informal survey about appearance points Last day to vote! (Poll)

[RC Storick]

We will make this easy. Taken from a SSW thread.

[Alan Hahn]

BOM and appearance points aren't really the same thing. All rule book events have appearance points--and we can argue about them and how you qualify.
Only (at this point) the NATS events actually have a BOM rule to actually participate.

So what is the vote about?

[RC Storick]

there

[john e. holliday]

Okay, I voted yes for appearance points as I love pretty airplanes and the finishes some of the people get on their planes.  I think the ARC's will shorten the time to get a great finish.  Myself I can build, but, I will admit I can't finish.  DOC Holliday

[RandySmith]

BOM and appearance points aren't really the same thing. All rule book events have appearance points--and we can argue about them and how you qualify.
Only (at this point) the NATS events actually have a BOM rule to actually participate.

So what is the vote about?

HI Alan

The NATs in CL aerobatics  does not have any BOM rule  on any of the PAMPA classes flown.  only in Jr. Sr. and open is the BOM required.
I know  you probably knew this but many do not.

Regards
Randy

[Doug Moon]

HI Alan

The NATs in CL aerobatics  does not have any BOM rule  on any of the PAMPA classes flown.  only in Jr. Sr. and open is the BOM required.
I know  you probably knew this but many do not.

Regards
Randy

Randy and others,

PAMPA events follow the BOM and always have if you want to claim app points.  PAMPA events ALSO allow you to fly without app points if you were not the BOM (best of both worlds so to speak).  Jr Sr Open REQUIRE you to build the model to the letter of the BOM if you are to enter those events.  But as of late the BOM requires very little building.

[Clayton Smith]

Yes, only if all visible finish ie: colors, trim, panels, details, lettering, clear coat etc have been applied by the flier. Otherwise absolutely No!!!

Clayton Smith
High Point, NC

[RandySmith]

Randy and others,

PAMPA events follow the BOM and always have if you want to claim app points.  PAMPA events ALSO allow you to fly without app points if you were not the BOM (best of both worlds so to speak).  Jr Sr Open REQUIRE you to build the model to the letter of the BOM if you are to enter those events.  But as of late the BOM requires very little building.

Hi Doug 
I thought I said  that  , I took it as a given people knew that at the NATs  they had to build the  model to claim appearance points.
My point was  that the PAMPA classes have  NEVER  required you to build the model in order to compete. Naturally you have to if you want Appearance points. They are  2 entirely different things.

Regards
randy

[Doug Moon]

Randy,

I thought so i just wanted to be clear.  I know you know what I was saying for sure, you been at this alot longer then me.  Just wanted to be clear that's all.

[john e. holliday]

And I have seen on here where someone else is putting the final clear on other people airplanes.  Also people having someone build their plane so they can finish it.  DOC Holliday

[phil c]

put the appearance points up for a %$*#( Concours award and let us fly.

[RC Storick]

I know there is more than 82 members on here. Log in and make your vote count. This is a informal poll however it lets you reps know (that read here And most do) just where you stand on this issue. Log in using you user name and vote now Poll closes tonight

[Bill Little]

put the appearance points up for a %$*#( Concours award and let us fly.

Hey, Phil, no one is stopping anyone from flying and competing, not even you!  

That is of course unless you are going to fly Open at the NATS.  Since you're in the Open class and you do want to fly in the NATS and possibly be the National Champion, then why not make you have to build your own plane?  And be a TRUE member of the Academy of MODEL Aeronautics (note: not the Acad. of Model PILOTS !)  Just because Combat didn't/doesn't require you to be the BOM to qualify as the NATS champion doesn't mean the last 60 years, basically, needs to be thrown away in CLPA.

I have never subscribed to the theory that a NATS Stunt Champion shouldn't truly build his/her own airplane and therefore be a true *Modeler*.  There is actually no known valid excuse for anyone aspiring to that position (National Champion/Walker Trophy Winner) to NOT be capable of building their own model.  If a person wants THAT bad enough, they will learn to meet the BOM requirement.   Otherwise, they really don't *WANT* it.

Bill

[Bob Whitely]

It's a fairly simple concept.  A builder is one that can build a plane and can't fly.  A flier is one that can fly and not build.  A modeller is one that can do both and so does not need any excuses such as arfs' and barfs'.  Fly the cheap toys from China all you want but don't expect to get any AP at a legitimate stunt contest.  RJ

[catdaddy]

It's a fairly simple concept.  A builder is one that can build a plane and can't fly.  A flier is one that can fly and not build.  A modeller is one that can do both and so does not need any excuses such as arfs' and barfs'.  Fly the cheap toys from China all you want but don't expect to get any AP at a legitimate stunt contest.  RJ

So if you build a model car you're a flier, not a modeller...wait you're a builder if you can build a model boat, but you can't sail it if you're not a flier.
I think I got it thanks.

