.
-
It's no big change, although I don't like it. My main defensible reason for not liking it is that I'll have to spend time to change the Nats tabulation software. I don't know what checks to put in to catch weird things that the judges may do. I asked a couple of the perpetrators to help, but received responses such as, "Judges shouldn't make mistakes." I don't think much thought went into the change. I am guilty of not speaking up; I didn't notice the proposal and get my licks in before it passed. You CDs with scoresheets printed up should keep them for a couple of years. Maybe we can reverse this change in the next cycle. Meanwhile, please tell me of any anomalies that come up in contests in early 2009 with the new rule so we can be ready for the Nats.
-
This will make the anti BOM people very happy.
BIG SNIP
?????? I don't see the logic!
-
If the reason to do this is to make it more like FAI, the same could be said for rescinding appearance points (the only event with BOM in stunt is Jr., Sr., and Open at the Nats). I consider myself kinda international-minded, but I see no reason to make AMA stunt more like FAI. It's nearly the same as far as flying goes, and our guys do OK at the World Champs.
-
All jokes aside, what's to stop anyone from doing the whole pattern out of order? There is no penalty for doing so, right?
-
You'd only get points for the first maneuver. Here's the change:
Replace Paragraph 11, Flight Pattern with a new Paragraph 11, Execution of Maneuvers.
“The maneuvers must be executed in the order listed in Paragraph, Flight Maneuver and Scoring. The contestant may attempt a maneuver only once in any one flight. A score of 0 (zero) will be given for any maneuver omitted or not attempted at all, for any maneuver started but not completed, any maneuver with an incorrect number of consecutive figures (either too few or too many), any maneuver flown out of sequence, and/or any maneuver flown without a minimum of the nominal (two) laps interval after the previous maneuver. When a maneuver is omitted or not attempted at all, the remaining maneuvers shall be scored provided they are attempted in the correct order. When performed after the completion of the Four Leaf Clover maneuver but before the start of the Landing maneuver, other maneuvering shall be permitted. All such maneuver shall not be officially observed nor scored by the judges”.
Retain paragraph 11.1
Delete Paragraph 11.2 since the provisions above required a zero score for an attempted or incomplete maneuver. The current AMA rules allow a minimum score of 10 for such a maneuver.
Paragraph 14.21.3 currently states that “every maneuver which is started but not completed by the competitor should be awarded 10 (ten) points”. Change this Paragraph 14.21.3 to read: “Judging incomplete maneuvers: any maneuver which is started but not completed shall be awarded a mark of 0 (zero) points”.
Paragraph 14.21.5 currently states that maneuvers with an incorrect number of multiple figures are to be awarded a mark of 10 (ten) points. Change the last sentence of Paragraph 14.21.5 to read: “All maneuvers flown in such ways are incorrect and shall be awarded a mark of 0 (zero) points”.
-
Ok I have a question regarding this change, your required to do two laps between manuevers or you get a zero for the next manuever correct?
ok if you flame out in the clover, you still need two laps to get landing points then? or since you didnt compete the clover and its a zero manuever, do the two laps before the clover count to get landing,,
I know it sounds odd, but hey, what can I say, its me asking n~
I would assume you probably have to attempt to whip two laps out of it ,, but then is it two laps and THEN start your desent for landing which is another lap?
-
?????? I don't see the logic!
Here's the logic as I see it......
R%%%%
If the rules are changed then the original rules can't have been perfect. If they aren't perfect we have been living a lie. If we have been living a lie, then there may be other lies in the rules...........Then the defenders of the rules aren't perfect either.
Therefore since the last statement can't be true (or it is the end of the world as we know it), everything in the rules must be perfect and there is no reason to change them.
R%%%%
Or something like that! H^^
-
Thanks Alan... a perfectly lucid explanation. H^^
-
The pattern must still be flown in the correct order with 2 laps between maneuvers. There will be no points awarded for flying an omitted maneuver later in the pattern, when the brain fart drifts away.
I cannot make hide nor hair of the proposals and counter proposals, but think that eliminating pattern points also eliminates any question about awarding them if a maneuver was attempted....this is a good thing, I believe.
There are still ambiguities, but not as glaring as before....
Have fun!
