Canada adopts full FAI F2B rules

[Kim Doherty]

A good day to you all,

As the Chairman of the Model Aircraft Association of Canada’s (M.A.A.C.) – Control Line Precision Aerobatics Committee I am proud and pleased to announce that Canada has adopted the full FAI F2B rules. This was done to ensure that our flyers could compete under a modern set of rules which recognize the growing influence of Electric Power and ARF’s as well as being continually up to date. This move also enables our flyers to compete under the same rules that they will face at a World Championships.

As anything can be improved upon, our committee has (wisely I think  :-) ) voted to implement the rules within the following contest structure:

1.   A Concours award for the best looking plane will be voted on by all competing pilots and handed out at all contests.

2.   We will use non k-factor scoring until the final decision on whether to retain k-factors has been made by the F2 subcommittee. All contests will be scored both ways to provide comparative data.

3.   We will implement FAI Skill Classes as follows:

a.   Beginner
b.   Intermediate
c.   Advanced
d.   Expert



I would like to thank my fellow committee members: Chris Cox, Bruce Perry, Keith Varley, Chris Brownhill and John McFayden for helping to shepherd these changes through the political process to a successful conclusion.


Warmest regards,


Kim Doherty
kdoherty@sympatico.ca
905 274 5087   

[proparc]

Kim, how do you get a hold of a set of Skywriter plans? Thanks in advance.

[peabody]

Kim....good for you guys! Don't expect the US too follow suit....it makes too much sense to be in step with the rest of the planet...

[Kim Doherty]

Kim....good for you guys! Don't expect the US too follow suit....it makes too much sense to be in step with the rest of the planet...

Rich,

Thanks for the endorsement. A major issue was precisley that. Continuing to tie our rules to the U.S. rules was like asking the Titanic for a tow back to port. The world is a very small place and Canada needs to be in step with the rest of the world.

Kim.

[john e. holliday]

great going Canada.  Wouldn't it be great also if the good ole USA followed suit and just had one set of rules for precision aerobatics?  DOC Holliday

[Kim Doherty]

John,

Thanks for another vote of support for our rules change. Yes it would be nice if the U.S. followed suit as I think it would allow a lot of people to get back to doing what they love to do without all of the rancour that seems to be attached to it presently.

Kim.

[Bradley Walker]

Thumbs up to sanity!!!

Great job Canada!!!

[Kim Doherty]

Thumbs up to sanity!!!

Great job Canada!!!

Thanks Brad.


Kim.

[Bradley Walker]

Thanks Brad.


Kim.

No!!!

Thank you Kim!!!!

BTW, I thought you were great at the WC's!!!

I want Skywriter plans too, BTW.

[Bradley Walker]

I campaigned for this in the U.S. in my Flying Models columns of the 1980s! But, alas to no avail...

It just makes sense to be in step with the rest of the world on CLPA rules. We would be taken much more seriously in the CIAM meetings if we were in step with the program on a regular basis. Brad, we find ourselves in agreement; how often does that happen? 

Bob Hunt

Well, for about 20 years it was 100%.  When you were the editor of Flying Models, I literally hung on your every word.

I guess we parted ways on Al Dimeola.  I have always been more of a Randy Rhoads, Tony Iomi, Van Halen type guy.  Preferring buzz over beauty.

I like the FAI rules.  They make sense....and they change, and are updated as the times change.  <gasp>

[Bruce Perry]

I know where you guys can get a great new set of rules much like the FAI complete with skill classes. 
They're hot off the press and going fast.

I'm a BIG BOM supporter and I'm pleased that we have retained the concours award.  I just don't see many top level competitors swallowing their pride to fly someone elses product.  No matter what happens an underlying BOM will always exist.  Pride of ownership, design etc will prevail.  This will allow those without means or ability to come and play too.

Time to move along.

I'm very proud of our new rules set and can see the future of CLPA following our example with skill classes and concours awards.

Bruce 

[kvarley]

One of the reasons that I supported the change to F.A.I. is the scoring system . Scores are to be  from one to ten with increments of one tenth of a point.  The way that I prefer to think of it is a judge can look at a manoever and decide that it was about 69% perfect  .Then he would write down 6.9 .   I have always labored with decisions when judging in A.M.A. Sometimes so long that the next manoever has already started before I got the score written down . I expect this new system to be a fresh breeze to judges.  Keith Varley

[Bill Little]

Hi Kim,

That is a great accomplishment!  I would have no objections to the US of A going to the FAI rules.  It would definitely make things a lot easier for everyone around the World.