[Bob Whitely]

No, that is incorrect. I specifically made mention of planes (model planes as in stunt planes that one would fly in Pampa and/or AMA competition.)  I can appreciate the fact that there are some that can not tell the difference between a plane and a boat and so it is understandable that they either cannot build or fly.  I think it is a good thing to have all the arfs' and barfs available for the above challenged individuals.  It is a bad thing to attempt to enter a contest wherin the BOM and APs' are a part of the rules and seek to get points for same without having done same.  Like I said, a pretty simple concept but still difficult for some to get their  minds around.  RJ

[RC Storick]

There you have it.

[Terry Bolin]

I vote YES.

[Bob Reeves]

Looks like the majority wants to keep some form of BOM rule. I sure hope Marvin's sliding scale appearance point proposal gets serious consideration next rules cycle. We are going to use it at our September Stunt contest and am hoping it turns out well.

[SteveMoon]

I build my own planes and I don't give a crap about getting some form
of points for my efforts. I don't build my planes to get some sort of
satisfaction by receiving some subjective points based on a sujective
scale from my peers. I don't care. The reason I build a plane is in search
of a good flying plane. I could care less what anybody else thinks about
it. Why does anybody care? The more I think about it, the more it dawns
on me that BOM, and the awarding of appearance points is a just plain
stupid rule. The only place where this rule should matter is in scale.
There you have a benchmark to judge the model against. Not so in our
sport/hobby.

Later, Steve

[Dalton Hammett]

Well,  I am only a beginner in competition but a long time flyer and I guess I will put my opinion in.  I understand
that to be considered an expert in the sport one should be able to build their planes - however - my major concern
is how many people may be discouraged for various reasons from competition.   There are plenty of folks out there
without good building talent,  there are some with talent and no building space, and (my personal reason for being out of the hobby for 20 some years), a little building talent, some space but no time due to job requirements.  So
I see a gray area in the BOM that does not contribute positively to the advancement of the sport.   Personnaly, I
build some and I have bought some - I've never built one that flew as good as some that I've bought.  There is
no question that BOM has to be part of scale as thats what it is about, but in the rest I guess you have to look
at what is best for the sport.  I do know that in the past one of my sons entered a few static building contests
with his Jr. Nobler - if he had been able to get any points for actually flying it he might have taken first.

For what it's worth - I'd vote No.
Dalton Hammett

[Bob Reeves]

Well,  I am only a beginner in competition but a long time flyer and I guess I will put my opinion in.  I understand
that to be considered an expert in the sport one should be able to build their planes - however - my major concern
is how many people may be discouraged for various reasons from competition.   There are plenty of folks out there
without good building talent,  there are some with talent and no building space, and (my personal reason for being out of the hobby for 20 some years), a little building talent, some space but no time due to job requirements.  So
I see a gray area in the BOM that does not contribute positively to the advancement of the sport.   Personnaly, I
build some and I have bought some - I've never built one that flew as good as some that I've bought.  There is
no question that BOM has to be part of scale as thats what it is about, but in the rest I guess you have to look
at what is best for the sport.  I do know that in the past one of my sons entered a few static building contests
with his Jr. Nobler - if he had been able to get any points for actually flying it he might have taken first.

For what it's worth - I'd vote No.
Dalton Hammett

This is exactly what Marvins idea on appearance points/BOM addresses.

[Bob Whitely]

So many opinions but no readily visible answers to the age old question of BOM rule.  If one wishes to fly in competition then one bears down and does what it takes to qualify for said competition.  If in fact this means one must build the model in question then that is what one will do.  There  are no excuses for not building the plane in question so as to meet the rules of the competition. Period.  All the preceeding rhetoric means nothing to the competition minded as they will do what it takes to enter and win.

This all goes back to the whiners and wannabes that want to play on the big field wihtout putting out any effort and to be recognized for doing nothing.  Hey, I paid my entry fee, why don't I get any reward?  Doesn't fly, pun intended.  Buy and fly anything you want so long as it is not in competition and really, no one cares.  However when one decides to fly competitively then everything changes.  You abide by the rules or otherwise you don't fly or don't win.  In competition winning is everything else why do it?  There are many losers but only one winner.  Only the best make it to the top and they will do what it takes to get there without dumbing down the contest so as to appease the many that do not win.

