Current crop of rule proposals is good!

[steven yampolsky]

Here's my symmary of proposals:

CLA-09-1: Eliminate BOM
CLA-09-2: Switch to FAI rules without K-factors.
CLA-09-3: Allow usage of fiber lines
CLA-09-4: Introduce 10 points for construction. This is in addition to current 20.
CLA-09-5: Introduce 40 points for workmanship(10),realism(10), originality(10) and finish(10). This is to replace current 20.
CLA-09-6: Finish formalized use of official Judge's guide.
CLA-09-7: Remove Pattern Points and replace with FAI F2B interpretation.
CLA-09-8: Change Judge's guide to clarify maneuver wording and to be consistent with AMA rulesbook
CLA-09-9: Change line diameter rules to be based on model weight.
CLA-09-10: Simplify BOM qualification rule to 51% of the model built.
CLA-09-11: same as CLA-09-9 and was consequently withdrawn.

Call your board member and let them know what you think.
For full descriptions visit http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/ruleproposals/claerobatics.aspx

[Bradley Walker]

I think Warren's proposal is tremendous.

It is like the best of both worlds.

[Doug Moon]

I like Warren's proposal as well.  #2  Especially keeping with the 8 minute time limit. 

#9 I also like line sizes based on model weight.  BUT I dont see any data to support any model over 75oz needing to use .021 lines sizes.  Quite the contrary, in the past there have been many models over 80oz and some over 100oz that dont use .021s and never had lines failures due to too much tension.  At least none that were publicized. 

I dont know how to submit a cross proposal but I will figure it our and when the time comes I will try to write a well thought out cross proposal to the weights.  Maybe something like move to FAI pull testing and line size requirements for CLPA.  O rmake the weight something like 100oz.  This will help keep the current development of larger motors moving forward.

#6 I also totally agree with KT's wording about the maneuver descriptions trump the judges procedures.  But I sure wish he would reconsider leaving the name Judges Procedures instead of changing it to say guide.  I think this because labeled procedures it becomes the rules for which the judges follow and makes it very clear to both contestant and the judge what is expected.  It helps remove some of the subjectivity of what the judges are looking for.  I am very happy it was added to the RB and think the name should stay procedure so furture judges can refer to it to form their judging habits and ideas.  It really gives the judges, all judges across the country no matter what contest they are working, the same set of parameters to work from.  This helps everyone.

Thanks to everyone who proposed rule changes.  Voted in or not people thinking about a discussing and proposing rules is good for the event.

[Larry Cunningham]

I'm also glad to see a crop of them. At least some of them may pass, and
some change can take place. Change is desirable in my view.

I'll bet the creator(s) of the BOM never dreamt of all the screaming and gnashing
of teeth it would invoke.

L.

"It's all that the young can do for the old, to shock them and keep them up to date." -George Bernard Shaw

[Steve Helmick]

I'd appreciate it if Brad and Doug would apply the numbers of the proposals to the one's called "Warren's" and "KT's". I know who you're writing about, but not which proposal is whose.

I'm thinking that adopting the FAI Rules without K-factors makes a lot of sense. It gets rid of the BOM issue without being so specifically about the BOM. Thus, it may be easier to 'sell', or 'accept', depending on POV.
It also gets rid of Pattern Points, which are the #1 hassle for judges. There are simply too many ways to screw up and not get PP's. I judged to FAI Rules in two contests in Canada this summer (no K's), and it went ok. There was an increase in  overruns, but I think the more experienced fliers got it ok. Electric starters would have helped in some cases, but some guys are too old fashioned.  Steve

[Mike Foley]

  Since I have no desire to go to the nationals and compete I really couldn't care less one way or the other about BOM. I have seen a lot of animosity between the two sides the subject has created. I think modifying the rules complicates matters more. Keep it in classic where it definitely belongs but I would probably lean towards saying getting rid of it in PA.

Time to move on. The few people coming into this hobby just don't have the time, or desire to build anymore. Its not like it use to be when building your own was the only option. Now that ARFs are proliferating it makes a lot of people take the easy way out. Baby Boomer's have now started to retire and probably half the current stunt guys are pre baby boomers. Time is running out and their won't be a lot of builders still competing ten to twenty years from now. If the hobby is to attract new and younger people then it will be with instant gratification. Of course their are always the exceptional "few"

[Dennis Adamisin]

First, THANKS Steve Y for starting this thread.

Note that at least a couple of the proposals are mutually exclusive: Example if you favor #2 (FAI rules @ 8 minutes) then the proposals for BOM, apperance points and elimination of pattern points are all null.  If recent history is a clue I can understand why Warren feels shell-shocked over the BOM question!