While talking with Mr. Louis Grondal before his passing, he mentioned that the FAI included the "AMA" pattern in the World Championships as one of the three flights used during the first World Championships.  It only seems "fair" that the AMA now adopt the "World's Rules"........  The patterns are not different, the scoring is but that's not a problem, and the BOM is already being dropped, locally, in a lot of places.

I agree with the point that most of the "top" flyers willnot abandon building their own planes anymore than they already have!  Many are already buying wings and such, so the difference would be negligble, IMHO.

Bill <><

[Bob Reeves]

Not to start a controversy, lord knows we don't need or want the type of stuff that happens on that "other" forum.

Anyway: The problem with the US getting into the 21st century is well explained in Ted's post on the "other" forum. The ones that make the rules feel as Ted does and until that changes the US will be stuck in the 80's.

Hurray for Canada and the forthought to make the change, Most of us can only hope someday the US will wake up and decide to join the rest of the world.

[Bradley Walker]

I'm a BIG BOM supporter and I'm pleased that we have retained the concours award.  I just don't see many top level competitors swallowing their pride to fly someone elses product.  No matter what happens an underlying BOM will always exist. 

I truly believe, in my heart, this is where the BOM belongs.  Let the builders go for their trophy, and let the fliers fly.

Run whatcha brung and let's have fun.

[Bob Reeves]

I campaigned for this in the U.S. in my Flying Models columns of the 1980s! But, alas to no avail...

It just makes sense to be in step with the rest of the world on CLPA rules. We would be taken much more seriously in the CIAM meetings if we were in step with the program on a regular basis. Brad, we find ourselves in agreement; how often does that happen? 

Bob Hunt

Hey Bob, would you please submit a rules change proposal for the next rules cycle. Comming from you it might just have a chance, if I , Brad, Doug etc.were to initiate the proposal it wouldn't get to first base.. It just flat makes sense...

[Bradley Walker]

Hey Bob, would you please submit a rules change proposal for the next rules cycle. Comming from you it might just have a chance, if I , Brad, Doug etc.were to initiate the proposal it wouldn't get to first base.. It just flat makes sense...

Steve Moon will be submitting one next cycle.

He is going to submit one each cycle indefinitely.

I really don't think the submitter has anything to do with it.  It is simply just a matter of time, literally.

[john e. holliday]

To all, the proposal must be in before September 2007.  If worded right and each board member gets the right response from his/hers district members, it should pass.  But, will the AMA and members give up the Jr, Sr & Op catagories.  FAI only has Senior and Open.  Lets go for it.  DOC Holliday

[Bob Reeves]

To all, the proposal must be in before September 2007.  If worded right and each board member gets the right response from his/hers district members, it should pass.  But, will the AMA and members give up the Jr, Sr & Op categories.  FAI only has Senior and Open.  Lets go for it.  DOC Holliday

Personally I feel what Canada did, using the PAMPA skill classes is the way we should go. I wouldn't like and don't feel it would have a chance without the skill classes. Eliminating the K factor is also good.

The biggest issue (argument) I feel will be over the Walker Cup.

[Dennis Adamisin]

Kim:
Didn't Canada USED to observe FAI rules way back in the early 1970's or so?  I seem to remember attending meets "over the bridge" in Toronto & Hamilton where they did..?

Bob R:
The Walker Cup died as a "Champions" trophy in 1979.  That was the first year the "fly-off" was eliminated in favor of the top five open qualifiers plus Jr & Sr CHAMPIONS.  When it was a champion's-only fly-off anything could happen (I'm proof).  Now the "kids" are just road kill along the path to the Open championships.   (pardon me, my opinion is showing!)  I presume the Rene Mechin Cup is still awarded to the Sr champ?  That softens the blow a little.

Bob H:
I hope what you say about CIAM proves out. Their embracing of electrics is promising, but their logic behind recently allowing .90's leaves one looking for a clue-meter.  If they were interested in noise abatement and leveling the playing field for electrics, wouldn't they have backed off the IC limit to say 7.5cc?  Frankly their history and impact on RC Pattern, Sailplanes and Electric RC is not stellar.

