Rules

[john e. holliday]

As some of you that go to the AMA site to check on the rules proposals as well as the cross proposal will see we are in for some horrific processing in the coming year of 2009.  The only responses I got were verbal and were against the cross proposal.  I see a couple of districts didn't even vote.  But, now does the flyer have to fill his tank in front of the event director before weighing the model?  Now how do we gaurantee that the battery in the plane is the one the contestant is going to use?  Come 2009 all planes will have to be weighed before pull testing the lines and safety thong.  See ya all at the NATS,  GOD willing and the creek don't rise.  DOC Holliday

[Chris McMillin]

I'm going to fly R/C Pattern.
Chris...

[billbyles]

I'm going to fly R/C Pattern.
Chris...

Yeah, but will it pass the pull test, Chris?

[Trostle]

In this rules change cycle, there was a basic CLPA proposal to base line sizes and the pull test based only on model weight.  The current rules already specify line sizes and the putll test for electric powered models are already based on model weight to include batteries.  There was also a cross proposal that gas powered models had to be weighed with the fuel tanks full.  The cross proposal failed.  The basic proposal pased.  So, beginning in 2009, all CLPA models will be weighed to determine the pull test and minimum line diamters, just ad is curretnly required for electrics.  The fuel tanks for gas powered models will not be required to be filled.  The electric poweed models will be weighed with their batteries as is currently required.

[john e. holliday]

Sorry Keith,  guess I need to learn to read a little better.  But,  looking at the AMA site what is CLA-09-0?  Hope that is supposed be a 10.  Thanks for keeping me straight.  DOC Holliday

[Chris McMillin]

We used to weigh Quickie 500's at process and it took about nothing flat. No one was trying to cheat at anything that I knew of and the officials weren't trying to nail anyone for anything that I know of, so it wasn't a big deal. We weighed them in lbs on a baby scale and it was just fine.
How are they weighed in FAI, large or small units?
I would imagine that 2, 2 1/2, 3, 3 1/2, 4lbs etc, would be fine for AMA pull testing, wouldn't it?
Chris...

[Trostle]

Sorry Keith,  guess I need to learn to read a little better.  But,  looking at the AMA site what is CLA-09-0?  Hope that is supposed be a 10.  Thanks for keeping me straight.  DOC Holliday

Hi Doc,

Accoding to the AMA record, there were four basic proposals that passed the initial vote.  These were:

CLA-09-6 which redefines Paragraph 14 in the rulebook as a "Judges Guide".

CLA-09-7 which eliminates pattern points and essentially adopts the FAI penalties for not flying a maneuver correctly or omitting a maneuver from the prescribed sequence.

CLA-09-8 which refines the definition of the vertical portions of square loops and the square eight in Paragraph 14 (soon to be called a Judges Guide) to agree with our AMA maneuver descriptions and diagrams for these maneuvers.

CLA-09-9 which establishes line sizes and pull test to be determined by model weight for IC powered models as now required for electrics.

The cross proposal to CLA-09-9 which would have required gas models to be weighed with full fuel tanks failed the interim vote.

The four basic proposals listed above passed the final vote.  The AMA tabulation for the final vote that listed CLA-09-0 appears to be an error.  It should list CLA-09-9 as this is one of the four proposals that passed the initial vote as shown above.  CLA-09-10 which was an effort to redefine the BOM definition failed the initial vote.

Hpe this makes sense and should clarify the apparent misprint on the AMA website.

Keith

[Rudy Taube]

Hi Doc,

One half of your post was neatly cleared up by Keith, but the other half still needs to be addressed.

Your comment: ".....will see we are in for some horrific processing in the coming year of 2009. ...."  brings up an issue that should be discussed now, before we have to deal with it at the 1st contest in 01-09. ..... I'm glad you brought it up. :-)

As an active CD, and I think you and other CDs may feel the same way, I feel that anything we can do to streamline the running of our contests is a benefit to everyone. At a medium to large CL contest (25 to 50+) anything that adds time should be looked at closely for a way to minimize it's negative impact on the contest.

You are correct in your concern about weighing each A/C at every contest could cause a bottleneck (although "horrific" may be a bit too strong? ;-). Since they did not address this problem in the rule (bummer), we can still address it as a procedural issue as CDs.

My recommendation is that we do what other weight sensitive sports do: "use a certification system". In sailing we get a "weight certificate" from an official that weighs our boats. It lists all the equipment on the boat when it was weighed, the weight, and the signature of the official with his #. We could do the same thing with our models.

