BOM Proposal

[Dennis Adamisin]

Marvin & Randy - great idea and THANK YOU for taking the time/effort and BRAVERY to verbalize it. 

ALL: Great discussion - seems to have hit everyones nerve!

We need to continously review and re-evaluate what we do and how we do it.  I respect - but have never bought into - the supposition that CLPA was ONLY a flying event and that static points were a nuisance.  To me that is like saying playing Quarterback is all about how far you can throw the ball.  In both cases there is a total package at work - and ground points help make the measure of why we enjoy our event.

For most of us Appearance Points = BOM, maybe there is another way, and Marv/Randy's proposal is a start.

I think rather than focussing on BOM we should focus on what will continue the rich heritage of CLPA.  There was a time when it was extremely difficult to achieve a great finish using modeling materials.  But the artists perservered and taught enough of the rest of us how to get better.  Then great new technologies in paint and equipment came along and great finishes were in the hands of a lot more people.  For those without the right sprayers, folks were more than happy to help ther buddies (witness Schultzie's rather extreme story above!)  The bottom line is that finish can now be "bought" too - it just ain't as hard as it used to be folks!  Yet we still tend to evaluate and judge so that Paint = Appearance = BOM.

I think the way we "judge and reward" will help drive the birds that we see.  The way to reward original thinkers and original builders are to directly reward those attributes.  The answer is to revive the old Originality and Realism scores as a measure of original builder content:
* The intent of Originality category was to raise the bar for aesthetics and experimentation - individuality, NOT PREFAB!
* The intent of the Realism category is to preempt the stunt "thingies" - kind of a counterbalance to the extreme experimentation for Originality.

Can you "buy" Originality and Realism? Of course you can.  However, you cannot mass produce it!  Ergo it encourages origanl builder content and contribution.

In the context of ARF/ARC/kit/Plans/Original Design, there is room for all.  However the history that we are creating for CLPA are the birds we are flying now, and our legacy WILL be based (as it always has been) on the original thinkers and builders.

How shall we continue to encourage that?
 

[Steve Helmick]

At a recent local contest, I was judging with a high ranking PAMPA official (who shall remain nameless), and mentioned that I wished the Pattern Points would go away. The reason being, to reduce the hassles of deciding who gets/doesn't get them, for all the bizarre things that can bring up that question, esp. in the lower skill classes. He grinned and said it might be done quite soon, as there was a proposal to adopt the FAI rules. That would also delete the BOM and appearance points, OBTW. Two "problems" solved in one stroke, depending on your POV.

While I can't say I'm all that thrilled with the FAI scoring system, or the 7 minutes, or the weighing of airplanes on the field, or the non-specific line sizes....1-10 points just doesn't seem right. Ten to 100 might be better, but I really like the idea of 10-40 for some reason! We used FAI and 1-10pts. at two Canadian contests I judged at this summer, and it was kinda strange, but doable.  I think the right folks won, anyway. Weird seeing the winner with 130 points. We (Bruce Perry and myself) changed back to 10-40 for Classic, and promptly screwed up, so we were learning the 1-10 scheme fairly fast, as both were small contests. The "K factors" will be abandoned, I'm pretty sure, since the Canadians did it already, and the FAI is at least committed to trying it thataway.  Steve

[John Sunderland]

I like everything I have read here......DO IT! All the discussion and points/ counterpoints certainly are valid....and I really like the idea that a guy who buys a prebuilt wings suffers the same fate as the ARC guys..... totally fair in my opinion.

Where do I sign?

Sunderland

[peabody]

Actually, the period to submit a rule change has passed.
There are four regarding the BOM:
One to eliminate it entirely.
One to fly FAI (which eliminates it)
and two that further convolute the event and make it impossible to score.

[Greg Hart]

Randy, my opinion may not go well here but I think arf's and arc's should have no place in apperance points. If one wants to get them they should learn what it takes to get them. build from scratch, or buy a kit.

[Bradley Walker]

I like everything I have read here......DO IT! All the discussion and points/ counterpoints certainly are valid....and I really like the idea that a guy who buys a prebuilt wings suffers the same fate as the ARC guys..... totally fair in my opinion.