It is important to note that "Finish" points have been problematic since the advent of Imron class finishes in the late 1970's or so.  BOM is getting less black & white all the time in this era of pre-fabs & "moldies".  Even original designs can easily be designed in CAD, and turned into laser cut "kits" that build better than any kit ever made.   The kit can be perfectly duplicated, or slighly modified and a new kit made.  That part of International rules is closer to reality than not.

Keep PAMPA classes, kill the K-factors and I might buy into it...!

I seem to recall AMA Pres Dave Brown keeps wanting PAMPA to embrace international rules, PAMPA as the SIG for stunt can pretty well call the shots.  So the key is a critical mass within PAMPA.

MAKE NOISE if you believe in it!

[Trostle]

(clip)

Bob R:
The Walker Cup died as a "Champions" trophy in 1979.  That was the first year the "fly-off" was eliminated in favor of the top five open qualifiers plus Jr & Sr CHAMPIONS.  When it was a champion's-only fly-off anything could happen (I'm proof).  Now the "kids" are just road kill along the path to the Open championships.   (pardon me, my opinion is showing!)  I presume the Rene Mechin Cup is still awarded to the Sr champ?  That softens the blow a little.

Bob H:
I hope what you say about CIAM proves out. Their embracing of electrics is promising, but their logic behind recently allowing .90's leaves one looking for a clue-meter.  If they were interested in noise abatement and leveling the playing field for electrics, wouldn't they have backed off the IC limit to say 7.5cc?  Frankly their history and impact on RC Pattern, Sailplanes and Electric RC is not stellar.



I seem to recall AMA Pres Dave Brown keeps wanting PAMPA to embrace international rules, PAMPA as the SIG for stunt can pretty well call the shots.  So the key is a critical mass within PAMPA.

MAKE NOISE if you believe in it!

Dennis,

I will make a couple of comments to your post and for the record to make sure some sort of misunderstanding about the Walker Cup flyoff does not get started. 

Regarding the Walker Cup flyoff:  Indeed, there was a period where the Open Finals was the same as the Walker Cup flyoff where the top 5 Open finalists flew and the Junior and Senior Champions flew in the same rotation.  I believe your assessment that it would become virtually impossible for any Junior or Senior flier would be able to beat all five Open finalists during that Championship finals.  Several years ago, and I am not sure of the year, but it was before 2000 (I could go back through the records to check for sure if it is important, but that Championship round was changed.  What we have at the Nats now  in the Open competition is the semifinals for the top 20, then a finals for the top 5 where the Open champion is determined.  Now, there is a separate Walker Cup flyoff with just the single Open Champion together with the Junior and Senior Champions, much in the same tradition as it was when you competed and won.  One thing is that the Walker Cup flyoff is normally run not long after the Open finals on the same day.  That means that there is still a group of interested enthusiasts to observe that flyoff, not like in the 60's and early 70's when the Walker Cup flyoff was the day after the Open competition and only a few people cared enough to watch other than perhaps family members and pit crews.

Regarding the rules for the larger displacement engines that were adopted for the FAI F2B event and which our AMA CLPA rules now use:  The argument for the larger displacement motors was to allow them because of anticipated more stringent noise controls for FAI  contests.  If and when those restrictions ever materialize, the resulting more restrictive mufflers will result in power reductions.  The increased engine displacement was allowed to compensate for the anticipated reduction in power.  At the same time, the displacement adjustment factor for 4-stroke engines was eliminated so that while it might be easier to meet more restrictive noise requirements with a 4-stroke engine, more restrictive noise requirements might not necessarily give the 4-stroke engines a decided advantage over the 2-stroke engines.  Given the usable power from current 4-stroke engines compared to similar displacement 2-stroke engines, it appears that the decision to eliminate the displacement adjustment factor for 4-stroke engines.

I may not have explained this very clearly, but the above outlines the rational for the increased engine diplacemen ts that were considered by the F2B rules review group.  The Europeans are encountering more and more problems with keeping flying fields because of noise.  The F2B rules change was a proactive attempt to give stunt fliers more tools to be able to still fly with the more restrictive noise limits.  The noise factor is also the reason that electrics were incorporated into the FAI rules at the same time as the increased displacement limit for IC engines.