We could easily design a certificate that could be used nationally. If we use an AMA CD and/or a Leader Member to sign the certificate at the weigh in it could be used on that plane/eng. etc. combo until there was a change made to the combo. A pilot could use his plane across the nation in any contest without having to be weighed each time. This weigh in could be at his local field, or club meeting, as long as it was witnessed and signed by the CD or Leader Member. This would minimize the need to do it at the 1st contest of the year.

This system would easily prevent the "horrific processing" problems Doc alluded to. 

Our club has an excellent pull test machine. With a few mods it could be adjustable to accommodate many different weights. This is simple and inexpensive to build. But the old digital fish scale still works. :-)

I'm sure there are other ideas out there on how to address this problem. I hope others will post them for us to see. :-) Thanks again Doc for bringing this up.

PS: As an ECL flyer, I know you were just kidding about us changing the battery size between weigh in and pull test? ..... Yikes Doc, I hope you have not become jaded just because you are now past 50?? ;-)

Regards,

[don Burke]

In F2C racing I believe the National Aero Clubs provide stickers for each airplane from their country, a certification that they meet all the specs for the class.  However, I think I remember at the 2004 WC in Muncie weighing each airplane  as they were checked in to set the pull test value.  Tis a potential snafu but taken care of by the scoring program provided by Bill Lee.  Paperwork is something that we can't get away from unfortunately.  But I think the new rule makes sense, weight IS what determines the normal pull on the lines.

I attended the Knight's Joust this year as a spectator and it appeared to me that there was an awful lot of down time between flights, plenty of time to weigh and pull test airplanes before they went in the circle.

[john e. holliday]

Randy,  years ago we had a situation in Navy Carrier as far as weight of an airplane at pull test time.  The processing of planes takes time before the day of the event.  The person in question was pprocessing with a wooden prop.  This person would also add weight to their plane until it got almost to max weight.  The next day the person(pit boss) seen they were using a composite prop which weighs more than a wooden prop in most peoples eyes.  The person got upset and left the event because the pit boss wanted to re-weigh the plane.  I was not the event director that year, in fact I was put in charge of tabulation of scores.  It happens in all events in that some individuals will do anything for an edge.  DOC Holliday

[Bob Reeves]

I already know what I'm going to do.. I'm simply going to ask the pilot what his airplane weighs and take his word for it. The only airplanes that will get weighed will be if the answer is "I don't know".

[Arch Adamisin]

If pull tests are based on ready to fly weights, the fuel tanks must be full in order to determine the Ready to fly weight.  You can't fly with an empty tank. Some things are really simple.

     Arch

[Doug Moon]

When I do the clover it is darn near empty. 

You dont weight it with the fuel.  They dont in F2B and they have it working just fine.

Also weighing at the contest shouldnt be that big a deal.  Get a digital fish scale, not too expensive now a days.  Make a couple of different hooks.  One to hang ti from the 2/4 blade prop.  One from the 3 blade prop.  One that hangs it from the hole in the spinner if said modeler would like it that way.  One from the tail wheel as well.  So you have the scale 4 small attachments that stay with it.  Pretty simple.  Should go nice and easy.  Plus many people fly the same planes year after year.  As Bob said you can just take their word on it after initial weigh in.  Just like BOM.  Take their word and move on.

 

[Rudy Taube]

Ya gotta love CLPA. You ask 10 CLPA guys a question and you will get 15 different opinions!  I tend to lean toward Bob's plan, but I see Doc's point. (see what I mean ;-).

Doc: My guess is that if we try to make our rules cover the few bad apples out there they would be so Draconian that they would be a real PITA for everyone else? Bob's plan may be a little casual, but it sure is appealing in a KIS sorta way. Maybe we can find something in between?

 Don's comment about the FAI using a sticker in F2C sounds very good.

Don, RE you comment about having plenty of time between flights is true once the contest gets started, but not for the very important several A/C needed to be ready to get the all important early start. Also, it is not just a time issue, it is also a helper issue. Anything we can do to limit the amount of "work" at a contest is worth doing. The stickers, or Bob's idea both limit the work load. :-)

IMHO: It just seems foolish to me that we would waste valuable contest time doing something over and over at every contest when it can be done just once and meet the rule, and save a lot of work, and wasted time.

But, CLPA being CLPA, we will see it done a hundred different ways with no standard method from region to region. Some will think this makes CLPA interesting, others may not?  

Regards, 

[Trostle]

If pull tests are based on ready to fly weights, the fuel tanks must be full in order to determine the Ready to fly weight.  You can't fly with an empty tank. Some things are really simple.

     Arch

There was a cross prposal to require fel tanks to be full. That cross proposal was defeated.  Thee is nothing in the new rule that requires the fuel tank to be filled when the model is weighed.