Also, if #2 is adopted then (if I read it correctly) the proposal for judges GUIDE versus PROCEDURES (think it was #6) will have to be slightly redirected to assure the desired outcome - though the basic logic of that proposal remains spot-on.

Allowing non-metallic lines sounds like a nod to the future.  Not quite ready to try them myself but like the idea of making it possible.

Pull test based on model weight (not displacement) makes sense.  I would liked it more with a upper limit on allowable weight - but maybe that's the NEXT cycle!

[Trostle]

First, THANKS Steve Y for starting this thread.

(clip)

Pull test based on model weight (not displacement) makes sense.  I would liked it more with a upper limit on allowable weight - but maybe that's the NEXT cycle!

Hi Dennis,

Just one comment on your post above.  There is an "upper limit on allowable weight" in our current rulebook.  The weight now used is based on the same FAI limit when we adopted the same engine/powerplant limits that are now used for the F2B event.  The maximum model weight for our CLPA models is 3.5 kg or 7 lbs, 11 oz.  It is in the rulebook.

Keith

[RC Storick]

IM for #5 #9 and #10

[Dennis Adamisin]

Hi Dennis,

Just one comment on your post above.  There is an "upper limit on allowable weight" in our current rulebook.  The weight now used is based on the same FAI limit when we adopted the same engine/powerplant limits that are now used for the F2B event.  The maximum model weight for our CLPA models is 3.5 kg or 7 lbs, 11 oz.  It is in the rulebook.

Keith

G' Morning Keith!

I should have been clearer:  I was thinking of a more realistic upper weight limit - like maybe 2.3kg (81 oz).  For CLPA the 3.5 kg limit is pragmatically "unlimited".  I think Windy's second Sweeper is the only one I can think of tha would have failed...?

[Paul Smith]

Lines sizes need to be based on a WORST CASE scenario, not just an isolated incident where an expert pushed the limits and did not fail.

For the protection fo the hobby, we need to size lines to hold the heaviest possible model with the most powerful engine under maximum wind conditions.

I have flown countless 36-powered 24-ounce combat planes on .018" lines.  When we started having failures (due to a new generation of better engines) I test flew on .021" with hardly any loss of performance.  It's hard to imagine a person who would actually want to build and fly a 7-pound airplane with an .80-to-.91 engine on less than .021" lines.

Campaigning for less than .021" on the new MEGA-stunters is nothing short of reckless endangerment.  If AMA obtains a new Technical Director he should put a stop to this.  There needs to be a higher authority for safety than contestants trying to optimize performance.

---------------------

To date, very few MEGA stunters have been built and flown, so to say "we haven't killed anybody yet", is quite an arguement.  So is the plan to downsize safety until a disaster occurs, then go back up one line size?

Speed and Racing have automatic line size increases to stay one step ahead of disaster.   These sizes put the weak engines to a hardship, but insure the community against a worst-case incident.

[SteveMoon]

I submitted rules proposal #1, but I will be contacting my
local CLACB member to tell him that I am wholeheartedly
in favor of Warren's proposal (#2). To me, this is the most
sensible, well thought out proposal put forth in many years.

Later, Steve

[Bradley Walker]

Steve,

Warren's proposal is (#2).

Brad

[Marvin Denny]

  I like ONLY  #6 and #8.

  Bigiron

[Doug Moon]

Paul,

I am not saying we should wait until people get killed to go to bigger lines.  Who said that?  I am saying that current history does not support 75oz planes needing .021 is stunt.  I dont know a thing about combat and the line situation there but that is apples and oranges.  How many pattern masters and like stunters have pushed 80oz over the years?  Plenty have without a tension failures on .018s.  Make it 90oz heck make it 85oz but 75 is near what many stunters are today.  Put together a Strega ARF with a 72 and 75oz is right on target.  There are many out there flying right now in .018s and they failures or crashes to date that are publicized are not due to small lines failing under tension.

Further more look at the FAI competitors across the pond.  They dont have line size requirments in F2B.  If it passes the 10g pull test it is cleared to fly.  If they were running up against tension failures I am sure they would institute line size requirements.

[Bradley Walker]

Further more look at the FAI competitors across the pond.  They dont have line size requirments in F2B.  If it passes the 10g pull test it is cleared to fly.  If they were running up against tension failures I am sure they would institute line size requirements.

WORD. FAI has no lines size requirements at all.  Never have.  Never been a problem.

A lot of the line size rules are totally random in nature, and based on nothing at all.

[Paul Smith]

If your .91 has trouble pulling .021's, then just fly FAI Rules on .012's. 

Of course, if everybody uses marginal lines, then there's no advantage in it, is there?

.45's use .018" lines, don't you think that, maybe, twice the power & twice the weight might need to go up one size?