While I agree with this sentiment, I do not think that making more rules to "punish" contestants is productive.

The truth of the matter is the World is moving toward kits with MORE pre-fabrication not LESS.  That is a simple fact.  It would not surprise me if cottage industry companies are considering dropping kits altogether and going to ARC/ARF's 100%.  I know John sells ARF/ARC's 2-1 to kits.

[Bill Little]

Hi Brad,

This is the only ting I never understand in the BOM rules discussions:

While I agree with this sentiment, I do not think that making more rules to "punish" contestants is productive.

Where is the punishment?  There is a rule in place.  As long as the rule has been in place, everyone has known about it.  So how does it punish a contestnt to inforce the rule? 

I know the rule has not BEEN enforcable for a long, long, time, but it's still there.  AS long as it is there, and known beforehand, then there does need to be some structure to deal with the ARC/ARF/RTF situations.


If a contestant is truly excited about the event, then they need to improve their building skills.  OR the BOM rule need to be abolished.

From strictly a RULES aspect. let me compare the argument with the PGA tour. Let's say all the guys going to "Q" School want to have a NEW RULE which allows a player to carry as many clubs as his caddy can bear.  Forget everything except an argument over rules.  Going in, everyone knows the rules.  Will the PGA allow it?  Changing the long established rules needs to have a verifiable REASON for doing so.  Simply not wanting to build your own model is not a VERIFIABLE REASON[/u] to eliminate a long standing rule anymore than allowing a golfer to carry as many clubs as he wants to.

[john e. holliday]

I tried again last night to pull up the proposals on the AMA site to no avail.  What would this world be like if in sports the players had to make their own balls, bats and whatever else they need to compete.  In NASCAR if the drivers had to build their own cars or any form of auto racing.  Same with golf in making their own clubs, balls and shoes.  Bowling, skeet shooting and so many more.  I still say that the top competitors will build their own airplanes to compete with.  As been pointed out, I can build my plane and cover it.  Then put base coats on and then have someone else finish it for me.  No way,  I do not want appearance points for any plane I did not do all the way myself.  Enough said, now to get District IX to wake up and let me know how they want it.  DOC Holliday

[Bradley Walker]

Where is the punishment?  There is a rule in place.  As long as the rule has been in place, everyone has known about it.  So how does it punish a contestnt to inforce the rule? 

Because...

Because there was an "unwritten" BOM rule that was disseminated for more than two decades by some of the most influential fliers in stunt.  Right or wrong, people have been ALLOWED to use pre-fabricated parts for a very long time with no penalty.

Also, as I said, kitting as we know it is diminishing and being replaced by ARF/ARC kits.  That is simply the future of modeling.

We absolutely, positively, do not need any rules that penalize the modeler if they choose to compete.  We need to be as inclusionary as we possibly can.  While the Baby Boomers argue about who they "want" for their beloved hobby, they seem to be missing the fact that when they are gone, who will be left??

I think FAI is the way to go.  Then I will never have to read another BOM thread as long as I live.

[Bradley Walker]

From strictly a RULES aspect. let me compare the argument with the PGA tour. Let's say all the guys going to "Q" School want to have a NEW RULE which allows a player to carry as many clubs as his caddy can bear.  Forget everything except an argument over rules.  Going in, everyone knows the rules.  Will the PGA allow it?  Changing the long established rules needs to have a verifiable REASON for doing so. 

OK.

The original equipment rules for golf only allowed the use of hickory shafts.

Then the steel shaft came out.  Someone decided that golfers should be allowed to use steel shafts.  Many of the "hickory shaft" players of the day complained that it gave a competitive advantage BUT it was decided STEEL was the future of equipment for the sport.

The same arguments have ensued ever since for graphite shafts, steel woods, titanium woods, two piece balls, etc etc etc

Clearly the future for modeling is in the pre-fabricated kit (ARF/ARC).

Using your argument, Tiger Woods should still be playing with hickory shafts, after all it was good enough for Old Tom Morris.

[Randy Powell]

Well, we can always count on some to crab, I guess.

[Bradley Walker]

Well, we can always count on some to crab, I guess.