Keith

[Alan Hahn]

Well just to throw a little sand into these well-oiled gears  , it is entirely conceivable that I might have different weight batteries for the two flights. However the weight difference is less than the weight of fuel that people think is inconsequential to weigh.

[Mike Greb]

I find the line size proposal kind of scary at the high end of the weight scale.  Under the proposal I could fly my last years 76 powered 63 oz impact using .015 braided, and that does not seem to have much of a safety margin to me.
McMaster-carr rates their 1/64 (.0156) 702 stainless 1x7 stainless wire rope at 40 pounds breaking strenght.  Two wires it would be 80 lb static, which is  more that the pull test, but I worry about things such as the pull distribution at full control movement.

From a contest directors standpoint, what happens when I weigh a plane, and the owner swears it doesn't weigh that much ?  The same type of people who will try to get away with undersize lines are going to be the same people who are going to challenge what your scale comes up with.  Ever try to weigh anything to a fraction of an ounce in a 10 mph wind?

From a competitors standpoint, If my model is anywhere close to the weight break, I need to be prepared to fly on two different sizes of lines.  My current model on my scale is 72.5 ounces.  I don't know what another scale will come up with in an outside environment.  So I would need to be prepared to fly on two differant sizes of lines depending on what the contest management comes up with.

[phil c]

Agree with Mike.  .015 stainless 7 strand is not strong enough to safely fly a 4lb(64 oz) plane.  The ultimate breaking strength may be 40 lb per line, but a more reasonable working strength is about 24 lb.  The centrifugal force alone on 63 ft. lines at typical speeds(5+ sec lap times) is over 12 lb.  It needs to be no more than 1/3 the working strength.  Brand new, perfectly made lines will probably be usable and usualluy survive a 40 lb pull test mostly, but in any wind over about 10 mph the lines will be very iffy.

Multistrand music wire lines would be considerably stronger, but are hard to find.  They also are subject to corrosion, especially hidden in the terminations.

[Trostle]

Reference the recent posts expressing concerns regarding the new line size and pull test requirements for CLPA.  I believe some of the concerns have merit.  It is unfortunate that these comments/concerns were not voiced sometime during the previous 12 to 18 months that this proposal was before the CL Aerobatics Contest Board prior to cross proposal deadlines as well as the deadlines for the interim and final vote on these proposals.

Also, as I understand from several CLACB members, there has been scant input, in fact in most cases, no input from anyone to their CLACB representative.

Keith

[RC Storick]

My continental XL came out on the porky side. The pull weight will be 43LBS even tho I could use .015 lines Nothing will change in my book I will use .018. Why take a chance?

[Joey Mathison 9806]

if there was a flyaway and someone was hurt what would happen when the investagater learned that the plane was not put on a scale that day and the contestant told the cd what the models weight was when he flew at the last contest. i am not trying to stir the pot i don't even fly stunt  i fly cl speed. it seems like the houner system on pull test could possibly be a law suit waiting to happen.

[Clayton Smith]

Reference the recent posts expressing concerns regarding the new line size and pull test requirements for CLPA.  I believe some of the concerns have merit.  It is unfortunate that these comments/concerns were not voiced sometime during the previous 12 to 18 months that this proposal was before the CL Aerobatics Contest Board prior to cross proposal deadlines as well as the deadlines for the interim and final vote on these proposals.

Also, as I understand from several CLACB members, there has been scant input, in fact in most cases, no input from anyone to their CLACB representative.

Keith

Suggest that Trostle review the numerous detailed commentaries on this Board and The Stuka Stunt Board from Wayne Foster regarding Trostle's Proposal CLA 09-9.  I also direct attention to the AMA Contest Board Procedures paragraph 5.1 which outlines the criteria for Contest Board Members to analyze proposals.  CLA 09-9 fails on virtually every one of the eight points to be treated in the Board's evaluation.

I did provide input by US Mail to my District Control Line Contest Board Member instructing a NO in the final vote to Proposal CLA 09-9.  I also addressed the CLCB Chairman.  Unfortunately, the address as provided by AMA for my District Board Member resulted in my letter being returned "Undeliverable / Unable to Forward".  My letter to the Board Chairman also proved ineffective as that Board Member chose not to vote.

The vote for CLA 09-9 is administratively flawed and should be nullified. Nullification is required since the proposal CLA 09-9 which was authored by Control Line Contest Board Member Trostle received a NO vote by Trostle on the Initial Vote according to the AMA Record.  Trostle's NO vote against his own proposal should have constituted withdrawal of the proposal CLA 09-9 and its removal from further consideration.

Clayton Smith
AMA 16879
High Point, NC

[Paul Smith]

My continental XL came out on the porky side. The pull weight will be 43LBS even tho I could use .015 lines Nothing will change in my book I will use .018. Why take a chance?