That "if it passes the pull test" jive only works if somebody really applies the full pull test every time.   We know better than that.

The idea here is the discuss the proposals. 
My last word: Better safe than sorry.

[steven yampolsky]

Of all proposals, there is only one I feel strongly about and hope it won't pass: #5. I urge everyone to read it in full and consider it.  Here's my list of objections:

1) In the paragraph about workmanship, it states that the judgment is purely qualitative, yet it goes on to list quntitative values such as alignment and tip shape symmetry. This is contradictory to the initial sentence statement. Under this rule it's OK to give more points to a model with equal span wing panels than one with asymmetry.
2) Realism portion of the rule will give advantage to scale looking models. Under the proposed rule wording, a bomber will get more points than a purpose built stunt model. While the section is intended to indicate realism portion of the scoring, it mentions as an examples airplanes that were NEVER design for AEROBATICS. Bearcats and F-86 Sabres were not aerobatic models and should get the lowest score. Extra 300, Chipmunk, Yak-55: these are the kinds of airplanes that were designed for aerobatics and are the most realistic renderings if one were to build a stunt model. Just like in section 1), the wording is contradictory.
3) Originality. Under the definition of originality, 99.999% of all models ever been published or kitted  will get penalized. The definition discourages people from publishing their designs. This rule is also the easiest to fake. Take a model, say Impact. Change wing tips, change turtle deck to a bubble canopy, reshape the rudder and you can claim 100% originality.

In conclusion, if this rule is accepted as written, it will open the door for more confusion, contradiction and loopholes.

A VERY similar rule used to be in effect 40 years ago during the Navy NATS era, wasn't it? There was a very good reason why it was taken out of the rules. Did the reason change?

[Trostle]

Of all proposals, there is only one I feel strongly about and hope it won't pass: #5. I urge everyone to read it in full and consider it.  Here's my list of objections:

(clip)

A VERY similar rule used to be in effect 40 years ago during the Navy NATS era, wasn't it? There was a very good reason why it was taken out of the rules. Did the reason change?

Steven,

It probably cannot be argued that the proposal for 40 appearance points introduces more subjective elements into an already subjectively judged/scored event.  The 40 appearance points that used to be in the rulebook, however subjective they were considered at that time, were an accepted part of the event during that era.

Your comment that there was a "very similar rule" tht used to be in effect is pretty much right on.  For your information, the wording in this proposal was, in fact, taken from the 1972 rulebook.  The 40 appearance points were part of the event at that time and had been for some time prior.  In fact, at one point in time, there were 80 appearance points as part of the event when there were not as many flight points available as in the 70's as now.  Also, you stated that there "was a very good reason why it was taken out of the rules."  I do not know what that reason was.  If you have that information, could you share it with us?

Keith

[steven yampolsky]

Also, you stated that there "was a very good reason why it was taken out of the rules."  I do not know what that reason was.  If you have that information, could you share it with us?

Keith, I do not profess to know the reason. As a matter of fact, I have zero knowledge as to what those reasons were. That said, the rules were changed to current 20 points system. I trust the people that voted for it then had good reasons. It would be great if someone who was part of the rule change process give their account of the events, discussions and reasons... Do you think Wynn would have this info?

[phil c]

Regarding line sizes and 021 lines.

CLPA has had very little trouble with line sizes because folks have generally built planes of similar size and weight.  Ergo, no problems.  Going to bigger heavier planes will cause problems. 

From a design/engineering standpoint various events, combat, racing, carrier, have had trouble when the normal line pull exceeded 50% of the breaking strength.  Case in point is the switch from 015 to 018 in combat.  When Howard designed the Nemesis it first flew on 015 lines with a G21 at about 18 ounces.  The line pull was about 12 lb. and the design load for 015 lines is about 24.5lb.  We had flyaways.  Switching to 018 lines upped the breaking strength to 34 lbs. and most of the flyaway problems went away.  The current crop of fast ships tend to weigh in at 25-26 oz. RTF and pull some 18 lbs, too much for 018 lines.  If the plane gets loose and cuts across the circle, especially if there is any wind at all, it can easily break the lines.

A 64 oz. stunter on 65 ft. lines going 53 mph pulls about 12 lb. and should be no problem on 018 lines.  Going to 90-100 ounces gets you over the 50% limit and the plane could quite likely break the lines if it got loose and cut across the circle.  The F2B pull test of 10g's is a pretty reasonable pull test for stunt.  An 80 ounce plane would have to pull about 50 lb. which would make 018 lines really iffy.

Another fix is to get some real steel lines.  .016 4 strand music wire lines will break around 65 lb, compared to 50 lb. for .018 stainless.  The problem is they can corrode really easily in the terminations.