If one does not wish to give 100% to win what is the point? 

Those that compete do so voluntarilly and will take the time to get to the top.  As soon as the rest of you get a handle on this concept you too can be a legitimate conpetitor and quit trying to change the rules to make it so easy as to be worthless as an endeavor and then there is nothing......RJ

[Dick Fowler]

By jove... I think I have it!

I can buy a Bob Hunt wing and Tom Morris fuselage and tail feathers, glue it all together and let Billy the Body Shop Guy shoot the colors and get my points. If I do the gluing then I'm covered...perfectly logical to me ! 

[Randy Powell]

Dalton,

That's a good point and why I think that ARFs and such have their place. It gives newbies a decent flying plane while they learn to build their own. Some never graduate beyond that point and that's fine, too. It's one of the reasons that PAMPA don't require BOM for competition. When you get good enough at building, most give up ARFs, but some don't and again, that's fine. But why should someone that doesn't put in the effort and time get rewarded points? If you don't like to build, fine. Give up the appearance points and work on your flying. There are 600 available flight points and only 20 appearance points. Seems that they only really matter when you are a top tier expert where just a couple of points separate 1st from 3rd. But then, those guys should be able to build their own stuff, it would seem.

I was looking last night a the new plane I'm building. I really like to to build, so in some ways, it probably isn't fair comparing my experience to someone that only builds to get a plane so they can fly. But I realized how satisfying it is to see a plane go from a set of plans (mine or someone else's) to a completed plane. Not true for everyone, I know, but for me, just realizing that a couple of months ago, this plane was just a stack of balsa, bits and pieces and an idea and is now an almost completed is very cool indeed. Sometime from nothing.

I imagine that in a society of I want it now and not much patience to learn to do things over time, ARFs will only become more popular.

[Dalton Hammett]

Hi Randy -  I don't usually do a lot of discussion of opinion but I do appreciate your comments as well as the fact that you did not refer to me as a whiner for disagreeing with you.   I have a great respect for the builders of some of the fantastic looking planes of today and I also have the realistic knowledge that I will never be one of them.  I also will not llikely ever get into the Expert circle but everyone in competition is not after the same thing.  I like the association with other flyers as well as the flying.  I gave three possible common situations where people might not be able to build --  none of these had anything to do with the "want it now and no patience" attitude.
These people's capability is not likely to change at all unless thier lifestyle changes but if they enjoy the hobby I personally would want to encourage them to participate.  I also would have to take exception to the effort put in, I know the great planes take a lot of effort but it would be hard to really say who had to put in the most effort and if you read some of the other threads it seems there is a lot of concern that everyone is putting in their own effort. If a very marginal builder happened to build a model that was ALMOST as good as one by an experienced builder with a great shop and paint bay and all --  who has had to actually had to put in the most effort??? 

Dalton H.

[SteveMoon]

Dick's post is perfect! A perfect illustration of the farce that
BOM is. It is a JOKE! People can cry all they want about the
'purity' or 'tradition' of the hobby, but that is long gone. I don't
need my plane to be validated by others; as so many others
seem to yearn for. My goal is to build a plane that flies good.
That's all there is to it. I could care less what anybody else
thinks about it.

Steve

[RC Storick]

everyone keeps forgeting the BOM

ONLY APPLIES AT THE NATS!

[Doug Moon]

everyone keeps forgeting the BOM

ONLY APPLIES AT THE NATS!

Uh,,,, No.

The BOM applies to all CLPA contests unless otherwise stated in the contest flyer or by the CD for a certain amount of time prior to the contest.  AMA RB says BOM is in play.  Even for PAMPA classes. 

Havig said that you can opt to fly OPP in PAMPA classes you will have to take a hit and not get app points.  That seems fair to me.  So yes the BOM is in play in all contests it is just the fact that you have an option as an entrant to go around it with a penalty if you so choose.

IIRC you were not such a big fan of APP points at the last nats.  You were quite hacked off according to some who were there.  Even said you wouldnt go back again on your forum.  Did you vote no on this pole?

[RC Storick]

Listen I can say what I want to . There is still freedom of speech. Why is it whenever you try to question me on something you try and geode me into a verbal dispute? I don't need it here. YES i WAS HACKED OFF! Yes I am going back even tho I thought something was wrong. Paul is running the NATS this year, Maybe it will not be status quo.

