Spectra Connectors

[Target]

Normally you recognize the counterfeit product from stretch; they are totally unusable for our use (well, I don't understand why even the good stuff should be used but thats another thing..) and no one with common sense will use them.
But if you accept only a certain brand, like Power Pro, in your rules, it's totally silly because because there will allready be better products available that use the same fibre.
Especially Power Pro is not the best anymore becauseit has a braided sleeve type structure, it has a flat cross section that stretches more and is not aerodynamically good. If you look fir example at the Rapala line instead, it has clearly less stretch and cross section is round straight from the reel. L

I agree with this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Writing a rule that is brand specific in a time of high development doesn't make much sense to me, unless you want to keep re-writing it to use the best thing each year.
But, again, the guys that filed the proposal must have had their reasons for it. I would like know what they were.

R,
Target

[Ken Culbertson]

   Only lines sold under the Spectra or Dyneema brand names shall be used, and lines sold as an equivalent product shall be prohibited. Lines sold under the Fusion name shall also be prohibited.

   I would note that the example pictures *do not* comply with the wording of the rule - none are Spectra or Dyneema brand names, the example is a "Power Pro" brand. I have a reel that only says Spectra on it - with some Chinese lettereing at the bottom. Real or counterfeit?  I don't know.

     Brett

Is it too late to fix this poorly written rule or are we stuck with it as written.  You are right, as written nothing will qualify.  I want to use these lines but I can see all kinds of problems with this rule.  Even the size table is confusing.  Engine displacement doesn't mean much anymore and I wonder why they even include it. 100lb test is really hard to find (except online) and keeping the box as documentation?

[Brett Buck]

Is it too late to fix this poorly written rule or are we stuck with it as written.  You are right, as written nothing will qualify.  I want to use these lines but I can see all kinds of problems with this rule.  Even the size table is confusing.  Engine displacement doesn't mean much anymore and I wonder why they even include it. 100lb test is really hard to find (except online) and keeping the box as documentation?

     It has passed the initial vote but the final vote is in progress.

    I am not trying to throw stones at the idea of using Spectra lines and the guys behind it are generally up-to-speed. So I presume that I am missing something important or obvious.

      Brett

[Steve Helmick]

Rapala owns Suffix. We don't have any fishing line under the brand name of Rapala, but Rapala owns a bunch of fishing brands: https://www.rapala.com/on/demandware.store/Sites-rapala-Site/default/Search-ShowInLocale?cgid=sufix-braid

   Steve


PS: Most brands come out with one or two new types of braid every season...it's a rapidly evolving technology, even if it is mainly for catching fish species that haven't changed in centuries. The techniques used in fishing do evolve quickly, and probably a lot quicker than CL Stunt.   

[Brent Williams]

The Sufix stuff is pretty nice.  I have flown many hundreds of flights on 30lb (.011) Sufix Performance Braid by Rapala with 1/2a planes.  I know 1/2a is hardly asking anything of the material, but it has been trouble free for me.  30lb is overkill for this application, but it was on the shelf locally.  I haven't ever regretted using it. 

[Ken Culbertson]

     It has passed the initial vote but the final vote is in progress.

    I am not trying to throw stones at the idea of using Spectra lines and the guys behind it are generally up-to-speed. So I presume that I am missing something important or obvious.

      Brett

You are not missing anything.  Their intent is good, the lines are good, the rule is going to be a mess.  I still hope it passes because I want  to use the lines and locally we understand what it MEANS in spite of what it says.

Ken

[Steve Helmick]

One of the "things" about braid that may confuse non-fishers..."equiv. dia." is referring to nylon monofilament fishing line of the same diameter. It's a pretty useless bit of info, because it is only really useful for very roughly estimating how much line your shiny new fishing reel will hold. Ignore it!  Steve

[mike londke]

I’m confused Brett. Could you post a pic of the brand that is in the proposal please? For years I’ve been using PowerPro %100 Spectra line because it was the only line I found that met the combat rule.The rule specifically called for Spectra and PowerPro met the requirement. Dyneema was not listed therefore in my opinion not legal for combat as they are 2 different types of line. One being US (Honeywell) and the other being a Dutch Co. (DSM Dyneema). In a recent search I’ve found another US company that touts its line as being Spectra fiber. The name is Jerry Brown Line but I’ve not tried it and other than what I read on the internet, know nothing of the company.   From Brett: Only lines sold under the Spectra or Dyneema brand names shall be used, and lines sold as an equivalent product shall be prohibited. Lines sold under the Fusion name shall also be prohibited.