-
Hi all, Actually I replied to this last night but I think I took to long so when I sent it I got a page with Japanese writing? Actually I think this is my first post here! I have answered others post's tho. It's probably a good thing what I wrote was deleted, I was R%%%%. Yep! I just hate to see something that isn't broke get fixed.
I hope to be flying and entering contests again next year, Its been over 10 years. My first reaction was Argh, but you know, It ain't going to stop me. Bring on your rule changes!
Lets have fun, Bruce
-
This will make the anti BOM people very happy.
??? I don't understand the linkage between pattern points and BOM.
But every change has a consequence.. Maybe we should perform maneuvers in any order that we want... The judges would just love that!
But I have another question... FAI is going to eliminate K factors.
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
This was decided in March at the FAI meetings, K-factors are NOT going to be eliminated.
I have never liked K factors because everyone does the same maneuvers, therefore from take off to landing there is no change in difficulty for any pilot. It is not like diving where you can choose you dives.
But here is the BIG question: Does no K factor mean that each maneuver is worth only 10 points? Does that mean that scores will be given in 0.1 increments? That makes the USA system of 40 points max look a whole lot better.
Since the premise was "K-factors being eliminated", the fact that they are NOT renders the rest of the post quite meaningless.
Regards,
Bill Lee
-
This will make the anti BOM people very happy.
But every change has a consequence.. Maybe we should perform maneuvers in any order that we want... The judges would just love that!
But I have another question... FAI is going to eliminate K factors.
I have never liked K factors because everyone does the same maneuvers, therefore from take off to landing there is no change in difficulty for any pilot. It is not like diving where you can choose you dives.
But here is the BIG question: Does no K factor mean that each maneuver is worth only 10 points? Does that mean that scores will be given in 0.1 increments? That makes the USA system of 40 points max look a whole lot better.
Well, for good or bad, the FAI *is not* going to eliminate the K-factor. I've put in my 2¢ on that topic to the irritation of all involved, and I don't want to go off on another rant about it.
Other than the general creep of FAI into AMA, I don't see how this effects BOM one way or another. FAI not getting rid of K-factors is actually a positive as far as keeping the AMA and FAI separate.
It seems that the Pattern that was brilliantly installed by George Aldridge and others is slowly being torn apart by people who want a personal change.
Do a maneuver out of order... that hurt ME... change it.
I forgot a hand signal before I started the pattern... that hurt ME... change it.
(People look at me funny because I still signal as a courtesy to the judge telling them I am starting the pattern on the upcoming lap)
I don't work as hard to finish my airplane and got less appearence points... that hurt ME... change it.
I don't build my airplane and got no appearance points because some judge actually asked me if I built the airplane... that hurt ME... change it.
I am so disgusted about the endless trivial changes, that I almost don't care anymore
I agree that such arguments are tiresome, but in this case it certainly wasn't a factor. Keith Trostle submitted this and championed the change, and he is hardly of the nature you are describing above. I think this change was a bad idea but I don't fault him for having an idea and pursuing it. It was done on principal.
And the original rules were not exactly confusion-free - in fact, Keith has stated, and I have some evidence of this too, that the 2008 pattern point rules are not the way George had intended them. Peabody tangentially refers to it, but the current pattern points rules require all maneuvers be attempted *and completed* for pattern points to be awarded (there is no ambiguity in that). Initially all you had to do was attempt all the maneuvers in order, not complete them. Until the clarification that they all had to be attempted and completed, pattern points were a continual source of argument, not as bad as in OTS but still pretty bad.
As another example, the vaunted "5-foot" radius was, and George admitted this, a guess/screwup. They put it in there because they guessed that it was about what they were doing. Very shortly afterwards, everybody realized that it wasn't remotely possible, but no one ever submitted a proposal to go back and change it.
I have a few I am going to submit next time around (in addition to the return to the 2008 pattern points rule) - change "wind direction" to "suggested wind direction" {to eliminate the tiresome argument that the wind direction is somehow *required*} in the maneuver diagrams, change the dropping parts in flight rule to give a zero instead of an attempt, and a few others.
So there are perfectly legitimate reasons to change the rules. I don't care for this particular change either, but there's no doubt that the motivations were sincere and reasoned.