[Charlie Pate]

Wonder what the AMA would say about no minimum line dia.
Esp. after a juicy accident.   

[Steve Helmick]

"Wonder what the AMA would say about no minimum line dia. Esp. after a juicy accident."

Yeah. And I don't want to spend the next 5 years in court, testifying and swearing on a stack of Bibles. I know folks who had to go through that scenario, and didn't like it.

I'm concerned about using fiberous (fishing) lines. While I'm sure it'd work ok for 1/2A's, I would rather not be around with larger models flown on it. I fish. The "Super Lines" don't stretch much, but they also don't have good shock strength, or knot strength. If you get snagged, a sharp jerk will snap the line. Or bend the hook or break the rod.  VERY special new knots are used with these lines, often with a drop of CA added for good luck. PLUS, I think you'd find rather higher drag than for an equivalent steel line, resulting in more line bow, more aft leadout positions...maybe beyond the limits of current adjustable installations. Control response will be as if the lines are stretchier, I'd think. Is it worth it?  Another one of the problems is that fishing line is rated in two different ways. One is by it's estimated/guaranteed breaking strength. The other is IGFA rating, which means that it will break at or below the amount stated. Very different meanings, and much different sized lines, with approximately 20% different load capability. No thanks!  Steve

[Bradley Walker]

"Wonder what the AMA would say about no minimum line dia. Esp. after a juicy accident."

Yeah. And I don't want to spend the next 5 years in court, testifying and swearing on a stack of Bibles. I know folks who had to go through that scenario, and didn't like it.

Why do you think that would happen?

The AMA *already* sanctions contests flown under FAI rules (what do you think the Teams Trials are?) and not just in CL stunt or even CL for that matter but in every type of modeling that exits.  FAI rules contests are flown across the entire spectrum of modeling and all over the world.  I do not see any evidence to think that the AMA seems to suspect that the FAI rules are inadequate and there would be any issues if they were universally adopted for ANY type of modeling.

In fact, it might be just the opposite.  The FAI rules might actually be more thought out in many ways.

[Paul Smith]

If FAI Rules are so great, just have F2b contests and don't waste your effort morphing AMA Rules into FAI.

It's easy enough to enforce the pull test at an FAI World Championship.  Putting that system on the local contest circuit across America is another matter.  The top 3 flyers from each nation and the world of control line are two very different things.

Maybe the few people behind this have an inside track to some .013" lines that break at 100 pounds and cost $400 a set.   MINO*







*(money is no object)

[Bradley Walker]

If FAI Rules are so great, just have F2b contests and don't waste your effort morphing AMA Rules into FAI.

I think that is the idea of Warren's proposal (that's #2 Steve).  It appears to be a 95% transition to FAI rules.  I will say that I think Warren's (that's #2 Steve) exceptions to the standard FAI rules are very good.  Particularly, the retention of skills classes, and the 8 minute time limit.  I do not mind wearing a safety thong either, and I think the safety thong has proven to be a good safety precaution.

[steven yampolsky]

the 8 minute time limit.

Can someone educate me on importance of 8 minute limit when the rest of the world is fine with 7 minutes.

[Randy Powell]

>>I think Windy's second Sweeper is the only one I can think of tha would have failed...?<<

Hmm, Paul's Bomber comes to mind.

The 7 minute limit is fine. But unless you are using electric, you will almost certainly occasionally overrun. Conditions change and while you try to estimate the fuel needed from a very cold morning to a warm afternoon, it's tough to get it right every time. There is not question that overruns will increase with a 7 minute limit. Especially in the Intermediate/Advanced classes.

If we go to all FAI all the time, I suppose we can also eliminate the skill classes. Why not go whole hog? OK, that's silly, but I think we have to consider the implications of some of this.

[Bradley Walker]

If we go to all FAI all the time, I suppose we can also eliminate the skill classes. Why not go whole hog? OK, that's silly, but I think we have to consider the implications of some of this.

I know you were speaking tongue in cheek but I think there are lot of misconceptions bantered about concerning rules and FAI, AMA, sanctions, etc...

There are no implications of going to FAI rules when it comes to skill classes.  The FAI provides a set of rules for a contest, and the CD can use as many of the FAI rules or AMA rules as he wishes. 

You could have a local contest that has skill classes called "boys" "girls" and "dogs" and fly under FAI rules or AMA rules.
You could have an AMA sanctioned contest that is flown under FAI rules, and simply *state ahead of time* that there will be skill classes and an 8 minute time limit. 
To do either, there is no need for a rules change.

[Randy Powell]

Of course, Brad. I was being tongue in cheek. It's just that when we are speaking of wholesale changes in the event, we should consider each one and the likely outcomes.