Your position is very correct. 

Q:  Why take a chance on marginal lines?

A: Because some of your competators will, given the chance, use marginal lines to gain advantage.

So just legislate lines that are "plenty big enough" to be safe and let everybody be safe, even it it lowers scores are few points across the board. 

[Dennis Adamisin]

Looks like folks will have plenty of ideas for the NEXT rules cycle... 

[Wayne Foster]

I already know what I'm going to do.. I'm simply going to ask the pilot what his airplane weighs and take his word for it. The only airplanes that will get weighed will be if the answer is "I don't know".

Hi Bob,

If you take the pilots word for what his plane weighs, are you also going to take his word on what size line he is flying with and take his word that they meet the correct pull test.

At best you are setting yourself up to lose your CD License and at worst case be involved in a law suit if that plane gets loose and hurts someone.  You can't just decide to ignore safety rules that you don't happen to like.  All you Cd's out there had better think long and hard about this.

To my knowledge, no other CL event has ever lowered the line size for any class of plane in any event.  This was a very bad rule change.  I still can't understand why the originator of the rule (Keith Trostle) voted against it in the preliminary and final vote.  Maybe he thinks this will shield him from any ligation in the future.  I doubt it.

As a AMA Leader Member, I got an interesting letter from AMA last month about including Club Officers in their Indemnification program.  It doesn't say anything about covering CD's or people on the Contest Boards.  i know for a fact that while I was on the Contest Board we were not covered at that time, because I asked.

The Contest Board has taken it on themselves to make these line size changes without ANY professional engineering help to determine the results on lowering the line sizes.  Now is a real good time to NOT be on the Contest Board.

Wayne Foster
AMA 959

[Bob Reeves]

Well it looks like some really get paranoid, first off the rest of the world has been operating under these rules for decades and we haven't seen a problem, second I don't believe I said I was going to ignore any rule(s). I still believe the best thing the we could do is completely adopt the FAI rules and get in step with the rest of the world. This is a leap in the right direction.

Anyway, YES, I'm going to take the pilots word, I'd bet with maybe the exception for a few beginners and intermediates everyone knows exactly what their stunt ship weighs.

[john e. holliday]

Reading this stuff again reminds of a couple of years ago when more was stated after the fact than before.  I guess it must be human nature for such things.  Things kept me from several contests at the end of the flying season last year, but, there is the inter-net, snail mail and the phone that I could have read or listened to.  Now is the time to get your proposals ready by putting them on paper and discussing them before inputting them on the next cycle.  Those that did put in proposals this last time worked ####### them, but, we need input from you out there in all forms of competition to let us know what you want.  Later,  DOC Holliday

[L0U CRANE]

Doc, and all in here,

The FAI rule scheme makes a problem for those who, like my club, offer January contests. We've been through a similar confusion several times. Back when AMA mailed rulebooks to every member - at least when they changed to a new 2 or 3 year cycle - the new books seldom arrived before mid-February at the earliest...

Our January meets used the previous rules, unless a safety procedure was involved.

Doing pull tests is a safety check. Even the displacement-based pull numbers were a bit flaky if you consider a 40VF monster in an appropriately large and heavy model, or similar setups. But there it was (actually still is, until January 1, 2009) - .015 multi-strand and 30 lb pull. At least, under the 2009-10 rules, if the model weighs 4 lbs, it should be pulled 40 lbs...

Which brings up another problem: How accurate are spring pull-scales? How well can they be read while doing a test? The various pulley or lever arrangement pull-test rigs can be spot-on accurate - at the step values posted with the displacement-based pull schedule.

The basic idea is to try to ensure safety. However, the current year method pulls many models too much - compared to 10G by actual weight... Many .25 to .40 powered models weigh between 2 and 2.5 lbs, but they are pulled 30 lbs, not 20 or 25, respectively. Some models in this displacement range weigh more than 3 lbs; they're pulled less than 10G under the current system, but considered safe... At the smaller end of the displacement ranges: an .09 powered model might weigh less than 1 lb, but is still pulled 15 lbs - that's 15G.

AMA apparently considers this year's pull standards as safe as next year's. CDs can still announce variations from rulebook wording, if  safety is not affected. Early in 2009, until everyone gets the word, anyway, continuing with displacement-based pull tests is equally as safe as 10G by weight.  Good points have been raised that AMA should, perhaps, reconsider the line diameters - perhaps they will, and improve things with an "urgent ruling" or some such. Similar stuff has been done...

As long as this thread is titled "Re: Rules," I'm surprised that everyone seems happy with the elimination of Pattern Points (CLA-09-7)! Have you read through the new interpretation of incomplete, out of sequence or missed maneuver scoring? Much stricter than the current rules... Much!