BTW, of course you can't just fly the maneuvers in any order. If anything the penalties for flying maneuvers out-of-order can be even more severe with the new rules, depending what you do, at least in Keith's interpretation of the rule.
Brett
-
Simple and effective is better.
Pattern points just serve to add to the confusion. The FAI method is better.
-
What we need to do is get rid of the Triangles! They are @#$% R%%%%ing me off so lets make it simple and loose them. OR You can do them anytime you want if you feel like it. Ya, That will work.
Ok, Sorry for that. It almost sounds like BOM. Don't want to go there for sure. I think I will order French lettering for my pitbox so I fit in better next year. Ya, Thats the ticket! Ok better stop now. It really isn't that big a deal. Its actually All Sparkys fault for putting this darned Rant button here R%%%%. You get what you play for!
Have fun! Bruce
-
What we need to do is get rid of the Triangles! They are @#$% R%%%%ing me off so lets make it simple and loose them. OR You can do them anytime you want if you feel like it. Ya, That will work.
Ok, Sorry for that. It almost sounds like BOM. Don't want to go there for sure. I think I will order French lettering for my pitbox so I fit in better next year. Ya, Thats the ticket! Ok better stop now. It really isn't that big a deal. Its actually All Sparkys fault for putting this darned Rant button here R%%%%. You get what you play for!
In real life, these are hardly hot topics. The pattern points thing will get sorted out on the next cycle but as long as you do all the maneuvers it doesn't make any difference either way.
Brett
-
The good thing about eliminating the pattern points is that the Judges won't have to spend as much time discussing the fine points of the errors and the consequences. They really should agree on whether pattern points are to be awarded or not, don't you think? If it helps the Judges, I'm in favor of it. It will also help speed the contest along, and help the next flier, who already has his engine bumped and is wanting to signal the Judges. Happened to us last weekend...I was Judging with Leo. Even if it takes a walk over to talk to the ED, or consult the rulebook, it has to be done right then and there, IMO, while the incident and flight are fresh in our minds....such as they are. If this new rule change doesn't fix that, we don't stand to gain anything, IMO. S?P Steve
-
When were these proposals voted on? Z@@ZZZ
-
The good thing about eliminating the pattern points is that the Judges won't have to spend as much time discussing the fine points of the errors and the consequences. If this new rule change doesn't fix that, we don't stand to gain anything, IMO.
I've gone on about it at length in the other thread, but I sure don't think it's going to save any time or confusion! Certainly not in the short term.
Brett
-
Bill & Brett,
Sorry , the last I had heard was that FAI was going to have 0 K factors on a trial basis, and that Canadian contests were doing the same.
I have the untmost respect for Keith, but as you can see many of us diagree with this one.
As to the numerous changes over the years, yes, there have been some good one, but overall there have been too many changes that were not needed. End of discussion.
-
This subject belongs on the Stunt Hangar Rules Forum.
-
When were these proposals voted on? Z@@ZZZ
Have you been out of the country or not paying attention to the forums? I am a rule board member and was asked to take the position several years ago and caught flack in that some thought it should go to a NATS competing person. I flew Int several years and Brookins finally convinced me that we were beating our heads against the wall doing it. The best I ever done was a 6th out of about 15. I also solicited on both forums input from my district as far as the proposals. Need to go look to see how many are PAMPA members, but, maybe had a half dozen people responded from district IX. The rest were from other districts. If you look you can't blame anyone but yourselves if certain proposals passed or not. I voted District IX against all of them. Now as usual, it is after the fact and those who could did not say anything. All you have to do is be an AMA member and fly the event. Have fun, DOC Holliday
-
I've gone on about it at length in the other thread, but I sure don't think it's going to save any time or confusion! Certainly not in the short term.
Brett
Brett....I looked for "the other thread", with no luck. Was it here on StuntH anger, or over on Leonard's forum? Any chance you could provide a link?