Now, regarding the matter of replacing our AMA CLPA rules with the FAI F2B Control Line Aerobatics rules.  Over the years, there has been changes in the FAI rules to incorporate some elements in our AMA rules and vice-versa.  There are still some elements of the FAI rules that can be seriously considered to incorporate into our rules.  On the other hand,  there are elements in our rules that I think we would want to keep.  The patterns for AMA and FAI are essentially the same.  There are some minor differences in the maneuver descriptions, but I cannot emphasize enough that these differences are minor.  The FAI square maneuvers and the landing are somewhat different but I do not think we would necessarily want to change our rules for those two maneuvers.  There is certainly no handicap for our American fliers to fly in FAI competition because of the differences in our rules.  As I have mentioned in another forum, I think we would want to continue to control our CLPA event and our rules for it and not depend on the international body of the FAI to make the rules for our event.

Food for thought.

Keith Trostle

[PatRobinson]

Hi guys,
It occurs to me there might be a sticking point to using FAI rules in the US and that point is about line size requirements in AMA rules. I actually prefer the FAI rules simplicity which ties the pull test requirements to the airplanes weight instead of the more complicated line size system we have in the US. It seems that adopting FAI requirements gets into the AMA's Safety and Insurance Baliwicks which might transcend PAMPA's sporting code desires.

Hey, I could be dead wrong but if your going change long standing safety requirements I would think you are going to have to overcome some inertia and resistance.  You could logically argue that the FAI functions with an acceptable safety record using their system to make your case to change to FAI sporting codes but I still would expect some resistance.

It seems that differences between AMA and FAI may be shrinking a little at a time like the possibilityof the k-factor going away and etc., so at some future time it may not matter if AMA and FAI sporting codes co-exist or merge with each other, but till that time, issues like line size requirements may be an impediment. 

Keith, makes a valid point that the AMA and US flyers may wish to retain autonomy over their own sporting code through guidance from PAMPA because a national organization may be more responsive to it's members
wishes than a larger international organization can have the flexibility to be.
 
 I would be curious to hear Keith's input on how resistant the AMA and perhaps insurers would be to ending established line size requirements in our sporting code. I may be dead wrong about how much of a problem
changing these safety issues would be and I will gladly defer to those with a
better understanding of how the process works to give us the facts about what would actually be required to go about making such changes.
Normal rules-change process has changed the details in the line size requirements over the years , but totally ending line size requirements seems to be a much more sweeping change that I would think the AMA leadership would have to directly take a hard look at.  So, Keith Trostle , how would this process work?   

I am not really for or against the US adopting FAI sporting code but if the two codes continue to get more alike during upcoming rule change cycles in future years it may become a moot point and not matter but the people charged with making potential changes will have to address thorny issues like line size requirements.  It's just something to think about, guys.
                                                            Till next time,
                                                              Pat Robinson

                                       

[Dennis Adamisin]

Hmmm,  Since I am back to saying REALLY stupid things in public my "comeback" must be progressing! 

I did not know that the Walker Fly-off had reverted to just the Champions.  Glad to hear it now, and I APOLOGISE to this forum for "venting".  Even back in 1979 when the Walker was combined with the Open top 5, the proponents of that change believed they were doing the right thing - I just did not agree with those reasons.  I have felt it should remain its traditional role as a flay-off of champions, and have never missed a chance to say so -  I am just out of date!

As for the approval of larger displacements for F2B in anticipation of noise abatement standards; I guess I do not understand why do one without the other.  If I understand this correctly we can now fly "noisy 90's" until there is a noise standard?

I thought the way they did it in other events like RC Pattern was to write the noise standard, then they messed around with 2 stroke and 4- stroke displacment limits until finally (I think) they abandoned those in favor of the noise standard and the "2 Meter x 2 Meter" airplane rule, with the pattern flown within a "box".  They evolved to where they are today, guess I would have thought that they would skip some of those intermediate steps given a clean sheet.  Thus it would seem based on that history, the more direct approach would be a noise standard THEN relaxing the displacment limits.

Consider this: if instead of increasing displacement in anticipation of a noise standard, they could have REDUCED the displacment to say 7.5cc (.45) and given the e-power guys a more level playing field, thus ENCOURAGING noise abatement in advance of a standard.  Instead we now get to figure out how to make a competitive bird with an electric that performs like a 15cc engine. E-power is not yet mature enough to "win" that comparison. 

