Why is change in this sport so feared??

[Tim Stagg]

I find it interesting in this segment of our hobby that so many people are resistant to change.

I came to this great segment of the hobby a few years ago after flying RC for more than 30 years, in fact I still enjoy RC, as well as many other aspects of this great model aviation hobby. I have also enjoyed some of the greatest people in this CL segment of any aspect of model aviation.

Having a wide view of many aspects of the hobby, it really troubles........well at least surprises me, that in a segment that is at best static, and in reality is loosing many wonderful people, that there are so many people that are resisting change.

Look what 3D and electrics/parkflyers have done for RC. Look at IMAC, look at freestyle 3D and what it has done at the local RC field, many young people are trying to emulate what their RC hero's are doing. Yet at the CL field we have been doing the same patterns for 50 years. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy flying the pattern and have progressed from Beginner to expert in 3 years. But what now.....I can continue to to practice and practice until I move up to within the top ten that have been flying the same pattern for 30 years.......how do you top them and the subjectivity that come with being judges against them. These very talented and great people need a new challenge as well. Lets create one. I am tired of hearing that no one has ever received a perfect score so there is no reason to change it.

Where is the embracing of new ideas?? new patterns? new aspects of the sport?? We have bi slobs, why not create a national event to inspire innovations in design and new maneuvers that people inspire to emulate. If this aspect of our hobby is going to continue, we need to make change now.

This post comes from reading comments in many posts over the years and I just finally had to bring up the subject. Why? I don't understand?

[john e. holliday]

Before I got to the part about Bi-Slobs I was already thinking in those terms.  Tulsa Gluedobbers several years ago tried the free style event.  It too like any thing else wound up being the same people doing it.  When someone comes up with a Bi-Slob type plane ready to fly out of the box like the Old Jim Walker Firebaby, it might happen.  But, really it takes someone with the initiative to come up with the event.  You thing 3D and Giant Scale just happened?  I have also thought of a Bi-Slob fun fly in which the people that come and fly decide who gets what.  Events would Free Style,  Best Looking,  Who Flew the Most(sign up sheet needed for that, as I have only one circle),  Duration of Hovering(timed from signal of pilot to when plane starts moving in any direction),  Balloon Pop and so many more.  Maybe I will make the club meeting and suggest that for our new field in Topeka.  My field in in North Kansas City MO.  More later.

[Trostle]

This subject comes up every so often.  You characterize the matter as "fear" of change.  Perhaps a better term would be "resistance" to change.

When the subject does come up, there are some neat ideas about adopting some form of free style pattern or different contest formats or whatever.  Regarding any free style format or incorporating a series of new maneuvers, it should be realized that any new maneuver would essentially be a series of turns and/or loops of various sizes and locations that are really nothing more than what is now being flown in the pattern.  Also, the current pattern requires maneuvers that are beyond the capability of "most" designs, so what more could be expected from the models we have.  Yes, I can describe any number of maneuvers that are different (and safe) and would have a certain "WOW" factor from a spectator's viewpoint, but nontheless, those maneuvers are still nothing more than loops and turns in different sequences than we do now.  And if you have a free style event where the pilot can do a series of maneuvers of his own creation, I am sure we could have some "impressive" demonstrations (and safe), but how are those maneuvers to be judged.  The pilot could claim that his "super reverse triple wafferdill" was flown perfectly, but to what standard does the judge evaluate it? Or do we go back to the days of early CL Stunt when the evaluation was based by the crowd's reaction like when the pilot would do a one arm hand stand while doing a figure eight?

Would new maneuvers involve throttle control?  This is where the 3-D stuff in RC gets really impressive.  Dealing with throttle control on our essentially two-dimensional surface of the hemisphere we fly on presents "a few" practical problems.  Like --  What kind of maneuvers? -- and --How do you do them?  Rolling maneuvers are one of the impressive things in 3-D RC.  To have a roll capable CL model is not very practical.  The last I am familiar with any attempt to do this as reported in the model aviation press was in 1950.

In general terms RC flight does have more interest than CL from a spectator viewpoint.  But I think a key thought here is that those who participate in CL Aerobatics are not doing so to please or impress spectators.  Rather a CLPA enthusiast can be more precisely characterized as one who sees a challenge in the event and aspires to whatever level he chooses.  Now, if potential newcomers are not attracted to this, so be it.  At least in the Control Line community, Precision Aerobatics has generated more support and participation than any other CL activity over that past 30 or so years.