At least, I remember there was some discussion on the subject, which seems to have escaped others attention. I don't believe I've seen the text of the new rule previous to Howard's post, but then a lot of bad stuff has been happening to me during the past year...two surgeries, hospital time, etc. Ewwww! Best regards, Steve
-
Have you been out of the country or not paying attention to the forums? I am a rule board member and was asked to take the position several years ago and caught flack in that some thought it should go to a NATS competing person. I flew Int several years and Brookins finally convinced me that we were beating our heads against the wall doing it. The best I ever done was a 6th out of about 15. I also solicited on both forums input from my district as far as the proposals. Need to go look to see how many are PAMPA members, but, maybe had a half dozen people responded from district IX. The rest were from other districts. If you look you can't blame anyone but yourselves if certain proposals passed or not. I voted District IX against all of them. Now as usual, it is after the fact and those who could did not say anything. All you have to do is be an AMA member and fly the event. Have fun, DOC Holliday
Gee DOC THANKS for the spank on the ass n1
I've been off the fourms for over five months. Just got back on.
I never asked about blamimg anyone.
Sitting at a picnic table a few weeks ago I ask a former WC on the new rule changes. Even he said he didn't know all off the changes, and we talked about BOM, K-Factors, Pull testing, and other points of interest.
All I wanted to know is WHEN was this voted on. AND WHAT PASSED!
Could someome post them please! ???
I went to AMA a saw nothing there......and yes I'm a AMA Member. HB~>
Scott (out of the loop) Riese
-
OK, so I still have to do the maneuvers in order. Sigh...
I miss the old Stunt-A-Thon with the random assigned patterns. ;D
-
(clip)
All I wanted to know is WHEN was this voted on. AND WHAT PASSED!
Could someome post them please! ???
I went to AMA a saw nothing there......and yes I'm a AMA Member. HB~>
Scott (out of the loop) Riese
The AMA website shows the continuing developments of the rules change cycle throughout the two year change process. This starts with the initial proposals, initial vote by the Contest Boards, cross proposals, interim vote by the Contest Boards and the final vote. That site also shows the complete Contest Board procedures and the calendar for the entire rules change cycle. The rules changes have been posted on one of these several forums over the past two years and there have been notices in Stunt News.
There will be a regular feature in Stunt News starting with this next issue on the rules change process. A section of the PAMPA website is in the works to provide more current information than what can be provided by the bimonthly Stunt News.
Keith
-
There will be a regular feature in Stunt News starting with this next issue on the rules change process.
I asked for a Stunt News CLCB update when Frank McMillan was president, along with a Nats administrator update (about 6 years ago).
-
Thank you KEITH...
This tells me It's about time I started to get back into the loop. I'll try my best to stay up to date. Now that I'm back on line that should be an easy thing to accomplish.
Scott (back in the saddle again) Riese
-
Replace Paragraph 11, Flight Pattern with a new Paragraph 11, Execution of Maneuvers.
“The maneuvers must be executed in the order listed in Paragraph, Flight Maneuver and Scoring. The contestant may attempt a maneuver only once in any one flight. A score of 0 (zero) will be given for any maneuver omitted or not attempted at all, for any maneuver started but not completed, any maneuver with an incorrect number of consecutive figures (either too few or too many), any maneuver flown out of sequence, and/or any maneuver flown without a minimum of the nominal (two) laps interval after the previous maneuver. When a maneuver is omitted or not attempted at all, the remaining maneuvers shall be scored provided they are attempted in the correct order. When performed after the completion of the Four Leaf Clover maneuver but before the start of the Landing maneuver, other maneuvering shall be permitted. All such maneuver shall not be officially observed nor scored by the judges”.
"The maneuvers must be executed in the order listed in Paragraph......any maneuver flown out of sequence...." Parsing the first two sentences(thanks to good old English in grade school) if you skip a maneuver all the following maneuvers are out of sequence, since they no longer match up with the sequence listed in the Flight Maneuver and Scoring section. For example, if you take off and then do the inside loops, skipping the reverse wingover, the second maneuver is now the inside loops, not the RWO. The third maneuver is inverted flight, not inside loops, etc. However, if you switch two maneuvers, say doing the inside squares, then triangles, then outside squares, then the Hor.eight, etc., the triangles and outside squares are out of order, but the following maneuvers are in the proper sequence according to the rules and would get their normal score.
If you did skip the RWO or other maneuver, as soon as you remembered it you could do it, putting all the following maneuvers back into their proper place in the sequence.