   I would note that the example pictures *do not* comply with the wording of the rule - none are Spectra or Dyneema brand names, the example is a "Power Pro" brand. I have a reel that only says Spectra on it - with some Chinese lettereing at the bottom. Real or counterfeit?  I don't know.
 Please tell me what I'm missing? The labels clearly say %100 Spectra-registered trademark of Honeywell. Why does this not meet the requirement? Thanks

[Ken Culbertson]

I’m confused Brett. Could you post a pic of the brand that is in the proposal please? For years I’ve been using PowerPro %100 Spectra line because it was the only line I found that met the combat rule.The rule specifically called for Spectra and PowerPro met the requirement. Dyneema was not listed therefore in my opinion not legal for combat as they are 2 different types of line. One being US (Honeywell) and the other being a Dutch Co. (DSM Dyneema). In a recent search I’ve found another US company that touts its line as being Spectra fiber. The name is Jerry Brown Line but I’ve not tried it and other than what I read on the internet, know nothing of the company.   From Brett: Only lines sold under the Spectra or Dyneema brand names shall be used, and lines sold as an equivalent product shall be prohibited. Lines sold under the Fusion name shall also be prohibited.

   I would note that the example pictures *do not* comply with the wording of the rule - none are Spectra or Dyneema brand names, the example is a "Power Pro" brand. I have a reel that only says Spectra on it - with some Chinese lettereing at the bottom. Real or counterfeit?  I don't know.
 Please tell me what I'm missing? The labels clearly say %100 Spectra-registered trademark of Honeywell. Why does this not meet the requirement? Thanks

It is the definition of a "Brand" name and "trademark".  The rule calls for a brand name.  Spectra is a "trademark".  There are no US lines sold under the Spectra BRAND.

Ken

[mike londke]

Isn't "Spectra" just a branded name for Dyneema? Like Kevlar is a branded name for Aramid?

No they are two different types of lines one US the other Dutch.

[mike londke]

https://modelaircraft.org/sites/default/files/files/CLA19-01.pdf

   I am not defending it (I had the same sort of argument), and I have nothing per se against Spectra lines,  but the proposal requires specific brands.

    Brett

There's been some confusion and I think I know why. The link you posted does not show the name brands, the amended version does. Now I understand. https://www.modelaircraft.org/sites/default/files/files/CLA19-02.pdf

[Target]

Well now this is helpful, and I see that the proposal is to also pull test before each flight...
Might it be good to do that with steel lines as well?
I have only been to one contest but I do remember only one pull test per plane.

[Brett Buck]

There's been some confusion and I think I know why. The link you posted does not show the name brands, the amended version does. Now I understand. https://www.modelaircraft.org/sites/default/files/files/CLA19-02.pdf

    Well, that is another oddity - if the proposal was amended (which it can be), there shouldn't be two of them, or at least I don't see why there would be. I think they only voted on the second one.

    Note that this rule does not in any way seem open to "interpretation", either. It says something that is quite explicit and clear, if it is explicit and clear, you can't "interpret" it to mean something else ex post facto. "Interpretation" (in the sense that "well it says one thing but we meant something else" {we said "brand" but we really meant meant trademark or service mark}) is prohibited in the General rules.

  So, by the rule, the PowerPro brand is not legal (either yours, or the examples), because it is not Spectra brand. However, this one probably IS legal:



   because it says Spectra and nothing else, so one might presume it is the brand, although I don't know and the CDs don't know of this is a licensed brand name. Note also that this is the SOLE packaging, it came with clear shrink-wrap and this. There are no other markings of any type. I also strongly suggest it is either counterfeit, or at least, not licensed by Honeywell (maybe run off the same production line as legitimate line, but "off the books", which is very common in Chinese counterfeiting/IP fraud).

   So in this one example (the first one I came across that meets the letter of the rules as near as I can tell) both proves that calling for specific brands like Spectra (which is probably not the registered brand name but is the sole identifier on the packaging) doesn't accomplish the presumed goal of limiting legal lines to known-good manufacturers, and that saving the packaging also accomplishes nothing at all, since for all intents and purposes, there isn't any.

     Any CD looking at my reel says "yep, says spectra on it and that looks like a brand" and "nope, that says Power Pro brand, that is not permitted, because it's not Spectra or Dyneema". You surely aren't going to be able to dismiss a protest to that effect out hand, and the wording of the rule is perfectly clear.

     I actually have no problem with this from a materials, standards, or safety standpoint,  since I don't think we should care about the brand or the material of lines at all. But, I think it *does* mean that the rule, as written, *does not allow any synthetic lines of any type*, since I don't think that the brand requirements can be met. You could say "leave it to the CD" but in that case, you don't need any rule at all, just leave it to the CD judgment.

    Again, I will test whatever I get, legal by the current rule, or not and determine for myself whether I want to risk my airplane on it.