One unfortunate outcome was that a couple of their rule changes had the effect of instantly obsolescing ALL the equipment then in use in RC Pattern.  Noise abatement in F2B is prudent, but no doubt it will obsolesce a lot of engines and airframes (unavoidable).  I hope WHEN those changes occur the obsolesence events are kept to a minimum.

I never considered the differences in the AMA & FAI patterns to matter much.  Always tried to fly in under 7 minutes anyway - was not that hard to do and saves wear & tear on engine and airplane!    FAI scoring always seemed to give us grief - probably because we only drug it out once every two years!  Allowing decimal scores sounds like a good idea.  I think the K-factors, though well intentioned, just place TOO MUCH pressure on the judges, I'd like to try it without K's.

BTW does the 2 meter airplane rule apply to F2B?

[PatRobinson]

Hi Dennis,
I linked to the FAI sporting code and the answer is YES
The Maximum wingspan is 2 meters or  (78.7399") long,
The  Maximum length is 2 meters or (78.7399") long.

The Maximum weight is 3.5 kg. or (123.4587" or (7.7161 lbs).

Some months ago I innocently asked why FAI rules are more restrictive about size than AMA rules. it occured to me that twin engine airplanes like
"LA Heat" or experimental high-aspect-ratio wings might exceed the limit,
so I just wanted to understand the logic of the rules.

Somehow, my simple question got perceived by some folks as an attack on FAI which never even occured to me because I just wanted to understand.

What I did find out was that there are very real concerns about the size limitations of international flying sites and getting some big modern planes to fit on max lines is already becoming a problem.  I then, innocently asked, why not make it incumbent on the flyer to adjust his line length to conform to
a maximum distance from the center of the handle to the wingtip in order to fit existing flying sites.This would have been a more precise method because of variables in leadout length and handle cable length can add up to +/-
6-12". This way if a pilot wanted to fly his "LA Heat" in FAI then he could still fly but he would have to figure out how to make his set-up work within the maximum distance to the wingtip. If a flyer wants to fly an airplane an airplane that is outside the norm then he must conform to the flying site and not the other way around. This would allow some flexibility in design without creating problems. I never really did get an answer to this question but no big deal.  Hope ythis helps Dennis.
                                                                       Pat

 

[Dennis Adamisin]

Thanks Pat,
Actually my question was on be half of my brother: he told me wanted a high AR wing and was thinking around 80"  I told him he might have to shave the wing tips a little to get it to 2M (78.74")  I guess he just wants an IMAA legal CLPA ship!

OF COURSE what you said about measuring to the outboard wing tip is the most direct way to deal with the size of the circle the model takes up - but we all know sometimes old habits and pardigms die hard...

Frankly I think the biggest barrier to overcome with FAI rules for CLPA in USA will be that line diameters will change - smaller.  That will be a TOUGH nut to crack with AMA Safety committee who will PERCEIVE this as a regression. 

[SteveMoon]

Kim: Bravo to Canada! The description of your new rules is quite logical,
sensible, and simple to me. I have already proposed several times to
eliminate BOM, but still award a 'Pilots Choice Concours' award in the USA,
but it is consistently shot down by the old guard. I will continue to propose
it, though, because I strongly believe that this is the first step to be
taken for the USA to get in line with the rest of the world.

Thanks, Steve

[Kim Doherty]

Dennis said:
"Didn't Canada USED to observe FAI rules way back in the early 1970's or so?  I seem to remember attending meets "over the bridge" in Toronto & Hamilton where they did..?"



Dennis,

Sorry for the delay, I had to consult with people who are MUCH!!  :-)  older than I am to make sure I got the answer right. We did in fact use FAI rules in the early seventies until the last CNE contest around 1980. It was done to of all things: AVOID THE FUSS OVER THE AWARDING OF APPEARANCE POINTS. (40 points!) Remarkably, the world is still spinning on roughly the same axis as it was back then. It was also done to ensure that the contest concluded at the designated time as we were limited as to how long we could have the field.


Kim.

[Kim Doherty]

Kim: Bravo to Canada! The description of your new rules is quite logical,
sensible, and simple to me. I have already proposed several times to
eliminate BOM, but still award a 'Pilots Choice Concours' award in the USA,
but it is consistently shot down by the old guard. I will continue to propose
it, though, because I strongly believe that this is the first step to be
taken for the USA to get in line with the rest of the world.

Thanks, Steve

Steve,

Thanks for your support of our move to FAI rules with Skill Classes and Concours Awards.