What does that mean?

I certainly hope that is not directed at me.  I have been saying that ARF's were going to take over the CL stunt market for years.  In fact, feel free to search the SSW archives for threads saying just that.  Of course, Doug, Steve, John, and myself were all told we were wrong, that it was not economically feasible, people would never buy them, the manufacturers do not care about CL, etc etc etc

You can also search and discover who was advocating subverting the BOM as written as acceptable behavior.  It certainly was not me...

Since the damage to the BOM as written has already been done long before I ever got here, I think it time to move on.  I do not think going backwards and making the rule more restrictive is going to do anything positive.

I have  never been a fan of the "half pregnant" type BOM rules as proposed here, sorry.  I have been very consistent about that.  These types of rules are not enforceable and rely on some type of gentleman's agreement to work.  These types of rules can also lead to protests (this is why the "emergency rule" was put into place for the Nats).  I prefer my rules to be something I can see with my own two eyes.  Partial BOM rules will not improve the situation one bit, they will simply confuse the matter.

I have become a big fan of going to FAI since getting to know fliers who compete 100% under FAI rules.  They are simply not inundated with the constant politics that we get here in the US.  I also think their rules make more logical sense.

I think that you should have to build every single stick of your plane to qualify for any Concours awards.  Make people bring pictures like the rocket guys do...

PS:  If you really want to keep the BOM rule, why not just change it to read like the "unofficially BOM rule" which said "51% of construction".  This was accepted and propagated by very influential members of the competitive community.  Apparently, that was good enough for everyone for 20+ years.  Why is it not good enough now?

[Randy Powell]

Brad,

Man, you are just no fun to poke fun at anymore.   

>>I do not think going backwards and making the rule more restrictive is going to do anything positive.<<

I suppose I don't see it as more restrictive. The point was to try to include ARF guys and be clearer about ARCs and folks that use prebuilt parts. I've heard many say that the problem is, the rule is not clear. This was just an attempt to make it more clear and be inclusive. Somehow, that doesn't seem more restrictive but hey, whatever.

Look, you don't like the BOM and clearly don't agree with the proposal. Trust me, you've made it clear. That's fine. We aren't going to agree on this. We have a different world view. And that's fine. I think what bothers me about your position and others with similar attitudes is the lack of any respect for other's views. You want what you want. Great. Clearly you won't be happy with anything less that all you want. Again Great. We get it.

The point here was to let folks make comments about what they thought should be included or left out. Many have emailed me or posted here with constructive criticism on areas they were or were not happy with and that's great. You have posted here what you think. Great. I don't agree with you, but there's nothing wrong with that. I don't have to agree with you. There's nothing personal in this. We just have different viewpoints on what CLPA is and what it should be.

But ultimately, the event will be fragmented and destroyed if some compromise isn't reached. There will always be a few soreheads no matter what is done or if nothing is done. That's just human nature. The point was to try to come up with something that largest number of fliers could tolerate and put this nonsense to rest; if not once and for all, at least for awhile.

[Bradley Walker]

But ultimately, the event will be fragmented and destroyed if some compromise isn't reached.

I do not see that at all.

Don't you think this is touch dramatic, Randy?  I mean seriously?

[Leo Mehl]

I'm all for keeping a BOM as long as it's NOT included in the flight scores. Keep the
Hey, you asked for opinions...

EricV


   Thanks Eric  that is what I am looking for---  people's opinions.  Your's is appreciated just as much as the others.

  Bigiron  aka  Marvin Denny

I'll second that motion Eric. The reason being that not everyone can do a 20 point paint job but the compatition starts from scratch. I do not think that this will matter as far as the beauty and the pride of building your own plane tihs will not change. Also there is alway the fact that judges do take notice of super good aurplanes.I do think this should be two differnt event. A beauty contest an a competition contest.

[Doug Moon]

Oh the wonderful world of BOM discussions.  Do they really accomplish anything?  Sure they do.  People get wadded up and form opinions about people they have never even met.  Also another thing that happens is people get labeled.  Like me.  I get called a whiner, a wannabe, a blowhard, I get told I cant build and on and on.  You would be surprised who it comes from as well.  But hey that is the nature of the forums.  