[RC Storick]

We need to quit messing around with the rules and come into line with the rest of the world. Use FAI rules. Then we would have a say in FAI as it stands we don't. While they may listen they don't care...

[steven yampolsky]

We need to quit messing around with the rules and come into line with the rest of the world. Use FAI rules. Then we would have a say in FAI as it stands we don't. While they may listen they don't care...

Ditto here!

[don Burke]

We had enough influence in the beginning for the FAI to adopt the AMA pattern in the first place.  Since then any mods have been up to the plenary committee responsible for the F2B rules.  We do have one vote on that committee, that's usually not enough!

Personally I think that the AMA rules are just fine the way they are and that FAI is too complicated.  But they do seem recently to have partially seen the light and are approaching ours rather than going their own way as they have in the past.

[L0U CRANE]

We need to quit messing around with the rules and come into line with the rest of the world. Use FAI rules. Then we would have a say in FAI as it stands we don't. While they may listen they don't care...

No great problem with this, if we keep in mind a few things...

Has anyone counted up all the CLPA fliers in the world outside the USA? I wonder if we outnumber them just in this one country...

But, then, how many of us even consider competing at the Team Trials, the single major FAI CLPA Meet, here in the USA, every two years (except when we host the CL World Championships; then, we see the trials one year and the WC the following year.)

FAI adopted the AMA Pattern, made the conduct of contests much more elaborate, and introduced international political scheming to rules making. (Can anyone say "Olympics Figure Skating, or Platform or Board Diving?")

Aside from a traditional European sense of national "competing", could there possibly have been some intention to build-in some trickies to hinder the overwhelming mastery shown by USA Teams in earlier years? Naaah, couldn't possibly be like that, could it?

FAI model flight governing began as a European thing, understandably: many smallish countries, all conveniently stacked together. The FAI Rules DID offer a ready-to-use package to nations which didn't have much activity until there were guidelines for what could and should be done, and how to do it. That - again sort of like the Olympics - had good and bad. Consider: when the Soviet Union was, in effect, the national government of all the Soviet Socialist Republics, each one of the SSR's could - often did - field a team for any or all events... But, could the USA field 50 sets of teams? R U kddn?

The central intent of FAI is to manage international competition under "fair" rules that all are aware of. Easy to do in Europe. Easy to do in parts of the world that had no other rules before FAI provided them, and regions or individual countries adopted FAI as their national rules. In effect, FAI controls. In the UK and down under, there are still many 'local' events, in addition to new ideas in the FAI books. We have 'local' rules, here, too,  and can adjust them when and as we wish, if enough of us want to, without negotiating with distant countries, on their schedule, who may not be much interested in what suits us.

For most of us, anyway, CL flight is a hobby: something we choose to do at our own expense because we enjoy doing it. Hobbies can become as obsessive as any other activity humans get into, but, that aside... If some remote World Government Body whups some apparently arbitrary, complicated, foreign, RULES on us, it might not always be welcomed with joy and celebration. (We're still guaranteed the freedom to have different opinions, I think...)

[Bob Reeves]

Missinformation like this is probably the reason we don't seriously think about adopting the FAI rules..

The number of stunt pilots in the US is a small (but vocal) percentage of the stunt pilots in the world. Don't remember the exact numbers but someone that figured it out posted it on one of the forums.

If we all actually knew and understood the FAI rules I'd bet more would attend the team trials. As it stands the FAI is a black hole most US pilots don't bother learning anything about.

The US has as much of a vote as any other country in what the FAI does and the rules.

[don Burke]

I believe that only the best of the best are interested in competing on an international level, that and the associated overseas travel expense is why you don't see a lot of participation at the team trials.  I think participation dropped when the AMA dropped financing the team travel.  And that happened when we could no longer get the free rides from MATS.

Other than the scoring I don't think there is that much of a difference between AMA and FAI.  I haven't kept up with it but, aren't the patterns the same?   The difference is in the event procedures.

And yes we do have a vote in all matters, ONE vote, just like at the UN.

[Doug Moon]

What most miss when the talk of going FAI is that we would still be ruled by the AMA.  I dont think anyone is advocating removing CLPA from AMA governing and insurance and moving to the FAI.

So, we do as Warren proposed and adopt FAI rules and scoring procedures as they stand now with a few twists here and there.  Time limit and a few other nuggets were suggested.  It almost passed initial proposal, only one vote away. 

We remain under AMA and the rules process so we can change things to it under normal rules cycle.  If and when the FAI update their rules we can move along with them or not.  It is still up to us.  We will not be subject to the FAI political process. 