    I think the actual change should say "there is no restriction on the diameter, construction, or on terminations of any construction or material. Safety is assured by passing the preflight pull test", meaning, if it passes the pull test, it's OK, and then it's up to the pilot to decide whether or not to use 8 lb test monofilament or 1/32 music wire. 

    I don't think we should pass the existing proposal because it ends up being "null" because no lines are compliant.

     Brett

p.s. I did a bit of research and Spectra is indeed a trademark (not a service mark) and there is a registration program from Honeywell for it. Spectra is a brand name for a large variety of companies, none of which appears to be anything to do with fishing line, in brief research.

    I expect that the first "fix" the proposal will be to change the word "brand" to "certified by the Spectra trademark". Then the problem will be eliminating anyone who owns or has access to a color printer, because anyone download the logo and print it on a package.

     

[Brett Buck]

Well now this is helpful, and I see that the proposal is to also pull test before each flight...
Might it be good to do that with steel lines as well?
I have only been to one contest but I do remember only one pull test per plane.

   You pull test before every flight no matter what kind of lines you have.

     Brett

[Trostle]

(Clip)

The pull test should weed out the problems, but, we don't pull test before EVERY flight at a contest, do we? Then there is no way of knowing if lines get damaged between the flights at a contest, after the pull test has been done prior...

(Clip)

Target

This and at least one other comment in this thread shows that there is a serious misunderstanding or lack of knowledge regarding our CLPA rules.

In the current 2017-2018, Paragraph 5 regarding the pull test:  "Pull tests shall be performed before each flight."  This has been in the rule book for a number of years.  If a pull test is not performed prior to each flight, the Contest Director and the organizers of the contest may become liable for legal action if an incident occurs from a line failure that results in damage or injury.

Keith

[mike londke]

Brett Thanks for clearing up the rule interpretation I was having trouble with.  I too had a roll of the brand you posted long ago. We found it was “stretchier” than PowerPro. Also had one failure with it. It broke at the knot. I suspect you are correct that is a Chinese knock off and not the real deal. I haven’t used anything off that roll since trying them and having a knot break. I recommend not using it.

[Brett Buck]

Brett Thanks for clearing up the rule interpretation I was having trouble with.  I too had a roll of the brand you posted long ago. We found it was “stretchier” than PowerPro. Also had one failure with it. It broke at the knot. I suspect you are correct that is a Chinese knock off and not the real deal. I haven’t used anything off that roll since trying them and having a knot break. I recommend not using it.

   Well, at least mine is legal under the proposed rule!

      Another minor nit-pick is that the material is not actually GSUMP, but UHMWPE (Ultra-High Molecular Weight PolyEthylene) spun using a proprietary process.

     Brett

[Brett Buck]

This and at least one other comment in this thread shows that there is a serious misunderstanding or lack of knowledge regarding our CLPA rules.

In the current 2017-2018, Paragraph 5 regarding the pull test:  "Pull tests shall be performed before each flight."  This has been in the rule book for a number of years.  If a pull test is not performed prior to each flight, the Contest Director and the organizers of the contest may become liable for legal action if an incident occurs from a line failure that results in damage or injury.

  I don't think so -it's a violation of the event rules, not the safety code.

     The safety code is very ambiguously worded to say you have to perform a pull test  "before flight" - not "before every flight". For an insurance claim or liability, that is all that is required - any ambiguity is usually found in favor of the guy who *didn't* draft it.
 
    I wouldn't want to test that theory in court, however, and the event rules definitely say "before every flight", so at contests, you pull test before every flight.

     Brett

[Target]

Well now this is helpful, and I see that the proposal is to also pull test before each flight...
Might it be good to do that with steel lines as well?
I have only been to one contest but I do remember only one pull test per plane.

OK, so, based on the experience I had at my (1) contest, I know what happened....


I had @ 4 hours of sleep the night prior, because I had been scheduled to work the day of the contest. I drove the 90 minutes to work, and the operation cancelled about 0530. I drove back home, and grabbed my planes, headed to Whittier.


I pull tested the Banshee, and managed an inverted pancake on the first outside loop (inverted figure 9?). So that was my first flight.
Only 3/4 daunted, I pulled the E-Oriental from the car. I asked the CD if I could fly again. He muttered something about having some cajones or something, and said, "Sure, but you will have to weigh and pull test the second plane".

Somehow, my pea brain assumed the pull test was done once per the two flights on a single plane. I never got in the two flights on the same plane.....so didn't get two pull tests on one plane, just two on two planes, one each. Which is ALSO a pull test before each flight.

Of course this makes more sense to do it every (contest) flight. Lines get stepped on, slack lines cause a jerk on the system, etc. etc.

But, the utmost safety would be to do the pull test IMMEDIATELY BEFORE each flight to minimize possible damage between the pull test and the flight.
I don't think that is what is done, nor is it practical?