This idea of a free style event sounds attractive as does the idea of different contest formats that have been suggested over the years.  The practical response to these ideas is simply to suggest that whoever has these ideas, go ahead and organize a contest or series of contests at local and/or regional levels and see what kind of response there is.  To make such trials fair, the organizers should be willing to sponsor such events over a period of several years to allow those who are interested to prepare models to compete to the standards established by new maneuvers or to demonstrate what a pilot thinks can be done with a "free style" flight pattern.  I am sure the entire stunt community will observe such events with great interest.  I am sure that these ideas would appeal to some who would actually participate.  And as experience is gained, there could be some adjustments to improve on the ideas.

So, go ahead and organize these things and show us the way.

Keith

[Jim Thomerson]

I like the stability of rules in stunt.  I don't have any interest in building and flying a BiSlob.  I enjoy watching a well executed BiSlob flight, but have no desire to do it myself.  I prefer the order and precision of flying the stunt pattern.  That's not to discourage any one from freestyle or whatever, but I am a stick in the mud, and want my event left alone.

[Serge_Krauss]

I agree with Keith's thoughtful response.

My thoughts center about perceptions too. First off, as Keith implied, there is just no reason that anyone should not go ahead and promote/put on any kind of contest he/she desires. Too often we hear that because the nationals and established classes require certain standards and maneuvers, the hobby/sport is being smothered and that people are "afraid of" change. However, no one is preventing anyone else from enjoying contests of their own preference.

The other point, besides Keith's about structuring maneuvers, is that of maintaining standards. It would be unfortunate to dilute the standards of any long-standing event or institution that has established a heritage of performances by the greats of the game. Make it more difficult, without changing its nature? Fine. But no diluting of nor changing the nature of the CLPA Nationals, for instance, would gain my support. If we want to contest a new and varied event, why not just do it by establishing it. If it proves "superior" in worth or popularity to the point of eclipsing the established events, then that's what happens. That may not always be desirable - "dumbing down" seems always to be occurring and has often been lamented by a wide variety of forum participants - but evolution goes its course. Currently CLPA is very popular. I have yet to hear anyone object to new events. I have heard and made objections myself to those who want to steal an event or organization.

As for variety of planes, there are many of us who still design or build variants of conventional designs or create planes radically different from the norm. A new event, as Keith says, can bring about interesting change. So could judging corners in the present pattern differently.

Finally, and I hope feathers don't get too ruffled, I have observed that most often those who accuse others of resisting change have been people who want to take over an established event or institution and change it, rather than creating one of their own. Trying to get people to conform to one's own ideas, rather than offering a chance to experience something new, is in my opinion a mistake that causes these typically unnecessary conflicts. This hobby is open to all types of participation and contests. What else is needed?

SK

[Derek Barry]

 I think it may be a little naive to think that the "top 10" need new challenges. I am sure you can ask anyone who has made, tried to make, or just missed the top five at the Nats, and they will tell you that every year is a big challenge.

 I have thought of the "freestyle" or "no look pattern" would be a lot of fun, and if I ever have my own contest I would probably add something like this to have fun with. Kieth is right though, there is only so much that can be done with our current models.

[tom hampshire]

     Hi Tim - As usual, Keith pretty much laid it out...  I'd add that you'll never get any new event or variation off the ground by simply discussing it.  Talk is cheap, and nobody wants to admit that an idea other than their own might be any good.  What works, time and again, is to run provisional events at local contests, without asking permission from anybody.  If the event turns out to be popular,  you can present the new event or variation as having gained local acceptance.  Certainly OTS is the clearest example, but there are many others.  I'm in awe of John Miske, not just for inventing the event, but for sticking to it for 25 years through some pretty lean times.  Then all of a sudden it became an 'overnight success'.

     Hence, you could consider any of the following add ons for the Jim Coll next month...  Bi slob pattern or racing, OTS phase II (flaps only), Flapless stunt, 1/2A stunt, balloon bust, limbo, junkyard, mirror meet pattern, freestyle pattern, etc.  Or maybe Draw poker, all entries get a number, and draw tickets to see who flies which plane.  Let your imagination run, try it on a provisional basis, and see what your numbers look like.  The feedback will let you know what is worth developing, or not.  Tom Hampshire

[Tim Stagg]

All,

I thank you for the feedback and did not mean to ruffle any feathers, in fact, I am trying to think of ways of bringing new interest to this segment of the hobby that I have re-found and come to really love. Tom, I hope you see where I am going with this and realize based on what you have seen of me over the last 3 years that I am not just a complainer, in fact I had much trepidation about writing the post, but it is something that I have been thinking about.

Keith I do very much appreciate your thoughts and I would have to agree that you are correct with respect to what can and can't be done with our models. I do however think that people would be open to new challenges, I guess time will tell.  By the way, I only used 3D as an example of what has worked for the RC community......who knew 15 years ago that there would be this kind of interest in flying an aircraft in a stalled configuration. 

As all have said very politely in these post, actions speak louder than words and things do not happen over night.