-
Steve,
*******I don't believe I've seen the text of the new rule previous to Howard's post, but then a lot of bad stuff has been happening to me during the past year...two surgeries, hospital time, etc. Ewwww! Best regards, Steve****
and dont forget getting beaten in your first contest in a long time by an ELECTRIC!!!!!!!!! S?P VD~
-
This may all be moot to me. I turned 60 yesterday. I can't remember the pattern today. n~
bob
-
Steve,
*******I don't believe I've seen the text of the new rule previous to Howard's post, but then a lot of bad stuff has been happening to me during the past year...two surgeries, hospital time, etc. Ewwww! Best regards, Steve****
and dont forget getting beaten in your first contest in a long time by an ELECTRIC!!!!!!!!! S?P VD~
Mark...you left out the "F-Bomb". If it ain't got a piston, it gets piston. "Bring that over here, I need to relieve myself!" Aw, just kiddin' around...whatever floats yer boat...or flies your plane, actually. It just seems wrong to me.
Maybe too easy, toy-like. Know whut ah mean? LL~ Steve
-
yeah but ya still gotta wiggle the handle in the right place
-
If you're just now finding out about appearance points, I can't wait till you find out about having to weigh the models on a cold windy morning before the contest. Also the new line size requirements! If you can build a 63 oz model with a piped 90 in it, you can fly it on 0.015 cables. Cheers.
-
If you're just now finding out about appearance points, I can't wait till you find out about having to weigh the models on a cold windy morning before the contest. Also the new line size requirements! If you can build a 63 oz model with a piped 90 in it, you can fly it on 0.015 cables. Cheers.
Yeah, good luck with that.
Actually, on a serious note, does anyone know what diameter those Yatsenko lines might be? Maybe I can use those now.
Brett
-
That proposal failed, did it not? Pull tests are still based on displacement, according to my interpretation of the rules vote.
-
If you're just now finding out about appearance points, I can't wait till you find out about having to weigh the models on a cold windy morning before the contest. Also the new line size requirements! If you can build a 63 oz model with a piped 90 in it, you can fly it on 0.015 cables. Cheers.
As a CD I do not intend to weigh any models at all. Under our current system all we do is ask the modeler "Hey, what is your engine size?" before we pull test. Under the new rule I will just yell out "Hey, how much does your plane weigh?". If that is not satisfactory, then everyone can just fly with .021 lines. I will have scales available for the modeler to weigh his plane before the contest.
Even at the NATS, no one has ever visually checked my engine size. The pit boss always just yells "What is your engine size?". And, only once in three years at the NATS has anyone ever mic'd my lines.
-
The proposal passed. 6-3. I wrote to all I could. Keith even voted against it on the final ballot, but it passed.
-
I agree with Louis and if I'm CD again next year that is what we will do in Tulsa.. Ask the pilot and if he isn't sure have scales available, end of problem...
-
The proposal passed. 6-3. I wrote to all I could. Keith even voted against it on the final ballot, but it passed.
This doesn't make sense. Trostle voted AGAINST his own proposal! Yet the CLPA Contest Board voted to pass it? It should have been withdrawn from consideration.
Clayton Smith
AMA 16879
High Point, NC
-
Brett, you might look into the F2D combat lines from Italy/Russia. 4 strands of brass-plated music wire. Stuff I got is .42 mm(.0165in.) and pull test easily to 65lb per line, compared to 35 lb or so or .015 stainless or 45-50 lb. for .018's. They aren't as easy to handle as typical stainless lines- much springier, tend to form loops, the twist in the individual wires isn't very well balanced so the lines tend to develop loopy twists that take more care in reeling up. the biggest negative is keeping them dry, especially in the terminations so they don't rust. WD-40 or something similar is a must.
-
How does one find the record of the rules proposal vote? What I saw was http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/ruleproposals/finalvoteresults.aspx and http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/ruleproposals/claerobatics.aspx
Howard (I'm with Scott) Rush
-
Looks like the AMA site has a misprint CLA-09-0 is probably CLA-09-9 as I see no CLA-09-0 in the proposals. These are the same likks more or less I posted earlier...
-
CLA-09-9 had a cross proposal against it that failed. I think that probably caused the numbering change somehow.