I get it now....

[Ken Culbertson]

   You pull test before every flight no matter what kind of lines you have.

     Brett

That is way too logical, it will never pass.

I would assume that at least one of the committee members voting to "Pass" on the 2nd rule follows this forum.  If they pass this "as is" then we can only assume they intended to allow Spectra lines, just not any that are actually sold.  Are we truly so bureaucratic that this cannot be fixed?  I am not against specifying the manufacturer.  It is easier to add a name to a list than it is to figure this out but if they put that name into the rule then you have to amend it every time a new product comes out.  "..from a list of manufactures approved by the committee" does that.  Better yet, bump up the pull test and fly woven grapevines if you can pass.

Ken

[Brett Buck]

That is way too logical, it will never pass.

  Keith's point was that it *is that way already* - you have to pull test before each flight even if you are using metal lines. That would not be a change.

     Brett

[Target]

I'm glad it is that way, it makes the most sense for safety, within reason. Only pull testing in the circle directly before flight would be better, and I don't see that as practical.

[Ken Culbertson]

  Keith's point was that it *is that way already* - you have to pull test before each flight even if you are using metal lines. That would not be a change.

     Brett

Sorry, I thought you were commenting to the effect that line type definition is unnecessary if you have an adequate and timely pull test requirement.  We pull everything before every flight at our contests.  Sposed to.

Ken

[Ken Culbertson]

I'm glad it is that way, it makes the most sense for safety, within reason. Only pull testing in the circle directly before flight would be better, and I don't see that as practical.

Probably not but most smoothly run contests have one plane moving onto the circle as the last one is moving off (We say it is to not give the judges any rest but in Texas it is really to beat the heat!)  If you have a proper staging area, the pull test could be the last step before moving onto the circle.  That would cut down on two things.  Forgetting the pull test and finding volunteers to run the pull tests but it would be better and is probably already done that way somewhere.

Ken

[GERALD WIMMER]

     I actually have no problem with this from a materials, standards, or safety standpoint,  since I don't think we should care about the brand or the material of lines at all. But, I think it *does* mean that the rule, as written, *does not allow any synthetic lines of any type*, since I don't think that the brand requirements can be met. You could say "leave it to the CD" but in that case, you don't need any rule at all, just leave it to the CD judgment.

    Again, I will test whatever I get, legal by the current rule, or not and determine for myself whether I want to risk my airplane on it.

    I think the actual change should say "there is no restriction on the diameter, construction, or on terminations of any construction or material. Safety is assured by passing the preflight pull test", meaning, if it passes the pull test, it's OK, and then it's up to the pilot to decide whether or not to use 8 lb test monofilament or 1/32 music wire. 

    I don't think we should pass the existing proposal because it ends up being "null" because no lines are compliant.

     Brett
   

I have been asked to post a submission to our control line technical committee her in New Zealand on usage of non 'metal' lines and Brett's statement sound a good start and logical answer to the brand problem and knot choice. Having used a lot of different alternative line materials over the years including Terrilene , Dracon, Dailcord and Kevlar  and now braided modern fishing line the only failures I have had have been on my steel and stainless lines.

Recently had a set of 18 thou lines break on a 35 size combat model after a my son had a wind blown wing-over then loss of line tension followed by a sudden recovery pull out and just after we had completed a pull test using a digital meter. It was the sudden shock with a fast heavy model that resulted in that all too frequent failure under those common conditions.

It is hard to get genuine brand 'anything' here in NZ with a lot of goods imported straight from China now so we can only test and see how each performs to a pull test and find out how durable each are in in practice.
Regards Gerald

[Trostle]

Maybe the CL combat people who have more experience with these lines could help enlighten us.  From the 2017-2018 Control Line Combat rule book:

"All lines used to control flights shall be steel music wire or metal of equivalent
strength, or braided cables made from braided gel spun ultrahigh molecular
weight polyethylene (GSUMP) of the same nominal diameter specified in the pull
test table. Spectra lines that have been formed into a single solid strand (called
Fusion or similar names) are not allowed because they are much more likely to
break when the lines are stressed suddenly.  Gel spun braided lines (Spectra (tm) must be
terminated as per the knot diagrams shown in the Control Line General section paragraph 5.3.5.1."

(This is direct lift/copy/quote from the combat rule book.)

If this works for the CL combat people, maybe it could work for CLPA.  It would be interesting to know how this rule works in the CL combat world and how the type of lines that are permitted for that event is being enforced within the requirements of their rules.  In my opinion, the revised proposal that was presented to the Control Line Aerobatics Contest Board would be impossible to enforce

The results of the final vote of the Control Line Aerobatics Contest Board of the proposal for GSUMP lines should be known within the next several days if not tomorrow.