I can see how the proposal was seen to be inculsive.  But the people who use built and bought parts now but claim BOM sure arent going to all of sudden not claim full BOM.  That isnt going happening.  

Also most of the CLPA community will go with what is there now and or what was there before, or just about anything you throw out there.  It is only a handful who really go back and forth on this thing.  

Plus the CLACB is the real people who matter in this thing.  What will happen is, after initial inquiry the phones will ring and they will vote no.  Simple as that.

Personally I think ARF or ARC or RTF is not a kit.  It is a model plane that you assemble and finish.  Either way the kit is on its way out.  Heck you can buy fully completed RTF rubber power dragonflies and butterflies that are indoor competition rubber power.  The RTF is everywhere.  People just need to get over it.

Nothing will be destroyed or ruined.  Just different at least that is how I see it.  I have flown in many non BOM contests and I can tell you all I had no less or more fun.  It was the same people as always doing the same patterns and having fun.

  

[Bob Reeves]

Brad, Randy may have a good point, we sure saw fragmentation when John B tried to do a few things and all the arguing over BOM just makes the fuse burn faster...

In my opinion, if we keep BOM this proposal is a good compromise.. I would vote in a heartbeat to go the same route Canada did.. This would take BOM off the table and better prepair future flyers for world competition.

[Ron Merrill]

IMHO, people who cheat, are going to cheat, no matter the rule. Do away with the BOM and come into the 21'st century. Ron.

[Doug Moon]

Brad, Randy may have a good point, we sure saw fragmentation when John B tried to do a few things and all the arguing over BOM just makes the fuse burn faster...

In my opinion, if we keep BOM this proposal is a good compromise.. I would vote in a heartbeat to go the same route Canada did.. This would take BOM off the table and better prepair future flyers for world competition.

Bob the fragmentation was within PAMPA.  PAMPA is not CLPA.  CLPA contests all around and the nats still had the same entry levels as usual. 

[Bradley Walker]

Bob the fragmentation was within PAMPA.  PAMPA is not CLPA.  CLPA contests all around and the nats still had the same entry levels as usual. 

...and John Brodak had NOTHING to do with the arguing over the BOM.

John made no effort whatsoever to change the BOM rule or even discuss it.

That was all propaganda.

[Randy Cuberly]

I let this speak for itself. Other subjects are similar.


Source http://mwhodges.home.att.net/new_96_report.htm#pictures

Well, I would point out that a large number of the countries that always exceed the US in testing at HS age do not have mandatory education beyond a certain age that is much lower than in the US.

Also a lot of other countries, especially the Asian countries have "weeding out" testing at early ages and those children go into different types of education than the Math and sciences.  In other words they only test the "cream of the crop" and naturally they excell beyond those countries that test the entire population.

I believe you'll find, in terms of smart vs smart that the US and most of the countries listed are on a level plane.  In fact scientifically the US may enjoy a small edge.

Also I agree with the post above that the "immigration" and dual sanguage problem is becoming more and more serious.

I'm an Engineer and my wife is a retired HS teacher.  I taught at a community college for several years where admission requirements were not very strict but educational standards were high.  Language was nearly always a serious problem for many of the Hispanic students and most that had those problems were not able to continue.
My wife taught in a HS located in a mostly Hispanic region of Tucson and while many of the students were very bright it was obvious that there were many who had been brought into the country illegally with no english skills and they invariably did very poorly.

Look at the drop out rate for HS students.  It tells a very sad story for the US.

Randy C.

[Randy Powell]

Ok, once again, this was posted for comments about the content. Hopefully so it can be improved. Some have done that. Thank you for the input. As far as the rest. Live with it. For this thread, I don't think it much matters if you think the BOM should be eliminated. You have your opinion and have well expressed it. It probably will be eliminated eventually. Be happy with that. And at no time should John Brodak be drug into this. As far as I know, John didn't have anything to do with the current BOM rule or this proposal. Leave the poor guy out of it.

I know that some want to radically change the event. They may eventually get their way. But for now, this is a discussion is for how the current BOM rule can be clarified and made to serve the most people, not whether there should be one.