Hey, I'm a conservative. What can I say? I suspect that there will be unforseen outcomes when rules change. There usually are. Who knows, maybe they will be positive ones.

[Trostle]

Just for the record, the AMA rulebook already has an event #327.  It is called Control Line F2B Aerobatics.  It uses the FAI rules.

Keith Trostle

[steven yampolsky]

Just for the record, the AMA rulebook already has an event #327.  It is called Control Line F2B Aerobatics.  It uses the FAI rules.

Keith Trostle

Then what is the purpose of the proposal? I'm lost. 

[RandySmith]

Can someone educate me on importance of 8 minute limit when the rest of the world is fine with 7 minutes.

HI Steven

I can, several things come to mind, The 7 min time limit hinders greatly anyone building a light slow flying airplane.
I have several planes here that will not do a pattern in 7 minutes, anyone doing 5.8 sec lap times or slower, will be  pushed to get it done in 7 min, and also be on the ground stopped.
I also causes  much trouble to inexperienced flyers, or anyone coming to a contest and not being able to fly enough to get the engine run time down at whatever area they are in. And believe me  run times will vary greatly from one spot of the country to the next.
As the rules are now it also gives too much of an advantage to planes with timers.
And I doubt  that 8 minutes instead of 7 at the average  local contest will made  any difference at all in getting all the flights in,  Now  at the  World Championships  , yes it would, you are talking 100s of flights there

Regards
Randy

[SteveMoon]

Steven Y: I think the purpose of Warren's proposal is to run the Nats
using FAI rules and scoring. That would mean no BOM at the Nats,
and 1 to 10 judging on the maneuvers. While there is currently a
provision (as Keith stated) for FAI rules contests, it is rarely used.
The Team Trials uses FAI rules, but I don't know of any other large
contests in the US that do.

I talked with Kim Doherty and Bruce Perry at the Nats about Canadas
shitch over to using FAI rules, and they said it has been great. There
has been no effect on the number of entrants at contests, and no
hub-bub about BOM rules. They both said they were quite satisified.

Steve

[Trostle]

I think the purpose of Warren's proposal is to run the Nats
using FAI rules and scoring. That would mean no BOM at the Nats,
and 1 to 10 judging on the maneuvers.

(clip)
Steve

Nowhere in Warren's proposal  is there any suggestion that his proposal is just to run the Nats using FAI rules.  The proposal is to completely replace the current AMA Control Line Precision Aerobatic rules with the FAI F2B event. 

As mentioned earlier, the AMA rulebook already includes the Control Line F2B Aerobatics event which uses the FAI rules as a separate event.

Keith Trostle

[Dennis Adamisin]

Gotta agree completely with Keith's last post, Prop #2 is NOT a "NATs only" proposal.

This is not a challenge to Prop #2 just a request to clarify:

Are AMA and FAI rules on similar cycles?  If yes, no worries.  If not then it sounds like if we adopt #2 we will either:

A. Every AMA cycle have a proposal to "update to latest FAI"  just to keep up, or

B. If we follow what I THINK is the INTENT of #2 we would be in complete lock step with FAI except for 8 minutes - and just carry on with new FAI rule props as they are implemented.

Are either of these implied or assumed?

[SteveMoon]

I am fully aware that proposal #2 is not a "Nats only" proposal.
I was just trying to state that if it passes then contests in the
USA, including the Nats, will be run using FAI F2B rules.

Dennis: I believe you are right in part B of your post about
getting in 'lock step with FAI'.

I think it is a great proposal, and I hope that it passes.


Steve Moon

[Trostle]

Some things to think about:

If we throw out our AMA CLPA event and use only the FAI F2B rules, then we have the pleasure of depending on a world body to change the rules for our event in a rules change process that is ponderously slow and can be considered fraught with political agendas that make our rules change process look like a panacea by comparison.  Personally, I would not look forward to that world body making rules for the event that we created in the first place. 

Furthermore, if the F2B rules are so great, I would think that there would be multitudes of F2B events held in this country since the event has been part of the AMA rulebook for years.  Let's see now, just how many F2B events have we held in this country in say the last 10 years?  Oh, I get it, we do it once every 2 years. 

Would it not make more sense to keep OUR CLPA event, and now that the cat is out of the bag that local contest organizers can run F2B events whenever they want, why not run the F2B at the local level and see how it is accepted?  Perhaps, over time, and during a future rules change proposal cycle, if we see that there is an overwhelming support across the country to throw away our CLPA rules, then it would make sense to do so at that time.