Take the hit or learn how to build.

Most still want the BOM. I would like to see more impartial judging. Not to say they judging is not fair now, just to say that the judges don't know the pilots by name or reputation. Kill the HALO effect! I think I will get some shirts printed to that effect.

[peabody]

Bob:
Most that responded HERE want the BOM. I am a member of one of the oldest surviving control line clubs on the Planet and the VAST majority DO NOT want the BOM in CLPA. This includes a multi-time Concours winner....and the builder of THREE perfect (20) point) models.....

The choice to not want to enforce the BOM certainly does not mean that the appreciation for craftsmanship has departed....

As for "If one does not wish to give 100% to win what is the point?" does it degrade the (several and current) National Champions who have NOT built their own models? 

[Doug Moon]

Robert,

That is what stinks about the net.  You cant see I am not trying to gode you into anything or push your buttons or whatever.  In coversation face to face you would see it as just that, a conversation.  I was just trying to see where you were coming from.  Less than a year ago you put an awesome plane out there and it got less than deserved.  You were hacked and talked about not going back.  That is not good for the event.  There is no standard, competitos just throw their planes out there and hope for the best. If anything it really hacks people off.  You hear it every year.  Heck, one year there was a guy so upset over apprearance judging he quit the contest in protest.

I can build.  I can build light, I can finish well, and I get good appearance points for it at most of the contests I attend. I even received 17 points at the 2003 nats.  Removing this would not benefit me at all.  If anything it would hurt me.  But this is bigger then me and how I finish in a contest.  Some cant see that and no matter what or how I say it.

BUT I am not trying to gode you into anything, just trying to have a conversation.

Comments about building and all that stuff that Bob W and others make does not apply to me.  And I really dont who they apply to because anyone who has actually made a proposal to change the rule already has a proven track record of building and competing and very high level.  So I dont really know where he goes with that, but he seems to have some inside track on a bunch of people who cant build that are trying to change the event.  But since I have been involved in or on the very close sidelines (my brother makes the proposal every time) I have not seen what he keeps saying to be true.  But hey if someone repeats something long enopugh maybe someone will actually believe it.

Again I am not trying to gode you or verbaly joust with you or get you mad, that does nothing and helps no one.

Later

[RC Storick]

As for "If one does not wish to give 100% to win what is the point?" does it degrade the (several and current) National Champions who have NOT built their own models? 

Name the names of these champs. Lets get it out in the open. If we ever want to enforce this rule some one will have to name names and of coarse prove it!

[RandySmith]

HI All

Again to clarify:
There is   ...NO   BOM  rule  in any  PAMPA class, including  Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced , or Expert.
 At Local contest  or  at the NATs.....NO  BOM  rule  to fly  the event

The only place the BOM comes in is if  you claim  appearance  points, in that case  you must be the builder of the model to get the points, does NOT affect  you being able  to fly.

Regards
Randy

[Randy Powell]

Doug and Steve,

I certainly see your point. If guys can just buy parts, not build or for that matter, get others to build for them and then claim appearance points, seems to make it kinda pointless. And it's also a point about deciding where the line is. Do you have to make your own control or is using Tom Morris controls OK? If that's OK, what's wrong with using a Bob Hunt foam wing? Gee he could sheet it and what's wrong with that? At what point is it not the builder's plane, but an ARC? All good points. But they are mostly a concern, it seems to me, to folks that assume others are cheating. Possibly where it's an ongoing problem. The feeling seems to be, gee, everyone is cheating so let's just drop the rule. But as I've said before, it's like saying, gee, everyone speeds so let's just drop the rules about speeding. I assume that people are honorable and will tell you how much of the plane they built. The question for me is more some clarity on where the line is. How much do I need to build for the plane to be considered BOM. The old rule about kits and such just doesn't cut it with today's technology.

I have a friend that built a plane and used a cored, foam wing, stab, elevators and flaps. He sheeting them himself and built the rest of the plane and finished it. He was concerned that he had violated the BOM. We talked about it for some time. I honestly, under the current non-rule don't know. The rules are not designed, as they are, for close inspection.

You guys tone almost seems like you are saying that where you guys are, people have other's build their planes, know they are in violation of the rules and don't care. Around here, all the guys I see at contests are pretty concerned about it but it's mostly that they don't want to inadvertently violate the rule.