One day a long time ago after having flown in enough FAI contests to think that I knew what I was thinking about, I thought that we should also move to FAI rules. As I probed around the edges of just how this might come about, it became clear that to do so would necessitate making the change from the inside rather than from the outside looking in. So I became a member of the MAAC Control Line Stunt Committee and finally assumed the Chairmanship. In September of last year I submitted a proposal at our local zone meeting. It then came up for debate within the coimmittee. There was a fair bit of give and take to get to the point we are at now. I would especially like to emphasize the GIVE AND TAKE part. Everyone on the committee contributed and everyone gave and took. After a fair bit of rational debate we put it to a vote. It was a no-brainer. Everyone had gotten the key piece of what they wanted and we all could all walk away proud that we had done the right thing.

If you seek to make a change, (any change) It is far easier to accomplish from within than without.

Thanks again for your support.

Kim.

[SteveMoon]

Kim: I agree with what you are saying. The CLPA board members rarely change
in the USA, so what little I can do now to get involved is to propose official
rules changes thru AMA. I was told several years ago that if I, or anyone else
ever wanted to see change we would have to do more than just talk about it
and actually submit rules changes proposals. Sounding like logical advice to me
I have done just that. I don't know how one is considered to be on the CLPA
board, but I could venture a guess. I will keep trying to do my part.

Thanks, Steve

[Trostle]

Kim:

(clip)

 I don't know how one is considered to be on the CLPA
board, but I could venture a guess.

(ckip)

Thanks, Steve

Steve,

There is no guess work involved and there it is not a secret.  The AMA has a very clear procedure for the process for who is appointed to the Control Line Aerobatics Contest Board.

Keith Trostle

[Bradley Walker]

Steve,

There is no guess work involved and there it is not a secret.  The AMA has a very clear procedure for the process for who is appointed to the Control Line Aerobatics Contest Board.

Keith Trostle

Where?  I cannot find any information about the members and procedures of the CLACB anywhere on the AMA website.  Is there some handbook somewhere?

Since most folks keep the job for life (or close to it), the appointment procedure does not get a lot of visibility.  It is not like there is campaign or anything in the CLPA community (like in the case of say, a PAMPA district rep) .

The "appointments" are very private and low key.  Most people did not even know there was such a thing as Contest Board before the Internet.  For that matter, MOST people have no idea there is one now...

It is kind of funny that who is President of PAMPA has more importance in the CLPA community than the guys who vote on the rules.  The PAMPA president, for example has ZERO power to actually EFFECT the actual event, where a Contest Board has ALL the power to truly change the event at the drop of a hat.  This is the biggest laugh of all...

[Trostle]

Where?  I cannot find any information about the members and procedures of the CLACB anywhere on the AMA website.  Is there some handbook somewhere?

The various Contest Boards and their members have been published in virtually every issue of Model Aviation for years, probably since you were ever active with model airplanes.  The "procedures" including their responsibilities are outlined in the AMA Bylaws which can easily be found on the AMA websight in the AMA Membership Manual.

Since most folks keep the job for life (or close to it), the appointment procedure does not get a lot of visibility.  It is not like there is campaign or anything in the CLPA community (like in the case of say, a PAMPA district rep) .

Interestingly, the people who seem to want to know how this thing works have found out.  It is not a deep held secret.

The "appointments" are very private and low key.  Most people did not even know there was such a thing as Contest Board before the Internet.  For that matter, MOST people have no idea there is one now...

I do not know when contest boards were initiated, but there was some form of them probably ever since there was an AMA rulebook.  As I mentioned, the contest boards and their members are published every month in Model Aviation.  I do not know who "MOST" people would be, but for people who get the Model Aviation magazine, there is no reason for them not knowing anything about the contest boards and what they have been doing over the years.  The AMA publishes throughout the rules change cycle the various proposals that are made for all events and the actions of the Contest Boards.  It is not a deep held secret.  Admittedly, these actions do not get banner headlines in the magazine, but the information has always been there and regular updates appear now on the AMA website.  Effort is now underway to establish a rules page on our PAMPA website to provide more up-to-date information about possible rules changes for CLPA and to foster discussion about our rules.

It is kind of funny that who is President of PAMPA has more importance in the CLPA community than the guys who vote on the rules.  The PAMPA president, for example has ZERO power to actually EFFECT the actual event, where a Contest Board has ALL the power to truly change the event at the drop of a hat.  This is the biggest laugh of all...