-
The proposal passed. 6-3. I wrote to all I could. Keith even voted against it on the final ballot, but it passed.
All I can do is laugh... LL~
-
You know.....since the evil guy, we have been pounded and pounded that PAMPA runs PA in the USA and that the AMA will abide by whatever PAMPA suggests....
WTF happened here?
I never saw anything in Stunt News about rules proposals....and my District Director was NOT included in any talks about rules changes....
It sure seems to me that things are a bit skewed....
-
PAMPA has no official function whatsoever when it comes to AMA rules proposals...
Some people get confused.
-
At the PAMPA business meeting at the Nats this year I expressed my concern that there should be much more up front visibility of rules proposals in SN. The official AMA process has visibility, but you have to know where to look, and when, to find it. I knew that half of the members at the Nats meeting didn't know the changes for 2009. I got a late start lobbying against these proposals and wasn't successful. The late start was that, like I said, you have to look in the right places at the right time. The internet AMA site is helping though.
At the business meeting, I suggested that the PAMPA competitions committee (has been escenitially inactive) should be activated. I think Bill Rich said he would look into establishing a place on the PAMPA site for rules proposals discussions.
Although the official process for rules is an AMA procedure, PAMPA as an organization, should (must) be knee deep in the process, in my opinion. Rules proposals should be discussed at length in SN and receive ample visibility so we have time to contact the AMA district PA rules board members.
-
This will make the anti BOM people very happy.
But every change has a consequence.. Maybe we should perform maneuvers in any order that we want... The judges would just love that!
But I have another question... FAI is going to eliminate K factors.
I have never liked K factors because everyone does the same maneuvers, therefore from take off to landing there is no change in difficulty for any pilot. It is not like diving where you can choose you dives.
But here is the BIG question: Does no K factor mean that each maneuver is worth only 10 points? Does that mean that scores will be given in 0.1 increments? That makes the USA system of 40 points max look a whole lot better.
It seems that the Pattern that was brilliantly installed by George Aldridge and others is slowly being torn apart by people who want a personal change.
Do a maneuver out of order... that hurt ME... change it.
I forgot a hand signal before I started the pattern... that hurt ME... change it.
(People look at me funny because I still signal as a courtesy to the judge telling them I am starting the pattern on the upcoming lap)
I don't work as hard to finish my airplane and got less appearence points... that hurt ME... change it.
I don't build my airplane and got no appearance points because some judge actually asked me if I built the airplane... that hurt ME... change it.
I am so disgusted about the endless trivial changes, that I almost don't care anymore
I wish I'd have said this Tom, I'm glad you did, the event is being chipped away at by people that don't want to step up to it at it's full height.
-
At the PAMPA business meeting at the Nats this year I expressed my concern that there should be much more up front visibility of rules proposals in SN. The official AMA process has visibility, but you have to know where to look, and when, to find it.
Again, exactly what I said to Frank...
I have always felt it was odd that we have an an organization that is supposed to represent the competition stunt pilot and the newsletter of that competition organization appears to have no function whatsoever when it comes to the administration of competition. The newsletter serves to simply report news and events as an after effect and has no communication tools to engage the people for the actual shaping of the event.
When I say "event" I mean the REAL event, not the politics of PAMPA.
-
You forget there are people out there that don't belong to PAMPA or don't want to be PAMPA members. The AMA is the controlling organization and has been since I became a member back in 1956 and have never lapse membership. I didn't join PAMPA until I started to fly stunt. Those that frequent this forum as well as others have no excuse as to the outcome of the rules proposals. Being on the board, does that mean I have to contact every AMA and PAMPA member individually? Having fun(I think), DOC Holliday
-
The rules process, FAI team selection process, and Nats operation are AMA functions. PAMPA has no official function, and you don't need to be a PAMPA member to participate. Any surprise I got from the rules changes is my fault. At any time during the process I could have looked at the AMA Web site or merely asked my district representative, whom I see at the flying field often. Furthermore, he actively sought my opinion. I received this message from him last November:
"This is the time for the control line rules proposals to get their first vote. Please spend a few minutes and review the CLA proposals on the AMA web site, and let me know what you think of them. I have until Dec 15th to vote.