Anyway, the question for me is much more clarifying the rules so that folks know what's OK and what isn't. If they decide to violate it anyway, that's their problem. But if the rule is clear, at least you know.

[Rudy Taube]

Hi Randy, (Powel)

I'm very confused about your post. You said:

"...... I have a friend that built a plane and used a cored, foam wing, stab, elevators and flaps. He sheeting them himself and built the rest of the plane and finished it. He was concerned that he had violated the BOM. We talked about it for some time. I honestly, under the current non-rule don't know. ......"

I don't mean to sound impolite, but I have to ask, have you read the AMA BOM rules in the past few years? The AMA BOM rules that we use today have been in effect for several years now.

They are very clear on the issue of ARCs (modules, etc.) being legal for BOM and full AP in PAMPA and AMA events. The example you gave above is well within the current BOM rule. I have not heard of anyone not agreeing to this. .... Please don't misunderstand that last statement. I know that MANY people disagree with the current BOM rule, and would like it changed to something else; more points, less points, NO points, etc. etc. etc. .... but everyone is in agreement that "THE RULE WE HAVE NOW, AND UNTIL JAN 2011" is clear on ARCs and modular parts like your friends, sheeted foam wings/stabs from Bob and others, etc. 

Please tell us what you are "unsure" about RE: ARCs in the current BOM rule?



The only item that is still a little up in the air for a "very small" minority is RE: the ARF that is uncovered and converted into an ARC being eligible for BOM and APs. This issue has nothing to do with your example, and is an entirely separate subject form the ruling on ARCs.

Last year Robert was kind enough to let my post on the " CURRENT BOM rule" continue for a long time, with many comments from the pilots on this forum. You may have missed it? The complete current BOM rule is there if you are interested in reading it?

FWIW: I do admire yours, and many other builders, beautiful planes. But like others have said, there are many reasons that some of us can't build planes (no room, no time, health reasons, etc. ) and we modelers should be aware that setting the hurdles to entry at such a difficult (for some impossible) level we will force many to go elsewhere for their hobby enjoyment. The rest of the World has found a solution to this vexing problem, maybe we will find a solution someday ourselves. ?

FWIW #2: This is NOT just a nats issue. After reading the results from 10 PAMPA NL contest reports, I found that the average 8 to 15 APs at most PAMPA contests throughout the country covers the spread between 1st and 2nd in the vast majority of contests that have more than 3 or 4 entrants in a class. And it covers the majority between 1st and 3rd, and every 3 positions down the line. This is an important difference if you travel to a contest to "compete". It often makes the difference between a trophy or NO trophy, etc. This is not a minor issue to deal with. The APs skews the scores more than most people think.

Because of the natural tendency of judges (in any subjective event, ice skating, gymnastics, CLPA, etc.) to compress their scores within each class magnifies any "outside" bonus scores like our APs. This is one of the main reasons why this is such a heated debate. 

THANK YOU ROBERT:
I have said this before, but it bears repeating: We all need to thank Robert for bending over backwards and allowing everyone to have their say on this heated, but important, issue. Even when many of these opinions clearly go against his strong stance on this issue. My hat is off to him for his tolerance and patience with us! 

[SteveMoon]

Randy P: It's not so much that it bothers me that some people
are garnering appearance points with planes that they didn't
build (I know of a couple of planes that my brother has built
that were flown at the Nats), but rather the sheer illogicalness
(is that a word?) of the rule. To me, I just don't see why it
matters if so-and-so built the plane or not. It just doesn't
matter to me. I don't care if Orestes built his Shark or not. I watched
all the flights on Top 5 day last year and he flew the best and
deserved to win.

I have probably built 50 planes, I know I can build and I don't
need anybody else to validate that by giving me appearance points.
As I said before, to me, the only place where appearance or static
judging really matters is scale. In that discipline there is an actual
benchmark to judge against. It doesn't matter if the judge or judges
prefer Me109s to P-51s or whatever, they only have to compare
the model presented against the documentation presented. Not so
in CLPA. CLPA appearance judging is totally subjective and I have
no doubt that a judge's subconscious can affect their judging.

I am not saying all this because I have a beef with past scores I
have rec'd. As a matter of fact, I was quite satisfied with the 15 points
I rec'd for my Saturn last year. I finished the plane in 4 days using
auto paint and was satisfied with the result. Sure, I could have spent
months finishing it and possibly gained 2 or 3 more points, but I would
rather spend that time flying and trimming and have absolutely no
doubt that I gained much more points from the practice than with
the finish.