[Doug Moon]

...this is a discussion is for how the current BOM rule can be clarified and made to serve the most people...

Ok, here goes.

Some people may laugh but this is it.

BOM, Builder of the model.  If you completely BUILT and FINISHED your model from a plan or kit or scratch, not assembled from pre-existing or pre-built or bought sub assemblies, excluding hardware, including but not limited to, controls systems, bellcranks, control horns, landing gear, motor mounting pads, and or RC motor mounts, engines, exhaust systems, propellers, canopies then you may claim appearance points.  The appearance points will be added to your flight score.

If you used an ARF, ARC, RTF, or Bought plane or borrwed plane, or bought wings, tails, fuses, and you did not completely apply the finish you can not claim appearance points. 

You must comply with the BOM to be able to enter events Jr Sr Open.  Adv and PAMPA classes may be entered with a non BOM plane and appearance points will not be awarded and or added to the flight score.

[don Burke]

As some have stated the BOM as currently stated is unenforceable, BUT this is only because of the win-at-any-cost attitude of our current society.

We aren't about to change this attitude in the near future, maybe never.  Personal integrity seems to be on the back burner these days. 

The proposal as stated is a good way to define things for the jailhouse lawyers who are always trying to find a way around things.

In the end it will still depend upon the honesty of those who claim to have fully built their airplane.

[Mark Scarborough]

 simple comment, as for " win at any cost attitude" are you aware of the movement that is going around, soccer and sports leagues that dont keep score, games played without a winner, these are the prevelant attitudes being taught our kids today in school. My dad taught, my brother teaches, I have 3 good friends that Teach. Quite frankly I think this is a bigger problem

[Randy Powell]

>>Ok, here goes.

Some people may laugh but this is it.

BOM, Builder of the model.  If you completely BUILT and FINISHED your model from a plan or kit or scratch, not assembled from pre-existing or pre-built or bought sub assemblies, excluding hardware, including but not limited to, controls systems, bellcranks, control horns, landing gear, motor mounting pads, and or RC motor mounts, engines, exhaust systems, propellers, canopies then you may claim appearance points.  The appearance points will be added to your flight score.

If you used an ARF, ARC, RTF, or Bought plane or borrwed plane, or bought wings, tails, fuses, and you did not completely apply the finish you can not claim appearance points.

You must comply with the BOM to be able to enter events Jr Sr Open.  Adv and PAMPA classes may be entered with a non BOM plane and appearance points will not be awarded and or added to the flight score.<<

Hmm, well, so much for inclusive I guess. I suspect that we've beaten this to death (as we seem to most topics that everyone doesn't agree on).

[Greg Hart]

Randy,
Relating to your scoring table. If I were a on coming Builder, built my first kited plane, and was awarded 10 point for at least a attempted job well done. And someone else brought a Arf and scored a 10 for want ever would give that score a 10, and we both flew a descent flight scoring between us less the 10 points, and the arf won say by 3 to 5 points in total score with the apperance points, Their would be no complaint from me for the other flier winning over me if I had the ARF plane. BUT If I had the built plane I would feel that I didn't really feel I deserved it if because of the PP scoring you proposed. That's why I feel apperance points only should be awarded to the BOM contestant. I have heard I believe it was Mike Foley? once said he wanted to build a plane because one time he lost in placing over someone that had PP of a built kit plane. What a incentive to build a kit, fly it and place with a win, and feel good about it more so then winning with a arf just within a couple points. Arfs and Arcs are great, and have there place, but to give any amount of PP for them just seems not realistic, or enthusiastic to add PP for competing in any contest event. And If a contest is between ONLY Arfs should there be apperance points for that, maybe maybe not. The two shouldn't be combind. This is just my 2 cents worth. I would be curious on a poll on this. What do you guys think?

[RC Storick]

Everyone vote and lets see where we stand.

[Bradley Walker]

I know that some want to radically change the event.

It seems that any REAL change to the event is considered RADICAL (and the Chicken Littles start running around screaming "the sky is falling"). 

That is why it never changes at all.

Unless of course, the CLACB just changes the rules and does not tell anyone.