Keith

[Ken Culbertson]

The results of the final vote of the Control Line Aerobatics Contest Board of the proposal for GSUMP lines should be known within the next several days if not tomorrow.

Keith

If it passes can we fix it before next year's season?  That combat rule looks good.  maybe we CAN simply adopt it.

Ken

[mike londke]

Maybe the CL combat people who have more experience with these lines could help enlighten us.  From the 2017-2018 Control Line Combat rule book:

"All lines used to control flights shall be steel music wire or metal of equivalent
strength, or braided cables made from braided gel spun ultrahigh molecular
weight polyethylene (GSUMP) of the same nominal diameter specified in the pull
test table. Spectra lines that have been formed into a single solid strand (called
Fusion or similar names) are not allowed because they are much more likely to
break when the lines are stressed suddenly.  Gel spun braided lines (Spectra (tm) must be
terminated as per the knot diagrams shown in the Control Line General section paragraph 5.3.5.1."

(This is direct lift/copy/quote from the combat rule book.)

If this works for the CL combat people, maybe it could work for CLPA.  It would be interesting to know how this rule works in the CL combat world and how the type of lines that are permitted for that event is being enforced within the requirements of their rules.  In my opinion, the revised proposal that was presented to the Control Line Aerobatics Contest Board would be impossible to enforce

The results of the final vote of the Control Line Aerobatics Contest Board of the proposal for GSUMP lines should be known within the next several days if not tomorrow.

Keith

I can tell you how I found out about them. Phil Cartier turned me on to them at the Huntersville Combat Contest some years ago. He had some input into getting them approved for Combat use so I pretty much took his word as Gospel. He showed me which brand to use, told me which ones to steer clear of, then showed me how to tie the knot until I could do it myself. As far as I know most guys are using PowerPro brand. However no CD has ever asked or wanted to see proof of what my lines are. We pull test and fly. I think, at least in the Combat community, everyone knows what to use and is doing so. No one wants to have a fly away because of fake(chinese) stuff or using a brand that is not Spectra fiber. I can't say anything else other than I have used them, a bunch, in Combat and love them. I hope a rule change will pass that is clear and gives accurate information on their use for Stunt. Make it crystal clear what is legal and what is not and I'll be the first guy buying it and using it on my stunt planes at contests. I'm already sport flying with it. Peace.

[Ken Culbertson]

Well it went down in flames.  Probably a good thing because of the way it was worded.  So how long do we have to wait before it can be fixed and voted on again?

Thanks to all that helped me get a test run in but alas, I am not going to practice on something I can't use.  I regret having tried them because now I know what I am missing.  I would like to hear from the 5 that voted against them to know what we need to address to make them legal.

Ken

[GERALD WIMMER]

Well it went down in flames.  Probably a good thing because of the way it was worded.  So how long do we have to wait before it can be fixed and voted on again?

Thanks to all that helped me get a test run in but alas, I am not going to practice on something I can't use.  I regret having tried them because now I know what I am missing.  I would like to hear from the 5 that voted against them to know what we need to address to make them legal.

Ken

Hello
 Sorry to hear it didn't pass,  suppose it bods badly for me here in NZ trying to change the forces that be, upset the apple cart and alter the scared process CL flying.
Funny thing is since the late 1970's I have flown Cox models on the 'factory' lines and latter Kevlar and other materials but nobody worried about it till recently when they changed the rules to exclude anything other then metal lines! 

Hopefully reason triumphs in the end
Regards Gerald 

[john e. holliday]

Districts VII, VIII, IX, X and XI voted deny.  Some body needs to wake those members up as I know the board members vote the way the members want.  Guess new technology will not get a chance unless we get people to using the lines and reporting results.  I know I will be trying them as where I fly there shouldn't be much danger to people other then the mushroom hunters and the dog walkers.

[Ken Culbertson]

Districts VII, VIII, IX, X and XI voted deny.  Some body needs to wake those members up as I know the board members vote the way the members want.  Guess new technology will not get a chance unless we get people to using the lines and reporting results.  I know I will be trying them as where I fly there shouldn't be much danger to people other then the mushroom hunters and the dog walkers.

I have so little time for practice that I cannot afford to get used to them.  I tried them just to see what all the fuss was about before the vote.  Wish I had not even tried them now.  After 2 flights I was flying at least 20 maybe 30 points better.  Oh well, I guess there are politics in just about everything, even PA!

However, Brett was right, the rule sucked but the lines sure don't!


Ken

[Brett Buck]

Districts VII, VIII, IX, X and XI voted deny.  Some body needs to wake those members up as I know the board members vote the way the members want.  Guess new technology will not get a chance unless we get people to using the lines and reporting results.

