Hope I don't get in trouble with Keith for posting this. This the last E-Mail I got from him. I know Keith is a very busy man and after reading this don't go slamming people as some were doing what they thought best at the time. There are procedures to be followed and I am probably in deep water for this.
Here is a report on some things that are moving forward.
1. Except for one member, I have received a response from the entire board on the Urgent Proposal regarding the handle interpretation. The vote so far has been unanimous in favor of that Proposal (drafted by Bill Lee with input from a number of you). The Perry proposal has received a unanimous vote from the entire board to deny immediate action (Option C as defined in our Contest Board Procedures). As far as I can determine, except for the Carrier Board, the other Boards are voting in the same manner. I will soon submit our response on these proposals to the AMA (Greg Hahn) and I think he will be able to post the results by late next week so relief from the handle interpretation is eminent. I want to thank each of you for your quick response on these two matters. We also need to thank Bill Lee for stepping up and drafting that proposal as well as the several people addressed in this message for the input they provided to Bill Lee on the Urgent proposal.
2. By now, most of you are aware of the letter/messages from Frank Williams regarding the problem he faces with his understanding to the changes made to our BOM rule. He feels the changes will not allow him to use the model he is building (or has built) for this Nats and that he has already paid for non-refundable airline tickets. Without going into detail here, suffice it to say that this matter is being worked and should come to a satisfactory conclusion soon. The less we say to outside this group about any concerns we have about Frank's situation, the easier it will be to get this resolved quietly. I am not saying the matter is closed, buy a satisfactory conclusion may be close at hand. More on this below.
3. By now, most of you have seen a responses I have sent to Norm Whittle about his unnecessary message to the AMA about the PAMPA Appearance point guide. I do not know how this one will play out, but I doubt if Norm is going to be very happy about what I sent to him. This does not really involve the Board, but all of you are members of PAMPA and should know that Norm has opened an issue with the AMA that does not really involve the AMA. And now with the latest I have received from Norm, and copied to you, this matter should be closed.
4. Now, for the BOM provisions in our rulebook. I will discuss this here in several steps.
4a. The first I need to explain is that I received a message this morning from Greg Hahn. I think a few of you received a copy of the Hahn message, including Bill Rich. He explained that he had talked with Bill and this is from his message:
"... and I feel it appropriate that you announce through your various forums, the Contest Board and PAMPA news channels that for this year’s nats, if your entry was legal last year it will be legal this year so that the changes do not disenfranchise any particular pilot or group of pilots that competed in previous years."
I then spoke with Greg to make sure I understood. I spoke with Bill and he is in agreement with this. So, we have the green light to post announcements that what was legal under the BOM requirements last year will be legal this year and I feel certain that we have the AMA support on this. Based on this, I will be posting on the forums later this evening this announcement. This is based on the simple fact that there was a BOM rule before 2005. The interpretation that was inserted in that BOM 2005 BOM rule really did not change the rule. It was just that, an interpretation for clarification. Now, the rule is still the same, with or without the interpretation. However, the thing that needs to be made clear, and I will not mention it in my announcement this evening, is that models that were allowed at the Nats last year that did not comply with the BOM rule should not be allowed to fly at this Nats. Two wrongs do not make a right. Yes, Bill will still have a problem in challenging any such model. Part of that challenge could be websites that show those as RTF models. If the entrant still insists that he or she built that particular model as attested by the signed entry form, and unless the AMA upholds Bill's challenge, then Bill will not have any recourse but to allow the model to compete. If it gets to this, there is a real possibility that at least one, if not several contestants, will file a protest, but with the same expected outcome and the loss of the protest fee. Nevertheless, word will be in the pits about the legality of that or those models. If those contestants who entered such models can be comfortable with that, so be it. They have no conscience or honor.
This also takes care of the Frank Williams' situation and for anyone else with a similar problem with their airplanes being prepared for this Nats under the rulebook with the PA interpretation.
So, I think this is a major development and at least provides SOME resolution to our BOM requirements for this and next year.
4b. I have received some "pushback" from several of you as Board members as well as from some in my District against initiating any sort of Urgent Change Proposal. Such proposals are those "that cannot wait for the normal rules change cycle due to there being a problem with the current rules that adversely affects the event in some manner." Howard Rush has prepared words that could be used as a basis to make such a proposal if we think it necessary or appropriate to generate a BOM rule peculiar to our CLPA rules. I want to thank Howard for that effort. He prepared those words under the guidelines I laid out that any such rule for now should allow any model that was legal under the current General BOM rule, with the PA interpretation, would still be legal, even though Howard does not agree with that concept. With the forthcoming announcement as explained in 4a above, I see that there is no need to pursue any urgent proposal on this matter. In fact, the criteria for such action is not satisfied given the green light just received from the AMA.
So for now, this initiative is closed. Let me know if there is any disagreement.
4c. What we have ahead of us is the completion of this change cycle. Proposals can be made through March 15, next year. I would like to generate something within this Board for a proposal or proposals for our own PA BOM rule. This will have no need to make any reference to the General rules BOM since the only reference there is that that "rule applies to every event unless specifically noted otherwise in the rules governing that event". I have previously listed what I feel should be guidelines for our own PA BOM rule - presheeted foam wings should be allowed, preassembled components (wings, tails, fuselages) should be allowed, no specific lists of what is allowed, no specific lists of what is not allowed, no attempts to define an average or typical kit, and a stated requirement that the model must be covered/coated/finished or whatever words can be put together to clearly explain that. Howard Rush has done a great job with putting a strawman together that accomplishes these things, even though he does not think preassembled components should be allowed. What I envision is for us to prepare several proposals to show the PA community, even as formal proposals (submitted by individuals) and see what kind of feedback we get. One of those proposals would be similar to the Rush strawman. Another proposal could be one that is more restrictive by not allowing preassemble components. Another proposal could be based on a 51% rule. None of this has to be done now, but I encourage dialog among our Board members and it is not too soon to start discussions on whatever ideas you have. Hopefully we all agree that something needs to be done now to start our own PA BOM rule.
Again, I want to thank all of you for your support and the words that I have received from many of you. It is certainly appreciated.
Keith
l Search
WelcomeInboxNewFoldersMail Options
Topic: question? (Read 897 times)