Dont anyone fool themselves into thinking there are NO politics in the AMA rules process either.

Please remember this in the future when this comes up. 

[Brett Buck]

I still believe the best thing the we could do is completely adopt the FAI rules and get in step with the rest of the world. This is a leap in the right direction.

   Why is it that you presume that the FAI rules are somehow superior?  Having flown a fair bit both ways, I certainly don't see *any* advantage in getting "in step with the rest of the world".  Moreover, once you start using FAI rules you have, effectively, *no* input to the process. The rules are determined by backroom deals, frequently between people who don't even fly stunt. Even those chartered to come up with rules proposals don't have much control over the process - witness Andy Sweetland and Peter Germann's efforts over years of careful negotiation, ripped to shreds by some subcomittee without the chance for public comment. We would serve the world better to bring FAI up to AMA standards.

    AMA stunt, near as I can tell, is FAR healthier than FAI. Because the people who fly the event control the event.

     Additionally, you ignore the 800 lb gorilla - appearance points and BOM. Not much point in rehashing it because none of the arguments have changed, but FAI is a backdoor way of ditching BOM. According to our recent survey, this is not in line with the vast majority of the respondents wanted. It was about 80/20 or so IN FAVOR of keeping the BOM, with some very interesting ideas associated.

     Brett

     Brett

[Doug Moon]

.......Moreover, once you start using FAI rules you have, effectively, *no* input to the process. The rules are determined by backroom deals, frequently between people who don't even fly stunt. Even those chartered to come up with rules proposals don't have much control over the process - witness Andy Sweetland and Peter Germann's efforts over years of careful negotiation, ripped to shreds by some subcomittee without the chance for public comment. We would serve the world better to bring FAI up to AMA standards.

     Brett

This is not true.  Where did he say adopt the FAI as the governing body of the the USA CLPA.  I have seen no one supporting FAI rules adoption also support FAI Governing body over the USA.  Only the adoption of the current rules package under the AMA.

I am sure you are very aware of the following proposal and very versed in its intent and meaning.

Taken from the AMA Website,

CLA-09-2 - Change the current CLA rules to comply with the FAI Sporting Code as defined in Section 4 – Aeromodeling Volume F2, Class F2B. Volume F2, Control Line Annex 4B-Class F2B-Judges Guide and Volume F2, Control Line, Annex 4-H-Class F2B Maneuver Diagrams also apply.

Refer to the FAI Sporting Code Section 4 – Aeromodeling, Volume F2 Control Line Class F2B, Annex 4B and Annex 4H. The exceptions to the above rules are as follows:
• The existing AMA three (3) age classification will be retained.
• Safety thongs are required.
• Paragraph 4.2.10 Scoring – The K-Factors for all maneuvers shall be one (1).
• Paragraph 4.2.13c – Allowable flight time shall be 8 minutes.
• The existing precision aerobatics skill classes shall be retained with all references to the builder of the model deleted. The average score guidelines shall be adjusted to reflect the 10 point maximum/maneuver scoring system.

Logic:
Currently the USA is the only country that does not use the FAI Sporting Code to define the Control Line Precision Aerobatics event. This proposed change would bring the USA in accord with the rest of the world. The AMA Junior, Senior and Open age classifications would be retained to insure continued competition for the Jim Walker Trophy. The use of the FAI Sporting Code for F2B also eliminates the BOM rule which is virtually impossible to enforce as currently interpreted by the AMA.

Submitted by: Warren Tiahrt, AMA #1751

With some changes made to tailor it to the US Standards it is easy to see Warren, and others who discuss this, are merely talking about taking on the current rules set.  Not moving us under FAI rule.  We still fall under AMA and can change as we see fit with our normal rules change cycle.  It is just simply changing words in the rule book.  Just like when Keith had the judges guide added to the book.  And I agree with you we should stay that way.  And, going out on a limb here, I think most would agree.

If I am not mistaken the Canadians did this very thing.  They took what they wanted and came up with what they felt served them best.

I sincerely hope no one wants us to fall under FAI rule.  That would not be a good thing.

When I heard about the K-Factor trial not going as planned I heard from several fliers from all over the globe who said they prefer K-factor judging and they are glad it is staying that way.  They didnt think a huge change to the system was warrented.  Just like many here feel there is no need to make a huge change to our system.

Either way you want to do it is fine by me.  I just want to go flying. 

[Bob Reeves]

Thanks Doug, couldn't have said it better.