[peabody]

The PACLCB has even excluded some board members from mailings ad votes...

[john e. holliday]

Actually, the period to submit a rule change has passed.
There are four regarding the BOM:
One to eliminate it entirely.
One to fly FAI (which eliminates it)
and two that further convolute the event and make it impossible to score.

Peabody,  where did you get your information???  AMA has sent me a note saying none of the proposals would be on site until October 30.  This reminds of another issue in which the person never answered the same question.  Where did the info come from.  DOC Holliday

[peabody]

Here Doc:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/ruleproposals.aspx
then click "Control Line Aerobatics Proposals" http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/ruleproposals/claerobatics.aspx

How's that?

[john e. holliday]

Thank you Peabody.  Now why couldn't the person at AMA tell me this.  I spent several days going thru the AMA site trying to find the info.  All I could find was on a helicoptor issue and control line scale.  Thanks again from DOC Holliday

PS: I like Doug Moons Proposal even tho it may not be there.  jeh

[SteveMoon]

Doc: You stated that you would like people from Dist. IX to let you know
how they feel about this issue. This makes perfect sense. At the same
time, though, you are their representative on the CB (as all the others
are as well) and you have been selected to make these tough decisions
as you see fit. Take into consideration what your members feel, what
other CB members feel, and certainly your own feelings on this matter when
you vote.

I checked out the link Peabody posted, and if I had a say on the CB I would
throw all my weight behind Warren's proposal. I feel it is high time we went
to FAI and got in line with the rest of the world. I sent my proposal in as
a steppingstone to that goal. I was unaware that Warren would be sending
in his proposal to go to FAI.

Thanks for all your hard work Doc, Steve

[peabody]

Yup....
I believe that Warren's proposal is what I am going to urge my CLCB guy to vote for....look at the experience that he brings to the event at the top level. When he remarks that the BOM is unenforceable, you can take it to the bank.
10 years ago I was against using FAI scoring......mostly because it confounded the tabulators.  Today, there is a program floating around somewhere that allows instant conversion of scores when entered on a PC....and laptops are cheap and available, as are "ten key" deals....

[Bill Little]

OK.

The original equipment rules for golf only allowed the use of hickory shafts.

Then the steel shaft came out.  Someone decided that golfers should be allowed to use steel shafts.  Many of the "hickory shaft" players of the day complained that it gave a competitive advantage BUT it was decided STEEL was the future of equipment for the sport.

The same arguments have ensued ever since for graphite shafts, steel woods, titanium woods, two piece balls, etc etc etc

Clearly the future for modeling is in the pre-fabricated kit (ARF/ARC).

Using your argument, Tiger Woods should still be playing with hickory shafts, after all it was good enough for Old Tom Morris.

Dear Bradley, my son.........

I strictly stated the "rules proposal" : to CARRY ALL THE CLUBS YOU WANT.   Don't change it to anything else.  Those rules are already in place. 

[RC Storick]

Doc: You stated that you would like people from Dist. IX to let you know
how they feel about this issue. This makes perfect sense. At the same
time, though, you are their representative on the CB (as all the others
are as well) and you have been selected to make these tough decisions
as you see fit. Take into consideration what your members feel, what
other CB members feel, and certainly your own feelings on this matter when
you vote.

I checked out the link Peabody posted, and if I had a say on the CB I would
throw all my weight behind Warren's proposal. I feel it is high time we went
to FAI and got in line with the rest of the world. I sent my proposal in as
a steppingstone to that goal. I was unaware that Warren would be sending
in his proposal to go to FAI.

Thanks for all your hard work Doc, Steve

He should have no feeling in the way he votes. The people have elected him to vote for them on their opinion (NOT HIS) and should vote as THEY see fit..

[Doug Moon]

Robert,

Contest board member are not elected.  They are appointed by the AMA VP of the district.  Also it is not a representative democracy.  IF that were the case there would be multiple CB members per district and the districts with more members would have more reps to equally represent the population.  Then you would be correct in saying the CB member would have no input. 

Just in case anyone is wondering the PAMPA Reps are set up the exact same way.  They are not your reps but your trustees.  You vote them in and give them your trust to make decisions as they see fit.  This is why there is not a membership vote needed for just about all of the goings on inside PAMPA and AMA unless otherwise stated with in the by laws.   