I remember speaking to a rather downcast Sparky at the appearance
judging last year. He rec'd 17 points (2 more than me) for a plane that
had an incredible amount of effort put into it. Several months more
work than I put into my plane for 2 points? I'm still stumped as to why
Sparky's plane wasn't farther up. It looked beautiful to me. I've done
the appearance judging for Intermediate at the Nats several times, so
I can speak from some experience. I would have had Spark's plane
right up front. He was robbed. This really drove home the fallacy that
app. judging is. It's just too darn subjective.

Let's also not forget that this is all governed by the AMA: Academy of
Model Aeronautics. That's pretty broad. It is not the Academy of Model
Builders Aeronautic. It doesn't mean squat to people in other disciplines
whether or not the pilot built the plane. I've never known anybody to
ask whether Quique Somenzini, Chip Hyde, Mike McConville, or many other
top pilots whether or not they built their planes. I'm quite sure they
can, but what really matters is how good they fly it. I think that is what
should matter in our discipline also.

Later, Steve

[Dick Fowler]

..."I can speak from some experience. I would have had Spark's plane
right up front. He was robbed. This really drove home the fallacy that
app. judging is. It's just too darn subjective."

Might have had more to do with whom he "offended" rather than being a matter of objectivity. You pay the Piper in this small fraternity if you displease the "Gods".
 

[Randy Powell]

Rudy,

It wasn't a matter of rules, really. It was just us trying to decide (sans recent stupid and confusing AMA decisions) at what point the plane is modeller built. Where is the line drawn? It really wasn't so much a discussion of whether is would pass muster at a contest. More of philosophical discussion of how much do you have to build to be the builder.

Steve,

It just a difference in perception, I suppose. To you (it seems) this is a flying only event. Who care who built the plane. This is about flying. To me it's a modeller's event. The point is to test the person as a builder, finisher, engine guru, trim specialist AND flier. To me the essence of the event is the complete test. Of course who built the plane doesn't matter to you. To you, it's about flying and flying only. You probably like IROC racing too (sorry, a mild joke). I just don't look at what we do that way. I think this is where so much of the conflict about this topic comes from. Sigh... It's probably not an area that folks on one side will ever agree with folks on the other. It's just a rather pronounced difference in how we see the event.

[RC Storick]

THANK YOU ROBERT:
I have said this before, but it bears repeating: We all need to thank Robert for bending over backwards and allowing everyone to have their say on this heated, but important, issue. Even when many of these opinions clearly go against his strong stance on this issue. My hat is off to him for his tolerance and patience with us! 

Yes I am for the BOM ,Many are not and thats OK. I am not here to suppress anyones ideas or thoughts, I am here as a referee trying to keep the peace until what ever rule is decided upon.

[Randy Powell]

Hi Robert,

I also thank you for allowing use to whine and spew drivel. I suppose that's what it is sometimes.

>>I am here as a referee trying to keep the peace until what ever rule is decided upon.<<

And probably after that. Doesn't seem to matter much what the official rule is, we all have our opinions.

[Rudy Taube]

Hi Randy P.,

Thank you for your clarification. Like other Cd's, I am always concerned with the rules as they are written in the current rule book (on line in our case). I try very hard to keep my "wish list" of rules out of any discusion of how to apply the "current" rules to a problem at a contest. This is why I was confused by your 1st comment.

I think it is important that we all do what you just did and make it clear that we are talking about some philosophical issue and NOT talking about it in the context of the current rules. Experienced, well respected modelers like you can have a big influence on others. The BOM rules RE: ARCs are very clear and having people like you say they are clear would be a big help in keeping everyone on the same page, and understanding the BOM rules we have now. Like most forums there are usually many more people reading these posts than commenting on them. Misstatements on rules can spread misunderstandings and/or confussion to a very wide audience. Thanks again for your clarification. :-)
 
One of the reasons I was so quick to ask you about what rule you were using is because of my experience at a contest a few months ago. I went to a large, out of state contest. There were two Cd's, both long time CL modelers, and very nice guys. They ran a great contest, and we all had fun. But it turns out that they had not read the rule book in a long time. Some pilots flew ARCs and were given "ZERO" APs. The pilots were not clear about the rule either and accepted their zeros. They had done an excellent job finishing their planes and I mentioned to them that their planes qualified for BOM status and they were eligible for full APs like all the other BOM planes.
     