[Charlie Pate]

   Why is it that you presume that the FAI rules are somehow superior?  Having flown a fair bit both ways, I certainly don't see *any* advantage in getting "in step with the rest of the world".  Moreover, once you start using FAI rules you have, effectively, *no* input to the process. The rules are determined by backroom deals, frequently between people who don't even fly stunt. Even those chartered to come up with rules proposals don't have much control over the process - witness Andy Sweetland and Peter Germann's efforts over years of careful negotiation, ripped to shreds by some subcomittee without the chance for public comment. We would serve the world better to bring FAI up to AMA standards.

    AMA stunt, near as I can tell, is FAR healthier than FAI. Because the people who fly the event control the event.

     Additionally, you ignore the 800 lb gorilla - appearance points and BOM. Not much point in rehashing it because none of the arguments have changed, but FAI is a backdoor way of ditching BOM. According to our recent survey, this is not in line with the vast majority of the respondents wanted. It was about 80/20 or so IN FAVOR of keeping the BOM, with some very interesting ideas associated.

     Brett

     Brett

thanks for advising the vote results;I was curious and thank you.

[L0U CRANE]

Bob R, to your reply #32...
>The number of stunt pilots in the US is a small (but vocal) percentage of the stunt pilots in the world. Don't remember
>the exact numbers but someone that figured it out posted it on one of the forums.

No hard feelings and I hope I didn't tromp on any toes. As a few others mention, only the best of our best fliers consider the time, effort and expense of competing for a slot in a USA CLPA WC team, much less the further involvement of serving if selected. And, certainly, USA CLPA FAI fliers are a small group...

We may have 20 or so enter an FAI Team Trials, in a good year. This forum has over a thousand members, I believe, most of whom are into CLPA to some extent. Another forum also has a similar membership - and I suspect that about 60% in each are in both.

Are there actually nearly 2,000 CLPA fliers - fliers, not just top level competitors - outside the USA? If so, I think that's great! ... and I'm glad to hear it. However, from viewing websites in many countries, I didn't get that impression.

Did I misstate F2B's origins and adjustment to European preferences over the years, while domestic USA practice evolved separately, in its own fashion? (...other than a few digs meant half tongue-in-cheek...)

[Steve Helmick]

I've judged at several Canadian  contests in '07 with 0-10 points/maneuver (no K-factor) and no PP's. Other than the sticker shock (seeing a very good flight yeild under 200 pts.), and no appearance points, I thought it was ok. It didn't change the results at all, from what I saw.

If a model's weight is so close to the line size limit point, that you're concerned about being required to use the bigger lines, you'd better use the larger lines and trim for them. The only way I'd weigh a stunt model (outdoors) at a contest is hanging from the leadouts. I'd hang the scale and let the model's owner handle the plane.  Scale accuracy is another issue. I fish, and I've used a bunch of the electronic digital scales. I'm not impressed with their accuracy. Therefore, getting consistency from contest to contest isn't going to be easy.

I've thought some about having a processing stamp on the planes, and I don't like it. I've thought about having a dossier to go with each plane, but don't really like that idea, either. I'm afraid that this will turn into a nit-picking contest, instead of a model flying contest. For instance, what sort of accuracy do we need, when we're weighing our planes? Grams? Ounces? Pounds in decimals or fractions? While I tend to favor the Metric system (the machinist in me), the official system in the USA is still pounds and ounces. I've run into folks (bass club) who can't write pounds and ounces down correctly, so you don't know if it's ounces or tenths of pounds...and some scales do that! Not good! We'll need to get our P's dotted and Q's conjugated...  Steve

[L0U CRANE]

Thanks, Steve,

You've added more to the concerns I have about going through the tedious and doubtful weighing of each model, at the contest, in the conditions, and calculating - and trying to duplicate - 10X the weight, etc...

There should be a way, at least in the interim, to fit the weights and displacement "brackets" closer together. E.g., a beam scale with sliding counterweights to determine which (current until Jan 09) AMA displacement bracket a given model fits into. How? Beam scale, balanced neutral w/o weight on either "pan", w/one arm 10X the radius of the other.

Place model on the short 'arm' and slide known weight on the other - which is marked with corresponding pull 'bracket' value zones. If a .40 powered model is more than 4.0 lb, that shows immediately. If the next 'bracket' pull value and line spec, if different, applies, that's it. PERIOD. And so on...

Given the lever or pulley test systems in use in many places, an accurate pre-test can be done at the model-end of the pull check area, the results relayed to the operator of the lever or pulley pull test rig, and an accurate pull-test that meets or exceeds BOTH AMA and FAI requirements can be imposed. (Should anything unfortunate happen, nevertheless, at least full compliance with requirements is certain.)

[Clayton Smith]

Suggest readers review Posts #21 and #24.  Then write to AMA to request nullification of the Control Line Aerobatics Contest Board's Vote passing Proposal CLA 09-9. Their vote makes effective in January 2009 a reduction in CLPA line size and pull test specifications for Models having internal combustion engines and should be nullified for reasons of safety.