Tom,

This years contest is a little late for introducing something new in a limited 2 day time frame, but you are absolutely correct, and a new idea may be on the schedule for next year.  I am not going anywhere, and would love to see this segment grow.

Thanks for all of your comments, and again I did not mean to insult anyone. I welcome any additional ideas as well.

[rustler]

Here here. What Keith T. and Jim T. said. Plus we're all getting too old to change!   

[Tim Stagg]

Ian,

That is my part of my point, who will carry on when we are all flying full time with little wings......well maybe not some of us

[Brett Buck]

I think it may be a little naive to think that the "top 10" need new challenges. I am sure you can ask anyone who has made, tried to make, or just missed the top five at the Nats, and they will tell you that every year is a big challenge.

 I have thought of the "freestyle" or "no look pattern" would be a lot of fun, and if I ever have my own contest I would probably add something like this to have fun with. Kieth is right though, there is only so much that can be done with our current models.

  And in any case, just starting at the level of national rule changes and seeing what happens would be pretty absurd. There's a very good route to getting this going, but it's not "lets change all the existing rules". One can have local contests with the proposed idea, work out the kinks. There will be more than a few kinks, guaranteed. Then, if it becomes popular, other people across the country will try it, more issues to be resolved will arise, or it will prove unpopular and it will be dropped. If it's a good idea and one can come up with good and fair rules that people really like, then, Provisional AMA rules, then official. It takes a while, but that's on purpose to prevent airplanes from becoming obsolete, working rules being replaced with experiments, etc. But I guarantee that if someone comes up with a better variation or better event that people like and will support, it will get done.

 For example,  skill class aerobatics goes back to the late 40's and wasn't official until the 90s. Because it took a pretty good long time to get the majority of the kinks worked out and have people believe it was a net positive. In some cases the "net positive" point is still debatable (like the Nationals). The proposers  absolutely have to convince people it's better before the rest will support it, and to have become a big event it will absolutely require people to support it.

   Another interesting point that I had long suspected but didn't have any direct evidence for until this morning - we have essentially the same stunt participation *now* that we did in the mid-50's. Just about every other event that existed at the time has fallen off dramatically -with drops like 99%. That alone is a good reason to be very careful about changes to the rules.

    Finally, there is absolutely no lack of action on stunt rules. There were something like *40* rules proposals for stunt this time. Many are going to be approved. The difference in those VS what is being suggested here is that they address *known issues* or provide clarification of points that have proven to be ambiguous. There are plenty of known issues and problems that the participants are quite up to speed on, and are quite willing to address. People who are not involved seriously in the event would have *no* idea what those problems might be, and so come up with things that are pretty off the wall. Then they get rejected and it seems like no one cares about changing anything.

    Brett

[Jim Thomerson]

I've seen a couple of freestyle stunt events.  I saw one flight which was choreographed, each maneuver flowing effortless into the next.  I was impressed and think that is what the event would be about.  I also saw the best  BiSlob flight I have ever seen.  One individual (and I am afraid this would be my approach ) just flew the stunt pattern leaving out the intervening laps.

[Tim Stagg]

Brett,

I agree with what you are saying and it makes sense, I guess the more I think about it, I am really not looking for change necessarily to what exist.....I am thinking more on the lines of additions to the sport/hobby. I also think that everyone has hit the nail on the head by saying it needs to be done at a local level then catch on nationally, or not....interest will dictate that.

The patterns and competitions exist today because people like myself, like to compete, and measure their skill level against there peers. This is why everyone is saying we must have rules that are balanced, well thought out and work for everyone.....agreed. What I am advocating for is that we possibly expand our ways of testing our skills by entering other factors that people will like.

This could possibly be flying one round of unknown pattern figures averaged into your best score. This set of figures would not be known till the day of the contest. That said, I am already thinking of possible problems with this scoring system, but I think you see my point, and problems could be worked out over time.

I am committed to trying some of these ideas at a local my local contest in the future, maybe they will be a total bust, maybe it is something that could catch on, time will tell.

Thanks for your comment and ideas, that is what the forums are all about.

[GGeezer]

Heck, I've been flying "Freestyle" or "no pattern look" stunt for a couple of years now .................. truth be told, what I was really trying to do was learn the existing stunt pattern!

Orv.

[Garf]

What I would like to see is the addition of an extra maneuver at the end of the pattern. At first, it could be a pilots choice maneuver for extra points. This could lead to a future pattern change. I'm thinking of something like a vertical square 8, or horizontal hourglass (butterfly).

[frank carlisle]

Here in Michigan we are in our third season of the "Tour D' Michigan. The clubs in Flint, Lansing and Kalamazoo each host one leg of the Tour. We accumulate points over the season by attending and flying the various challenges at each of the three Tour Cities.
It's fun. We have 1/2A rat race-.35 displacement race- precision landing- balloon bust and a couple more that are on the tip of my tongue.
Here is a link to our web site, it has the rules and challenges listed as well as dates and times of the events.
http://www.flying-aces.net/tour10.html

Oh and I have a Bi-Slob.