Are people who support the idea now, even though there have been no efforts to organize F2B contests in this country, only doing so as an expedient way to eliminate the BOM rule and/or to eliminate minimum line sizes based on aircraft weight and/or engine displacement?  Surely not, but one could certainly suspect that.  The only other differences of any significant degree between the AMA CLPA event and the FAI F2B event are some minor differences in maneuver descriptions, most notably the square loops, the square eights and the landing; the penalties involved with omitting a maneuver of flying an incomplete maneuver; the flight time limit; and times involved between flights. 

What are the reasons to get "in lock step with FAI"?  Our team members certainly have no problem in their transition from their experience in our AMA CLPA contests to being competitive at the World Championships.

My personal opinion is that if there are so many things good about the FAI event, let's adopt those things that still remain that have not already been incorporated into our rules.  Then, we still have OUR CLPA event that WE can change as WE see fit.  Meanwhile, the F2B Aerobatics event will still remain as an option for those organizers who wish to run a contest using those rules.

Keith Trostle

[Doug Moon]

KT,

You bring up a good point but I think you miss it just a bit.  Warren's proposal is not to remove the governing body of CLPA, the AMA, and place it, CLPA, into the governing body of the FAI.  His proposal simply has CLPA, under the AMA jurisdiction and administration, follow the current rules of the F2B event as they are written today, with a few small twists, good ones I might add.  I fly very slow and 7 minutes will get me an over run all day long.

I take Warren's word in this department very seriously.  He has probably forgotten more about running large contests then about 99% of us will ever learn.  Furthermore, he has run both contests, many times.  He is making this proposal from a contest directors stand point.  That has to mean something.  Just the same as when you propose a rule change, the name on the proposal carries clout.  This is one where he has much clout.

We are still fully capable of making rules changes all we want under the AMA jurisdiction.  Heck we can even change it right back to the old way if we dont like it.  That is the thing people dont seem to grasp about the process.  NOTHING is set in stone.  If it doesnt work just change it.  As will Hinton said no one misses a meal over this stuff.  It is only model planes after all.  Not to lesson the passion or the love for it but we are afforded a change process and we can exercise that change process and that gives us the collective control over the event.  Even if we do try the F2B event rules for a while.

[Dennis Adamisin]

AGAIN my thanks to Steve Y for a great thread-starter.  Thansk to all who have voiced their opinions in a CIVIL manner!  But, ENOUGH going with the flow:

* I can make money off #1, but I still oppose it!

* #2 - BE CAREFUL! Arguably, #2 hands over control for USA-CLPA to the FAI.  No they are not bad people, but just wait til they adopt their noise standards!  (and no, noise standards are not bad, but are YOU ready for them?)  The watered down version of FAI rules as proposed actually boils down to a new scoring system and no BOM.   Proposed THAT way this would probably fail.

* #3 encourages possible advancement of the state of the art.

* #4 - no opinion

* #5 - I would have like this BETTER if it was just Originality & Realisim, but hey, at least it reels in the Imron guys to a 10 pt max!

* #6 an #8 look like basic record keeping - these are MUSTS.

* #7 No opinion except I never thought pattern points were controversial to award.

* #9 makes sense, but I'll be sorry to see my "advantage" for using smaller engines given away.

* #10 Oppose, but only because I'm not sure how to define 51%

[Bradley Walker]

If we throw out our AMA CLPA event and use only the FAI F2B rules, then we have the pleasure of depending on a world body to change the rules for our event in a rules change process that is ponderously slow and can be considered fraught with political agendas that make our rules change process look like a panacea by comparison.

Then, we still have OUR CLPA event that WE can change as WE see fit.   

I am sure it would look that way to you Keith, since you have seem to have no trouble whatsoever getting the rules of our event changed, seemingly *at will*.  Now that you are a member of the CLACB, it would seem to me that lobbying for even more of your rules changes would be even easier.  So, in that respect, I believe *you* are very well represented.  I am not sure that *WE* can say the same thing.

In fact, considering you are the only person, as far as I know, to successfully implement a rules change in more than ten years, it is interesting that you would use the term *WE*.  I wonder, do you have a mouse in your pocket?  I am sure handing over control to the FAI would seem ponderous *to you* in comparison to the relative freedom you seem to have currently to implement whatever rules *you* wish (this is of course, why Warren's proposal is doomed to fail).

I on the other hand, welcome the ponderously slow, politically agenda driven FAI ruling body....

Why?  I do not know of one single pilot in North Texas that has been contacted by the District 8 CLACB representative in more than 6 years to discuss rules change proposals (or anything else for that matter---anyone from North Texas please step up to correct me), and since the CLACB positions are appointments for life with absolutely no accountability to the district members themselves, I figure I would rather be represented by some French, British, Aussie, or Russian guy.  Ultimately, I would get about the same amount of feedback into the process as I currently am getting today.