     As noted at extraordinary length above - no one seems to be against "new technology" and this isn't "politics". It's about the way this particular proposal was written, which in fact led it to be impossible to comply with.

    Everything isn't a cynical ploy.

    Brett

       

[Trostle]

  Some body needs to wake those members up as I know the board members vote the way the members want. 

Interesting comment.  Except for the few voices heard on this forum (certainly not a vast multitude of interested/concerned enthusiasts), I doubt that any of the Contest Board Members received any input from anyone in their own district or any other district on this measure.  I realize that there are terrible time constraints here.  There has only been about 18 months for someone to contact anyone on the Board.

Keith

[Ken Culbertson]

     As noted at extraordinary length above - no one seems to be against "new technology" and this isn't "politics". It's about the way this particular proposal was written, which in fact led it to be impossible to comply with.

    Everything isn't a cynical ploy.

    Brett

Since you are closer to the Ivory Tower than I am I will take your word for it that politics are not involved.  After reading Keith's comment I see the problem - communication.  How do the contest board members get feedback if not from the forums.  I was not active when this proposal was submitted and I did not hear anything about it until someone on this forum mentioned it then I stumbled across it last week on the AMA website (stumbling is about the only way to find anything there since the "upgrade").  Should we be contacting them?   I am asking, not criticizing.  If we are going to get what we want it has to be the right way.

Ken
     
[/quote]

[Ken Culbertson]

Interesting comment.  Except for the few voices heard on this forum (certainly not a vast multitude of interested/concerned enthusiasts), I doubt that any of the Contest Board Members received any input from anyone in their own district or any other district on this measure.  I realize that there are terrible time constraints here.  There has only been about 18 months for someone to contact anyone on the Board.

Keith

Had I been active when this was submitted I would have voiced my opinion.   I believe that you have no right to complain if you don't participate in the process.  I really want those lines but I would have voted against the rule as written.  I am curious why you voted against it.

Ken

[Brett Buck]

Since you are closer to the Ivory Tower than I am I will take your word for it that politics are not involved.  After reading Keith's comment I see the problem - communication.  How do the contest board members get feedback if not from the forums.  I was not active when this proposal was submitted and I did not hear anything about it until someone on this forum mentioned it then I stumbled across it last week on the AMA website (stumbling is about the only way to find anything there since the "upgrade").  Should we be contacting them?   I am asking, not criticizing.  If we are going to get what we want it has to be the right way.

      I don't know what you are talking about with regard to the "ivory tower", I have no more input to it than anyone else. I have some advantage in that I write, read, and evaluate aerospace requirements on a wide range of topics, so I can maybe see issues or ways to resolve issues better than most (after 35+ years of that in the most critical types of systems), but other than that, no particular "in" aside from knowing all the people involved.

      The members get feedback by reading the proposals and contacting their representatives, or failing that, the chairman. Doc's comment above is incomprehensible and very unfortunate, this cycle is *2 years* and these have been posted for the better part of a year. I saw the proposal and discussed it with several people, my CLACB representative also had an issue and voted against it.

     Every time I *do* talk to the CLACB members, they all say that the *never* get any feedback, and alway have to beg people for input.

    I also expected this proposal to be obviated by a different proposal, specifically, to simply eliminate any materials requirements and just have a pull test, but the person who was all spun up to do it, did not, so here we are. I think that makes a lot more sense than trying to make requirement that seem to offer "traceability,  but don't in reality. That's the area that I think probably sunk this change - nothing to do with Spectra lines or "not wanting progress". Passing the proposal as written *would not have let you fly with Spectra lines* because of the flaws noted previously.

 I have actually flown with Spectra lines (Power Pro 50 lb test) and I wasn't too impressed, but not on by big airplane and only on sport flights (since they are illegal for stunt competition).

      It takes a few minutes to write a proposal, I have done about 15-20 of them in recent years, so if someone has a better idea, the cycle is starting again soon.

       Brett

[Steve Helmick]

The fact that both of the Power Pro photos say 100% Spectra on them still isn't adequate? Call me "BEWILDERED". I've never seen a spool of the "SPECTRA" shown in the latest version of the pdf. If you specify something that nobody can buy, then what's the point of writing the proposal?  Steve

[Ken Culbertson]

It takes a few minutes to write a proposal, I have done about 15-20 of them in recent years, so if someone has a better idea, the cycle is starting again soon.

       Brett

What is the cycle?  If this proposal is 18 months old and nobody noticed the obvious problems with it until it had already been voted on then we have a serious problem with the process.  I would venture a guess that most of the active fliers out there had no clue that this was even under consideration.  You mentioned a competing proposal to eliminate all line requirements other than length if they could pass the pull test.  (That may be an over simplification).  Where do I go to read that proposal.  I will do my part to be educated on what changes are proposed and voice my opinion on them but isn't there an equal responsibility on the part of the committee to keep us informed as to what they are being asked to vote on?  Perhaps there is already a way of doing this but I sure don't now what it is.