One went to the Cd's who both said NO his plane was not BOM eligible. A few other experienced modelers stepped in and heatedly backed the Cd's on this issue. Amazingly, NOT ONE of these people, including the Cd's, had a rule book with them. As a rule nerd, I pulled out my copy of the current rules. They were all amazed when they read it and all said they had NO idea the rule had been changed. Fortunately we had two of the most respected rule guys in CLPA at the contest and they had a lot more credibility than a "Retread" like me. ;-) It all worked out well, the pilots got their full APs, and the Cd's thanked me for telling them about the "new" (2005?) BOM rule. I was disappointed when one very experienced modeler (an official at one of our largest CLPA contests) used colorful language to tell me I was full of it and did not know what I was talking about. He threw the copy of the rules down and said the Cd's were still correct and I was wrong and he walked away in a huff, this was a very strange scene, and a sad one too. ..... Fortunately the Cd's handled it very well and all but that one guy were happy.

One reason I am on this campain to get the word out about the current BOM rule is because we will have it for the next THREE YEARS. It will not change until JAN 1, 2011. So my hope is that we all become familiar with it, and as Cd's I hope we are all fair in it's application, and don't let our personal feelings about it (pro or con) influence our decisions. :-)

As to your comments to Steve, that is a very subjective issue that is well beyond the current rules issue. IMHO: it is a shame to see the last dying years of CL spoiled by this extremely divisive and corrosive issue. I agree with Randy Smith, these are the golden years of CLPA. With out the unnecessary stress this sad BOM issue has caused, these last years of CLPA would be much more enjoyable for everyone, especially for the "retreads" coming back to CL. Look around at any club meeting or contest, Do the math. We have maybe 10 good years of CLPA left. I would hope that we do what Randy Smith, Brett Buck, and many others have said: ".... we should be more inclusive, not exclusive....". I hope we can solve this corrosive issue so we can all enjoy these last golden years of our little hobby with more fun and less stress. :-)

Regards,   

Rudy,

It wasn't a matter of rules, really. It was just us trying to decide (sans recent stupid and confusing AMA decisions) at what point the plane is modeller built. Where is the line drawn? It really wasn't so much a discussion of whether is would pass muster at a contest. More of philosophical discussion of how much do you have to build to be the builder.

Steve,

It just a difference in perception, I suppose. To you (it seems) this is a flying only event. Who care who built the plane. This is about flying. To me it's a modeller's event. The point is to test the person as a builder, finisher, engine guru, trim specialist AND flier. To me the essence of the event is the complete test. Of course who built the plane doesn't matter to you. To you, it's about flying and flying only. You probably like IROC racing too (sorry, a mild joke). I just don't look at what we do that way. I think this is where so much of the conflict about this topic comes from. Sigh... It's probably not an area that folks on one side will ever agree with folks on the other. It's just a rather pronounced difference in how we see the event.

[Randy Powell]

Hi Rudy,

Truth is, I have more in common with Steve than I probably let on. I really don't care all that much what happens with the BOM rules and appearance. It will have exactly zero impact on how I go about what I do. And the points at contests, as Steve notes, really don't have much effect on me one way or the other. I usually get between 15 and 19 points for a plane. I'm much happier with the increase in flight points I've seen over the past couple of years (practice with a good plane does wonders). I will continue to go about my business as I have regardless of what happens with the BOM or appearance points. And I agree that it has, for a number of reasons, become a divisive issue. But really, at least at our local contests, the issue really never comes up. I would never know that it was such an issue except for reading about it online.

Oh well, I continue on my merry way, I guess.

[dave shirley jr]

geez Rudy try not to be so depressing.
i simply dont think there is maybe ten years left and i doubt brodak and other suppliers thinks so either.
this seems to be an old tactic that goes around in other circles as well(no pun intended) if something is about to die it must need fixing at all cost.
well i simply dont agree that the event is dying in ten years. sure there are a lot of flyers who are getting up there but at the same time there are plenty who are not even retired yet. severall of the recent nats winning fliers included and even the current FAI team. so please dont cry that the sky is falling and only drastically changing the event to suit some newcomers or lazy builders (yeah i said lazy) is the only thing that will save the day.
if you want to change the event then propose a change, its been tried before but at least come up with a valid reason.
if some people spent as much time at the work bench as they do at the computer they might actually learn to build better.
and guess what, 100 arfs fly like 100 dollar airplanes, sorry but its true.
Dave

[Randy Powell]

Dave,

Does that mean that the $3000 ARFS fly like, well ....