Let's see now. The AMA establishes rules for the various events.  The AMA Contest Boards oversee and control the rules change process for their respective events.  The AMA has procedures for the formation of those boards, how they act and how the rules change cycle process is conducted.  So, indeed, the Contest Board has "ALL the power to truly change the event" as you say.  I would think that logic would dictate this is the way it should be.  However, I do not think the Contest Boards can change the event "at the drop of a hat", whatever that means.  The actions of the Contest Boards are documented throughout the now two year change cycle.  There is plenty of time for individual AMA members as well as the respective Special Interest Groups to interact with the members of the Contest Boards regarding the initiation of rules change proposals, discussions about existing proposals and recommendations to the Contest Board on their vote during the initial vote, generation of cross proposals and the final vote of any change proposal.  PAMPA, as the SIG for CLPA has had an active role in the past in making recommendations to the AMA CLACB (and the Control Line Contest Board which preceded the CLACB an which made the changes for all of the Control Line events).  It is possible that a previous PAMPA president did not bother to get involved with such activities, but that does not mean it has not happened in previous years.

Just because you have not previously familiarized yourself with the process of the Contest Boards and the relationship of PAMPA to the previous CLCB and now the CLACB does not mean that the Contest Board proceedings were or are a deep secret nor that PAMPA does not have an active relationship with the Contest Board.  The only thing that is laughable is that people resort to cheap shots when they do not fully understand an established process that has been going on and published for years.  Your statement that you "cannot find any information about the members and procedures of the CLACB" only means that YOU have not bothered to read the section in the AMA Model Aviation magazine that for years has published the members of the Contest Boards and provides information as the rules change cycle progresses nor did you bother to thoroughly research the AMA website to find the information there that you said you could not find.


Brad,

My response to your comments are included in the above

Keith

[Bradley Walker]

I never said "I" did not understand these procedures, or know who members, how they are appointed etc... 

I do... 

I have taken the time to find out (as Steve has done also).  I have also spoken to my AMA District Rep about the process, as well as several other AMA officers (and you too Keith).

I just agreed with Steve that these facts are not OBVIOUS to the layperson or bantered about like PAMPA political affairs (which have no real affect on the actual event).  People get all in a twist about who will be the next PAMPA president, when it really has no real affect on the future of the event.  This is not true of the RULES MAKING BODY which has tremendous effect of the event.

I also stated that the AMA WEBSITE has very little information on the board itself.  I think this is interesting since it lists RULINGS without actually listing the contact information for the members (if a member which to respond to a ruling).

[john e. holliday]

Hey Keith you have a way with words and I admire you for that.  It still amazes me how meany people do not even open the cover of Model Aviation.  That last rules cycle, out of all the AMA members and PAMPA members that gave me a response totaled to about 8 people.  Even had a response from one person that was not even an AMA member.  Later,  DOC Holliday

[Bradley Walker]

Hey Keith you have a way with words and I admire you for that.  It still amazes me how meany people do not even open the cover of Model Aviation.

HA HA HA HA HA  True!!!

Yet they can quote CHAPTER AND VERSE of the PAMPA Bylaws and debate their merits like seasoned politicians!!!!

BTW, Doc, I hear you are doing a great job for your District (I hear you actually solicit opinions).  Thank you for that.  Many people in their districts never see, hear from, or even know if their rep exists.

[Bill Little]

Hi Brad,

Ron King is our AMA CL VP.  It is true that even though I have tried to really look into these appointments, I haven't *really* been able to find out a WHOLE lot.  The CLACB members are known but how they became members is still a little vague.  Even though the process is supposed to be clear, navigating the AMA web site isn't the easiest one I have tried to figure out.

Not bashing or flaming anyone or the process.  But it isn't a "widely known process", I agree.  Still the process has been in place "forever" and seems to work.

[john e. holliday]

I was asked by the AVP if I would except the position.  Then the District VP contacted me after I said I would.  I guess they were scraping the bottom of the barrel as the saying goes.  Then it went to the chairman of the board if I was okay.  DOC Holliday

[Bill Little]

Thanks for the info, Doc.  I have been under the understanding (correct or incorrect) that it is more or less and appointed position.  Your situation seems to bear this out.  Nothing wrong with that!  And I think you are an able person to do it.

Bill <><