Ken

[dave siegler]

yest another reason I will just sport fly and combat fly.

so the rule passes on the first go around, sits for over a year then get killed off? 

Spectra lines are solid technology, and they are so easy to use and user friendly they make flying control line more fun (for me).   

You ought to try some.  then figure out how to allow them rather than kill the rule. 

[Brett Buck]

What is the cycle?  If this proposal is 18 months old and nobody noticed the obvious problems with it until it had already been voted on then we have a serious problem with the process.  I would venture a guess that most of the active fliers out there had no clue that this was even under consideration.  You mentioned a competing proposal to eliminate all line requirements other than length if they could pass the pull test.  (That may be an over simplification).  Where do I go to read that proposal?

     It was never submitted - I just expected such a proposal would be, because several people talked to me about it, and it came up in these threads, too:
http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=399363&mesg_id=399363

and here:

http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=399521&mesg_id=399521


  The Spectra proposal also sat there on the AMA Competition Rules page for a long time, both the new one and the older version, along with the screening vote results. It;s harder to find after the AMA website was fudged up, but it was pretty darned easy before.

I will do my part to be educated on what changes are proposed and voice my opinion on them but isn't there an equal responsibility on the part of the committee to keep us informed as to what they are being asked to vote on?  Perhaps there is already a way of doing this but I sure don't now what it is.

    They have a web site, they publish every step of the process on it, it has come up tangentially here and directly on SSW.

     I have no stake in this one either way, I don't really care too much whether people can use Spectra lines or not (and as noted, even if you passed this rule as written, you weren't going to be able to use Spectra, anyway - so pass or fail, would have changed nothing) and I am not on the CLACB, so no skin off my nose. But I can see why people don't want to be involved with it - everybody sits around for months or years, then literally the day after the vote, we have people wanting to quit stunt because a proposal that they didn't even know about a week ago failed?

     Brett

[john e. holliday]

As computer illiterate as I am, I had no trouble finding the proposals on the new site.   Just need to know what to look for and if not known just browse around a bit.

[Brett Buck]

The fact that both of the Power Pro photos say 100% Spectra on them still isn't adequate? Call me "BEWILDERED". I've never seen a spool of the "SPECTRA" shown in the latest version of the pdf. If you specify something that nobody can buy, then what's the point of writing the proposal?  Steve

OK, I am not a voting member, but to summarize:

• they said "brand" when they probably meant "trademarked and registered with the Honeywell licensing program". But you have to go with what was *written*, not what they meant
• there is some apparent attempt to create what we would call "traceability" to a standard, by keeping the box, but that doesn't really create a documented track back to legitimate manufacturer.
• it specifies test ratings and diameters, which is great if you have actual traceable tests to point to - but you don't have any such tests, and the suggested diameter measurements are absurd (soak it with Hot Stuff? I can build it up to 1/4" that way given the motivation). In fact, there have been no tests (except the only important one, see below)
• this is apparently based on the premise that you wanted to limit the use to specific "approved" manufacturing processes, but given that there is really absolutely no way to guarantee that by showing someone a box with a Spectra trademark that you printed in your living room.

   Plus some other nitpicks like the erroneous/misleading description of the material itself. Yes, a CD out in a field somewhere could make a real-time judgement, but if we are just going to have people eyeball it no matter what the rules say, why write a rule about it at all? Are we going to put in rules where you have to ignore what it literally says and immediately start interpreting it? The words are perfectly clear and unambiguous, they go to great length to specify a bunch of stuff in detail - and you want the CD to just ignore it? When a lot of people think (probably incorrectly) that this creates a legal liability when something goes wrong?

    The likely correct solution is to simply remove any material requirements at all, termination requirements at all, and call the pull test good enough. It's the only test that matters and the only one you could point to as a genuine test of the material or workmanship, the rest of the "traceability requirements" being obviously defective.

   All of this could have and probably should have been worked out. I talked with Paul Walker about it at the Regionals this year, and he and I had *exactly the same* evaluation of the proposal. That was 6 months ago +-. This business about brand VS trademark could have been fixed by changing a few words. The desire for tracing the material standards for authenticity, however, is almost certainly impossible to fix, the proposal as written would get you laughed out of a failure review board, requirement verification review, etc - so the "brand vs trademark" issue is about moot. If you think there is legal issues associated with this, then that would be even less likely to fly in a court of law.

    If a million people called their CLACB rep and said "we want to use Spectra lines!" then someone is *still* on the hook to write a proposal that can be passed. The CLACB job is not to write new rules themselves - they vote on what is submitted. Given that passing this rule as written would not still have allowed you to use Spectra lines, but added a bunch of holes, I wouldn't have voted for it either.