I agree. I really wasn't going to address the dead in 10 years comment. I look around here and the average age is about 50 with a lot of younger combat fliers. I doubt it's going to die. It will wane and wax like anything else, I suppose, but it's too much fun to just go away.

[Rudy Taube]

Hi Dave,

SHORT ANS:
I'm sorry my math is so poor. Maybe all the guys over at the "Freeflight" forum have a better answer for you?

BTW: I did not say dead in 10 years, I said we have 10 GOOD years left. Meaning 10 years like we have now, with many contests with good participation, etc.


LONG ANS,     .... CAUTION: EDITORIAL, READ AT YOUR OWN RISK! (Those with a heart condition, please take your meds before reading!  )

My guess is that your negative attitude will not go very far in helping to slow the decrease in the # of CL flyers. As some wise pilots have said: it is better for our small hobby to be inclusive rather than exclusive.

The obvious demographics aside, many people simply vote with their feet. They quietly leave and either go back to RC or find some other, more "open" activity to enjoy. The ONLY increase our little hobby has seen in recent years is from "retreads" coming back to CL, mostly from being in RC for X years. Most of these retreads are in the 60 to 70 age group.  If CLPA becomes "inclusive and open" many of these people will stay, if you insist on being "exclusive" many will simply leave. This is not rocket science, it is just marketing 101.

I don't know many 12 year olds who would ever think for one second about coming into our hobby, CL or RC. Go and look at a modern video game set and see what a great alternative the 12 year old has. This fantastic game machine will transport him into an entirely different world of his own making. And do it for around $300. It will last for years, never crash, makes NO noise (headsets) to bother anyone, has a reset button, can be done for minutes or hours to fit any schedule, is NOT affected by the WX, etc. etc. ....

Now tell me why he is going to get into a hobby that requires about $300 just to get started, about $1,000 to be competitive. Then requires finding someone who will teach him for endless boring hours about how to do a building activity that seems to this 12 year old "somewhat outdated and totally unnecessary". And requires one of his dual working parents to take the time to drive him to a flying field 35+ miles away, then wait there for several hours and drive home, every time he wants to fly. Then ask those parents to put up with dangerous chemicals that smell up the entire home while Johny builds and paints his model. Then has to ask for a 2nd plane because he crashed the 1st one,  etc. .... OR, he can just push a button and enter a fast paced exciting new world that does NOT require any permission or help from an often absent parent, and has a reset button with an instant start over with NO cost?

Unless you have a time machine none of us know about, we can only pretend to go back to the 1950s, they will not come back in reality, no matter how much we wish for them to do so. We old timers can enjoy this whimsical visit to our childhood by enjoying this Golden Age of CLPA, but I think it will only cause frustration if we try to delude ourselves into thinking that our very little, "dated",  hobby is going to last very long into the future beyond our generation. Yes, there may be a few, just like in freeflight, but it will be on a very small scale after we stop flying. The continued loss of flying sites from noise issues will also be a factor.

This should not be depressing to anyone. I think we are all lucky that this wonderful hobby is still available to us and that we are still young enough to enjoy it for a while longer. We should all rejoice in the good memories CL flying brings back. And appreciate the beautiful models at our contests. My only point was simply that we should do all we can to maximize the FUN and minimize the stress in our little hobby while it is still, for a brief moment in time, in this Golden Age. :-) 

Regards, 

[RC Storick]

Rudy I do understand what you are saying. However can you tell me what a video game can teach you in the way of craftsmanship? The dumbing down of America must end somewhere. Shoot I forgot who needs craftsmanship everything is made in China.

[Bob Reeves]

Problem is we can't change it so we either adapt or die. I don't think any of us are real happy with the way our society is moving but a hand full of model airplane nuts do no have enough power to change much of anything. The decision is do we try to adapt as best we can and hopfully a few will at least keep the hobby alive or do we stand fast to our old fashion beliefs and watch it die.

[RC Storick]

The decision is do we try to adapt as best we can and hopfully a few will at least keep the hobby alive or do we stand fast to our old fashion beliefs and watch it die.

I have heard this for 20 years now

[Doug Moon]

I have heard this for 20 years now

That is true, I have herd people been predicting the end of CLPA ever since I have been in it.  I have also heard the mass exodus of years ago was due to people leaving for other things to do, raising families, careers, RC, or whatever.  Then a HUGE return about the time I really got into flying competition.  Now I think people are more fearful for the end because people are not leaving they are dying.  There is a huge difference and not recognize that would be a huge mistake by our very small community.