Also, considering the fact that I do not think that our District 8 CLACB representative has actually picked up a handle in approximately two decades (and there are members of present and past CLACB's that have had similar histories), I find it very hard to believe that this person would actually be concerned about the present state of the CL stunt event, the stunt market (kits, engines, etc),  whether or not anyone is actually showing up to fly, and its actual effects on the event, pilots, etc.  Of course, this person could have a perspective simply as an outside observer, but that is all.  So, in that respect, at least the FAI is *trying* to implement voting systems to get feedback from the pilots.  I do not ever see this ever happening here under the AMA system.

One last thing, while our AMA rules seem to be getting more complicated every single day (just look at some of the BOM rules proposed, line sizes, etc) the FAI rules appear to be getting MORE SIMPLE.  In fact, they are infinitely more simple and make more sense.

[Bradley Walker]

* #10 Oppose, but only because I'm not sure how to define 51%

I find this very interesting.  Apparently, this *unwritten BOM* was good enough to be used for decades (under the table).  It was supported by some of the most influential people in stunt.  Yet no one is coming forward to support this rules change proposal as being the obvious answer to the BOM debate.

Why? 

I am still waiting for my "Save the BOM" letter.

[Doug Moon]

Brad, Keith, Dennis, and all,

Dont miss the point here.  Warrens proposal, #2, does not move CLPA in the USA under the control of the FAI.  It simply does not do that. 

It only stipulates we use the current F2B rules for flying the event as they are written today with his small changes.  If we were moving to be administered under the FAI all the FAI rules would apply.  Line sizes pull tests and everything and none of the other proposals would matter. 

Dont mix up this point.  Dont give people the wrong impression.  It is simply stating that we apply those FLYING rules and the small adjustments as written now to our event.  Then we still operate under the AMA and it can be tweaked on with our rule change cycles as currently held and administered by the AMA.


It says nothing about FAI governing our event with the FAI rules change process and their administration.

Please keep this in mind. 

[Dennis Adamisin]

Hi Doug,
After reading your post I went back and re-read Prop #2.  Warren did really good job writing it up, citing the affected paragraphs for exceptions.  But the proposal is to adopt the FAI sporting code.  As he states in his rationale, the intent is to bring USA into alignment (with exceptions he noted) with the rest of the world.

It looks to me that both the specifics of what is written AND the logic behind it is (with the exceptions he noted ) the intention to be the same as FAI.  If we are going to make any OTHER exceptions then they will come with our rules cylcles, otherwise we do what they do.

Again, Warren did not call out anything about exceptions with the landing rules - thus we get the FAI interpretation for stopping the prop before landing - this affects the e-power people and is different than the AMA rule.

Please give it a re-read and see if I missed or miss-understood anything in the proposal.  Frankly with the clarity of Warren's write up it all seems pretty straight forward.

I do not think it is automatically bad to become same as FAI - but its better if we understand what we are getting into.

[Doug Moon]

Dennis,

Good call.  I follow exactly what you are saying.  Makes sense.  Lets just say for saying sakes it does pass and we go along with the FAI code.  Our event is still administered by the AMA.   So if the FAI does change something along the way and we are using their sporting code as someone wants to make a change they can propose a change under current AMA administration and there we go.  It only effects our event.   We arent glued to their rule changes since we dont fall under the FAI. 

I hope I made myself more clear there.  Am I making sense?  Do I have this right?

[Steve Helmick]

The other problem with the FAI Landing rule is "having to" glide 1 lap after prop stop, to touchdown. Some designs may have trouble doing that, maybe especially semi-scale Bearcats and Thunderbolts, or anything light enough to fly 5.5+ sec. laps. I'd rather have some diversity of design concepts. The 1 glide lap prior to landing and 7 minute flight time would reduce that to some extent.

What would we do with Classic and P.40/Profile Stunt events? Would we use the 1-10 point system, no PP's, etc? To do otherwise would make judging more difficult. One set of rules for all the 'regular pattern' events would make good judging much more likely.  Steve

[L0U CRANE]

Doug,

From the proposal, and from other comments in this thread, I don't think you have this right. If we change AMA Rules to require CLPA be in accordance with "current FAI F2B", we have taken AMA out of the Rules change process. We are no longer a part of AMA, in that sense, but merely obedient menials to whatever the CIAM proclaims. That COULD endanger our F2B teams eligibility to represent the USA, as part of the AMA, our National Aeromodelling Club.

Is that what you want?

I also feel that your remarks about Keith's "clout" are a bit in the way of personal attack, with little real basis. Keith has given much -frankly, more than I've seen from you - of his time, experience, savvy and contact with others involved, at home and abroad, in the interests of preserving, promoting and advancing CLPA, under whatever rules.