Clayton Smith
AMA 16879
High Point, NC

[john e. holliday]

As stated earlier, if in doubt about the line size to weight go with the larger and trim for it.   When I found out I could use .012 on my .25 size engines I was leery as the LA & Brodak had as much power ormore than my Fox 35 Stunt.  But, so far they have held up well.  Have fun,  DOC Holliday

[Wayne Foster]

As stated earlier, if in doubt about the line size to weight go with the larger and trim for it.   When I found out I could use .012 on my .25 size engines I was leery as the LA & Brodak had as much power ormore than my Fox 35 Stunt.  But, so far they have held up well.  Have fun,  DOC Holliday

Hi Doc,

In 2009 when the new rules regarding line size go into effect, some airplanes with the LA 25 will become legal to fly with .008 Braided or .008 Solid lines.  My ARF Flite Streak weighs slightly less than 24 ounces ready to fly less fuel.  Do you think that combination will be safe to fly, especially on a windy day?

While I am flying my 24 ounce Stunt Plane on .008 lines, I will still have to use .012 Braided Lines on my 5 ounce 1/2A Mouse Racer and my 6.5 ounce 1/2A Combat Plane.

I think you guys may have gotten this Rule Change backwards.  If anything you should have thought about a way to raise the line sizes for the Electric Powered airplanes, not lower it for the gas models.

I guess time will tell who is right and who is wrong on this issue.

[Bob Reeves]

The new line size system already has a track record.. How many years has the rest of the world been flying under these exact same line size rules without problems..... That safety dog don't hunt...

[Wayne Foster]

The new line size system already has a track record.. How many years has the rest of the world been flying under these exact same line size rules without problems..... That safety dog don't hunt...

Hi Bob,

I don't think I follow your logic there Bob.  If you mean the rest of the World as in FAI you are just wrong.  The FAI rules concerning line size requirement do not have anything in common with this new Line Size Rule other than to pull test at 10 times the weight of the model.

I would guess that the very top line Stunt Pilots in the USA probably know the Official Rules very well.  It has been my observation that the majority of the rest of the Stunt flyers doesn’t know the rules very well and in a lot of cases have never looked at them.

As I'm sure you know the FAI F2B Rules do not specify ANY line size.  That is left up to the individual pilot.  This would actually be preferable to calling out the line sizes as was done with the new rule. 

I have a lot of experience flying models with the small diameter lines, .008 and .012 in other events.  I have had these size lines break many times in my 50 plus years of flying.  Many times these breaks occurred as a result of the plane getting loose on the lines in high winds and breaking when they reached the end.  It is very hard to make good terminations on the small lines and that is where most of the line breaks occur.  I don't have much real world experience on heavier planes flying on .015 and .018 lines except in CL Combat. The larger lines also break due to things other that line tangles and midair collisions.  They just don't break as often as the small lines.

I still think this is a flawed rule and we may have some dangerous crashes because of it.  I just hope no one gets hurt before we see who is right and who is wrong.

I would like to know why Keith Trostle, who proposed this rule, voted against it both times it came to a vote.

Wayne

[Steve Helmick]

As stated earlier, if in doubt about the line size to weight go with the larger and trim for it.   When I found out I could use .012 on my .25 size engines I was leery as the LA & Brodak had as much power ormore than my Fox 35 Stunt.  But, so far they have held up well.  Have fun,  DOC Holliday

Doc...the important thing to remember is that your .25 powered model doesn't weigh 60+ ounces like the .40VF or PA .40/piped model that also uses the same line size as your Fox .35 model. The .25 model might weigh 32 oz. Use .012's on your .25 models with the care you should, and you won't have a problem. But as you know, those .012's are less visible than .015's, and those pit monkeys that don't know what they're doing will step on them more often. IMO, we all should be rolling our lines up after each flight, and unrolling them just before our next flight. The best pilots do that. It's simply insurance.  Steve

[Louis Rankin]

I already know what I'm going to do.. I'm simply going to ask the pilot what his airplane weighs and take his word for it. The only airplanes that will get weighed will be if the answer is "I don't know".

I agree with Bob.  Even under the current engine size/line size standard, pull testers always ask what engine size you have and trust you are telling the truth.  I have never had a pull tester check my engine to see if I were telling the truth.  So, I would merely ask how much the model weighs and proceed.  Duh!!!

[Bill Little]

Most of what we do in the *Stunt World* is on the honor system.  However, I did get my lines *miked* at one Huntersville meet many years ago.  And depending on which why the micrometer was held, they were .015s as I had said!

Mongo