[RC Storick]

so you think that if everyone in his district says no he should vote yes? Get real

If they dont vote for the people they wont be there long!!


The wishes of the few out way the wishes of the many?

[peabody]

Robert....although it's not ascertainable, I would wager that some District Reps have taken the "PAMPA" line, and NOT followed the wishes of those in their District. Several of the District Reps. do not even fly control line.....maybe they used to, but they should look forward, NOT backward....it used to be that we rode flatheads.....and used Fox 35's .... things move forward....which is what the thread is about....are we going to continue to ride flatheads?

[Randy Powell]

Doug,

Good point. It's like the difference between your Representative and your Senator. You elect a Representative to vote in your stead. His job is to figure out what his consituants want and that's the way he votes regardless of what he thinks. He is your voice in government. Your Senator, on the other hand, it much like the Trustee you describe. A Senator votes his conscience. He doesn't poll his constituents. You elect him or her because you trust their judgment and they vote as their opinion dictates. Of course, it he votes against what you believe too many times, next time around, you elect someone else. The Senator knows that and so unless he's stupid, he tries to maintain an idea of what his constituents want.

After reading the proposals, I think is would just be easier to go with Keith's BOM proposal. I don't like that it puts a guy that buys the wing and tail from someone else on the same footing as someone that builds from scratch and I'm not sure how you determine what is 51%, but it's like a lot of things, I guess. Most guys are honest and will report what's there. Others will cheat no matter what.

[RC Storick]

Robert....although it's not ascertainable, I would wager that some District Reps have taken the "PAMPA" line, and NOT followed the wishes of those in their District. Several of the District Reps. do not even fly control line.....maybe they used to, but they should look forward, NOT backward....it used to be that we rode flatheads.....and used Fox 35's .... things move forward....which is what the thread is about....are we going to continue to ride flatheads?

What should happen is everyone vote not just the reps that were appointed. EVERYONE thats why the pole here lets see where it goes.. I will live with majority rules. But I cant live with the rules of a few and or maybe guys who dont even fly.

[Randy Powell]

You know, Peabody, listening to you is sort of like when I go to the RC field. I usually get the "why don't you step up to RC?" question each time. It's the basic assumption that to them, flying RC is somehow superior to control line. Why is it that you feel that making CL less difficult is somehow making it better? I don't see that being like "everyone else" is in anyway better, just dumbing down and making it easier so that people don't have to spend the time learning. They can master the skill quickly. An antiquated viewpoint, I suppose.

I work with a guy that is a computer game fanatic. He plays online games practically as a way of life. He is always complaining about games that are too hard or too difficult to learn. He wants to be able to jump right in and master it very quickly. Interestingly, he jumps from one to the other constantly. He's always jacked up about the latest release then a week later I ask him about it and he says, oh, well it was OK. I asked him why he doesn't stick with a game and he notes that it gets boring after awhile. There is nothing to hold his interest. It's an interesting outlook.

edit for comment

Hey, I just had a thought. I think that guys that consistently score above 550 should have to fly with a handicap. I mean, the fact that they have worked and practiced for years to develop their skills shouldn't give them an advantage. We need to level the playing field.

OK, that's petty (of course). But in some ways I think it relates to a lot of positions I've heard here. It's not fair that some guy that has spend years learning to build and puts out fine aircraft should have an advantage in points over a guy that hasn't. Lets get rid of the BOM to level the playing field. But this of course again relates to one's vision of what this event is. If you believe that it should be changed to a flying only event because that's what "everyone else does", then it's a spurious argument. If you believe that it's a test of the builder and the flier, then it makes perfect sense.

[peabody]

Robert.....
Them's the rules....have been or ages....if yo want to change them you'll have to address the AMA and have them do it....in the mean time. real wore within the confines of what we are given. Contact your CLCB member and tell him what you think.....

There's a flaw in you poll.....there are five proposals so far, and you ask that we vote for two.....sort of like asking if you walk to work or carry your lunch....

[Randy Powell]

Peabody,

Man, you are a classic. Robert is referring to the proposal in this thread, obviously.