     Brett

p.s. And now that I am on a roll - everybody knows how everybody voted. After the screening vote, it would have been trivial to simply call, say, Paul Walker, and ask what the issue was, and how they should fix it/cross-propose it to make it acceptable. I have known Paul a *long time*, he is not in any way hesitant to tell you what he thinks if asked. That simple step could have resolved it a year ago or so, or gotten general agreement on why it couldn't work as written. I have no idea what really happened, but the notion that this CLACB is like selecting a pope, white smoke comes out the chimney, is just nonsense. The CLACB members are just other guys flying model airplanes just like anyone else - maybe they are better at it, or have been doing it longer, but it's not like they are some unapproachable God-like figures operating in a mysterious secret society. Just let them know what you think and how to proceed, they are generally quite happy to get any feedback at all.

[mike londke]

yest another reason I will just sport fly and combat fly.

so the rule passes on the first go around, sits for over a year then get killed off? 

Spectra lines are solid technology, and they are so easy to use and user friendly they make flying control line more fun (for me).   

You ought to try some.  then figure out how to allow them rather than kill the rule.

Amen Dave

[Brett Buck]

Here is what you need to know about it:

https://www.modelaircraft.org/sites/default/files/files/ContestBoardProceduresrev2.pdf

   This has been more-or-less the same process forever.

    Brett

[Fredvon4]

    Sport pilot...NOT a competitor but do have a strong opinion

RULES only have 2(two) reasons to exist
Safety
Level the playing field

In this case for all Control Line aero flights...speed, racing, combat, stunt....The product, termination, Sizes per aircraft weight or engine displacement, best practices, storage, all should be AMA RECOMMENDATIONS

For competition...each type of contest should have pull test, or other test, that is scientific, physics, and positively passes the Reasonable use in some civil liability court.....WE are not in the game to preserve some competitors air craft...we are ALL in the game to ensure we do NOT damage property or Kill other humans

I personally think the current pull test spec is NOT rational.... very very few fly away events from just Hi Gee round round flight
The disaster is usually: a blown across the circle, loose, uncontrolled, craft...that suddenly reaches the end of the tether...many many Gees higher than the pull test....

Most I have seen (combat) only broke one line so the craft was still controlled in a ever tightening loop spin, ultimately into the ground

In fact, in my resurgence in to aero modeling I have seen way more AMA insurance disaster in the RC community that the CL community

Combat on fishing line has more pluses than minuses

Competition Stunt PAMPA should have open enough rules to make the sport more competitive...Control line engineering has been evolving ever since the C/L flight invention....

The rules should mandate a safety standard and be open to---or  well written enough that

Fred's new fangled, anti gravity, anti static, .03 dia, .05 Gram per meter, 150Lb breaking stress test with 201% redundant fiber over load rating, and only .003" stretch per 100 yards are usable as long as the SAFETY standard for the EVENT is proved BY test at the EVENT

[Ken Culbertson]

Here is what you need to know about it:

https://www.modelaircraft.org/sites/default/files/files/ContestBoardProceduresrev2.pdf

   This has been more-or-less the same process forever.

    Brett

Thanks - If what I found is correct, this was the ONLY CLPA  proposed change and it will be about  2 years before it can be voted on again.  Even the Federal Government can mess things up faster than that!

Looks like the only solution is to see if there is enough support locally to publish a rules exception for our sanctions and hope others do the same.  If I read the procedures correctly, we could have gotten an "emergency" clarification over the "Brand" issue if it had just passed.

Ken

[Target]

Here's my question-
What are the requirements for the stranded or solid metal lines we use at contests?
Are there ANY, besides diameter, length, and terminating techniques?
If not, why should there be with non metallic lines?
It seems to me that there are about as many downsides with each form of line, safety wise.
I'm not sure why the dyneema based lines need so much more regulating than metal. Has there been historically a higher percentage of line breaks?

I get why the preposal was turned down. It was unsupportable by the CD as written.

As Brett suggested, why not just have guidelines and a pull test, and call it good?

[Ken Culbertson]

    Sport pilot...NOT a competitor but do have a strong opinion

RULES only have 2(two) reasons to exist
Safety
Level the playing field

You make a good point.  Safety should be the province of the AMA.  They pay the insurance bill, they should set the standard. 

FYI - I tried Fred's lines .  Serious inboard yaw when they float up on squares.

Ken

[Trostle]

If I read the procedures correctly, we could have gotten an "emergency" clarification over the "Brand" issue if it had just passed.

Ken

Probably not.  In my limited experience, there is an exceptionally high standard for any kind of "emergency" change to be made.

Keith