This is being sent to all Dist 11 stunt fliers that I have e-mail addresses for. If you know of others, please forward this to them."
-
Yes, but …… PAMPA should be active in, and participate in, the vetting, communicating, and refining of PA rules. My opinion at least. Who better to provide advice and council to AMA than the Special Interest Group? True, the only voting occurs with the “AMA” PA contest board, but ….. “they is us”.
Back in ‘90 something, when the safety thong rule got re-instated, I lobbied against it to no avail. What I found out was that most of the PAMPA membership didn’t know how the AMA rules change process worked. At that time, I made a terrible mistake in fairly publicly blaming the controlline contest board chairman of acting without any feedback from PAMPA. I was wrong. PAMPA was involved.
The interesting thing I found was that PAMPA was ask by the controlline contest board for input into this rules change. As it turned out all district reps were queried for input on the safety thong rule. Out of all districts I think there were 8 votes. 7 for and 1 against. Unfortunately, I don’t think these reps carried the words about the rules out well enough to the members. There wasn’t discussion or communication in SN about the proposal. And poof, there it was. We got the safety thong back. (I not here to argue the need or not for the thong …. that horse is out of the barn)
The un-intended consequences of this proposal was the need for emergency rules changes to eliminate the “starting and takeoff in one minute” bonus points. No biggie points-wise, but people were rushing to get the engine started and cutting themselves on running engines trying to get to the handle to get the safety thong attached in time. (Actually a couple of quite visible prop accidents that really probably wern't that related to the thong prompted the emergency action)
So, add a column to the spreadsheet for plane weight, unique pulltest required, and line size. Also, start building new pulltest machines.
-
"Who better to provide advice and council to AMA than the Special Interest Group? "
For stunt rules, people who fly stunt. For Nats operation, people who go to the Nats. For team selection, people who go to the team trials.
At one time, there was a general AMA control line contest board. Its members were not familiar with all events, so PAMPA may have helped distill stunt advice for them. Now the AMA has a separate stunt contest board. Its needs no input from an intermediary, and I hope it doesn't accept any.
-
Article 1 ....... The purpose of the corporation shall be to promote, preserve, and improve the Control Line Precision Aerobatics events.
Article 2 ... PAMPA is recognized by the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) as the Special Intrest Group (SIG) representing Control Line Precision Aerobatics (CLPA) enthusiasts on a national and international basis.
.... they is us ... us is them ...
One way to look at this is that AMA thought these new rules would be best for our event ....
Thankyou AMA
-
That's what PAMPA claims to be and pretends to be, but having put a lot of volunteer effort into PAMPA, I am very disillusioned.
-
I do not intend to speak for Bill Rich. However, he and I have talked about one of the issues being discussed here as well as what has been discused here and other forums. Starting with the next issue of Stunt News, there will be a monthly column that outlines the rules change process, the possible need for rules change proposals, announce proposals as they are received by the Control Line Aerobatics Contest Board (CLACB), same with cross proposals, announce the results of the initial vote, the interim vote and final vote of the CLACB, and hopefully promote dialog throughout the rules change process cycle among CLPA enthusiasts and with their representatives on the CLACB as well as the PAMPA Competition Committee. Work is underway to include similar information on the PAMPA website which will be more current than what can appear in the bimonthly PAMPA newsletter. When appropriate, the column will include material from other PAMPA members.
Keith Trostle
-
Keith....this is pretty much closing the door after the horse has left.....
-
Thank you Keith.
This is an excellent idea and will be a big help to all of us in the next rules cycle.
It will make it very difficult for anyone to say: "When did THAT happen? I never heard of THAT RULE! .... etc." n~
Regards, H^^
-
Keith....this is pretty much closing the door after the horse has left.....
Rich,
Interesting comment. Does that mean that we should not try do do something different and better for future change cycles?
The rules change cycle, proposals, and the vote of the Contest Boards have always been available by the AMA. In the past, there have been notices in Stunt News and on the PAMPA website about various change proposals. Starting with the next issue of Stunt News, there will be a regular Rules column that will make current rules change information more readily available to those interested. There will also be similar information in a rules section (in work) on the PAMPA website.
Keith