[peabody]

Randy....
I am interested in the event surviving....
Excluding folks isn't conducive to that...
Especially at the top (National Championship) level....everyone should stride to be able to compete there....
Right now, pretty points are necessary to be the National Champion....witness the fact that fancy ARFs reign currently...
You know that the inexpensive ARFs are not competitive at the Nats....why not allow an ARF owner enter and learn that for himself.....?

[peabody]

Oh....certainly got sidetracked, didn't it?

[Marvin Denny]

  Guys,  this proposal is an attempt to do several things.
  Since currently,  there is NO BOM rule that stops one from flying in ANY contest except the Nationals in /Jr, Sr, and open.  In PAMPA classes,  it only stops one from getting from 0 to 20 points for the "appearance" of their plane. 
  The awarding of such "appearance" points is solely in the eyes of the judge at any particular contest as there is NO guidelines as to how the points are to be allocated.  Thus  the "points" are a reward for one doing his  own work on his plane.  Currently one who "chooses to "lie" about how much work he does could gain as much as 20 points over more honest individuals.  The proposal here does several things
  One--  it reduces the amount to be gained by lieing   to a ten point spread.
  Two  by separating the categories into Bought/borrowed RTF (0 points).  ARF  (1 to 10 points)  ARC (5 to 15 points)  and Scratch/kit built (10 to 20 points)  Each category will receive points for the work exhibited by the entrant.
  Three--  The overlapping of the points will give incentive to those in each of the lessor classes to do a better job and also to move up into the next higher category.
    Like the current "skill" classes in the flying portion of our event, this will provide a step ladder of sorts in the skill of building.
  It will STILL  retain the "tradition" of building and perhaps even  enhance it.

  It will not be ANY MORE work than is in the present system.
  Bigiron

  Added
  Some  posting on here and some who have contacted me "off line"  seem concerned that the proposal might hurt their products that they are currently producing (or plan to produce in the future).  To the contrary, I think it will probably help their sales as those purchasing such products will get SOME points for their efforts instead of NOTHING.

  I appreciate all the input that all of you have gone to to stress your points of view.

  Thanks again

  Bigiron

[Doug Moon]

so you think that if everyone in his district says no he should vote yes? Get real

If they dont vote for the people they wont be there long!!


The wishes of the few out way the wishes of the many?

Yes Robert if ALL the of the people in the dist called up and told him to vote a certain way that would be the right thing to do.  Just ask Doc how many people called last time we had proposals.  Do all the people call?  Get real.

As far as contest boards go he will be there just as long as he wants.  It is an appointed and I am pretty sure there is no term limit on it either.  Like it or not that is how it works.

[Doug Moon]

Hey, I just had a thought. I think that guys that consistently score above 550 should have to fly with a handicap. I mean, the fact that they have worked and practiced for years to develop their skills shouldn't give them an advantage. We need to level the playing field.

I dont understand.  When and where was it ever stated that removing the BOM was to level the playing field.  I can never recall that being on the proposal of any of the eliminate or redifine the BOM. Pleas enlighten me. 

BUT the current interpretation sure did level the playing field.  You can use anything so long as the box doesnt say ARF. 

OK, that's petty (of course). But in some ways I think it relates to a lot of positions I've heard here. It's not fair that some guy that has spend years learning to build and puts out fine aircraft should have an advantage in points over a guy that hasn't. Lets get rid of the BOM to level the playing field. But this of course again relates to one's vision of what this event is. If you believe that it should be changed to a flying only event because that's what "everyone else does", then it's a spurious argument. If you believe that it's a test of the builder and the flier, then it makes perfect sense.

I say again people moving to no BOM is not to level the playing field.  It is to remove a rule that is not enforceable.  I know you say you know who builds what in your area.  But are people going to readily disclose they buy their wings from Hunt or Planes from Morris and Berry or other parts from Little or a whole host of other builders for hire.  Yet those guys have long lists of people waiting for parts and or planes to be built.  As it stands now you can kind of rationalize that you built enough of it to qualify and no one has to know.  The way I wrote the rule you will flat out know if you are in violation.