We may disagree on this, as I do not expect to take a Walker Trophy or F2B Champion reward home... Still, I do respect the efforts, over 34-plus years, of someone who has single-mindedly put his life second to the advancement of our mututal hobby. I wish more would recognize the devotion that required. ..and judge his suggestions accordingly.

We don't dictate regulations to the rest of the CLPA world - as with many nations which continue to use "domestic" event rules - so why should we forfeit "home rule" for long, dragged-out, bureaucrat-speak renderings of occasionally anti-USA policy declarations, whic prelude us from taking significant part

[Bradley Walker]

We are no longer a part of AMA, in that sense, but merely obedient menials to whatever the CIAM proclaims. That COULD endanger our F2B teams eligibility to represent the USA, as part of the AMA, our National Aeromodelling Club.

AMA stunt has nothing to do with F2B.  AMA events are held under FAI rules across the board in modeling.  The AMA has no "rule" that they dictate the the rules for an event to sanction an event.  The AMA sanctions events under AMA rules.

F2B is F2B. 

What Warren is doing is using the F2B rules and have the AMA rules include those rules.

I think if you guys will look, the AMA rules already adopted the FAI maneuver descriptions a few rules cycles ago.  Nobody said a negative word...  Start talking about the F2B rules and the BOM and everyone thinks its a conspiracy.

[Doug Moon]

Lou,

You are flat out wrong!  I did not attack KT or take a cheap shot.  I said it like it is.  Because he has put in 34 years of hard work into this sport he has clout when he makes rules proposals.  You made this very point in your post then chastise me for saying the same thing.  Why?  Please explain.     There is no other way around it.  When he speaks on rules people listen.  I dont know how on earth you could think it was a cheap shot.  You should remove that from your post post because you are flat out wrong.   

Same goes for Warren.  when he speaks about running contests people should listen. He has more experience you and I will ever have!!

I dont like forums anymore.  Too many people looking for something.

[Trostle]

(clip)

I think if you guys will look, the AMA rules already adopted the FAI maneuver descriptions a few rules cycles ago.  Nobody said a negative word...  Start talking about the F2B rules and the BOM and everyone thinks its a conspiracy.

Brad,

You are a bit out of phase about who copied whose rules and when.  Not that it makes any difference now, it was sometime around 1960 that the FAI F2B event adopted the AMA pattern, but used their own maneuver descriptions and diagrams.  Over the years, our AMA maneuver descriptions and diagrams changed, only slightly as did the FAI maneuver descriptions and diagrams.  It was in the late 70's or even the early 80's that we adopted the FAI maneuver descriptions and diagrams.  (This was a result of a proposal that I made while I was PAMPA president.)  I believe, even during that time that we did not adopt a few elements of the FAI maneuver descriptions, specifically, the 1 lap glide after the engine stops before the touchdown.  I know for sure that this was part of the FAI pattern before 1978 because this is what I judged as the US judge at the 78 World Championships in England that year.  (I could make a few comments about that now, but those comments are totally irrelevant to this discussion.)  Then, for a number of years, our AMA maneuver descriptions and diagrams and the FAI maneuver descriptions and diagrams only changed slightly.  All the while, the basic pattern has remained the same.  The FAI judges guide, which has long been a part of the FAI rulebook has gone through several changes during this period as well.

Then, as a massive effort by Peter Germann and Andy Sweetland, as commissioned by the CIAM to lead a large international group to review and improve the F2B rules, the FAI maneuver descriptions and diagrams were arguably refined (at least changed).  These changes went into effect either prior to 2004 or 2006.  The pattern is basically the same as always.  The 1 lap landing rule remains in the FAI pattern which is not in ours.  The descriptions on how the square loops and the square eights are to be flown are different than our AMA pattern.  (There is a current AMA change proposal to correct the wording for the square maneuvers to agree with our AMA maneuver descriptions in what is to be called our judge's guide in our rulebook.)   Though the pattern is the same, the maneuver descriptions and diagrams shown in the FAI rulebook are now different than what we have in our AMA rulebook.  We adopted the FAI judges guide during the 02-05 rules change cycle which was based on the FAI judges guide at that time.  The FAI judges guide has since changed at least twice, the latest as part of the Germann led effort.  Prior to now, I have heard of no reason nor have I heard from anybody that we should have adopted the current FAI maneuver descriptions and diagrams.

So, in short, our AMA maneuver descriptions and diagrams, while at one time were similar to the FAI F2B rules, the current F2B maneuver descriptions and diagrams as well as the F2B judges guide has changed so that our AMA rulebook is no longer the same as the F2B rules.  As since 1960, both AMA and F2B patterns have remained basically the same.