[Tim Stagg]

Frank,

Thanks for the link and the ideas, I will take a look.

Tim

[Tom Niebuhr]

About 25 years ago I tried to introduce and "unknown" pattern to be flown with no practice. Everyone chickened out. More recently Rich Oliver and I have discussed this possibility. While it sounds good, and I would love to see it, I think that it would be hard to introduce at most contests, because we have so many classes of stunt. How much can you do in a day or two?

The Tulsa Glue Dobbers had a totally freestyle event, with intentionally inexperienced judges. It was fun. This was for the "BiSlobs" etc.

I would like it to be more like an unknown pattern, using our regular airplanes. This has been done in full size aircraft competitions.  But a freestyle event would also be fun.

Oh... the "Hobo" is coming.

[frank carlisle]

You're welcome Tim. In the past three years all of the guys have made huge strides forward in thier flying. I think that's because they are concentrating on performing tasks with thier planes rather than worrying about planting it in the dirt.

Here is a link to a you-tube video I downloaded of a guy busting my Bi-Slob into a zillion little pieces.

[peabody]

I watch and read about control line activities in places other than the USA with great interest....
There is growth in Europe, South America and the Asian rim....
The tie that binds is the FAI and competition.....
I am a firm believer that we should fly FAI rules here in the USA....
I welcome attempts at "new" events, but know that they are hard to establish and to "get traction" with....and that the format of anything new must remain rigid enough that folks aren't forced to build new models in order to be competitive...
Tom mentioned OTS......I have researched it a bit since the GSCB established it and this year will be the 40th Anniversary.....I know that there was push-back at first and a desire to change the rules....but I believe that John Miske's sticking to the original concept kept OTS moving forward.

Keith, Brett and Derek all make good points, too....

I think that flying the pattern WELL is a HUGE challenge to most.....to excel is a rare feat....

 

[Steve Helmick]

I don't think change is feared. But there certainly is a resistance. Call it preserving the traditional, or what you will. Rich says to fly FAI rules, but the other side of the coin is that we invented CL, we invented CL Stunt and one of our good ol' boys designed the pattern as we use it today, in both AMA and FAI. Just why should we change to FAI rules? And why on Earth would we want to put ourselves in the hands of the FAI rules makers, when we can change our AMA rules every other year, so as to drive the Judges and ED's bonkers?

Folks do have "Free Style" and various other inovative "stunt" contests. We have a legend here in the Pacific NW of a stunt contest where it was the same ol' pattern, but flown backwards. I don't know if that means the maneuvers were flown from end to start, or if the same tricks were just flown in reverse order. I wasn't there, being years before I started back into CL. But I heard that a lot of guys crashed, and Paul Walker still won. He was also the CD and the guy who had the notion to try this.     Steve

[Dan McEntee]

    With all due respect, I don't think that you can really compare C/L stunt to any of the modern derivatives of R/C. The park flyer movement is neat and fun and I have several to fly, but it doesn't do for me what the C/L pattern does. I also have flown competition and sport free flight models and have a lot of fun and success with those also, but they are not what C/L stunt is. I flew competition Sailplanes for about 15 years and left that for C/L stunt because the models were turning into expensive, high tech monstrosities and it was more about who could zoom launch the highest. Even though the pattern has been around a while, it is still very challenging to do consistently at any skill level. The equipment we use has evolved and improved a lot, but the end result is still in the hands of the guy holding the handle. The 3D R/C stuff really doesn't do anything for me, mainly because that's not how real airplanes fly. Between all the flat surfaces and strakes, and slab sides that they put all them to make them capable of doing the extreme maneuvers, and the computer aided radios that it takes to fly them, it doesn't take long to for a guy to be able to do most of that. There are several guys that fly the large IMAC style models at most of our local fields, and most of them spend most of their air time hovering and hanging on the prop. That was OK the first 2 or 3 hundred time I saw it, but how limited is that? The planes that they fly are model of aircraft that were born out of competition precision aerobatics, where the object is to fly a smooth, consistent, precise pattern. But you never see any of these guys trying to emulate that when they fly. I work at a local hobby shop, and meet and talk to all sorts of guys that fly a lot of different types of models, and I think a lot of the guys with the big 3D planes have them as some sort of status symbol. And over the 27 years I have worked there, I have seen them come and go, very few sticking with it or passing anything on to the next generation. I think it was Brett that mentioned that our participant levels are at a point now that is about the same as in the 50's and 60's, and I don't think that's bad. Show me another modeling discipline that can say that, and have a lot of their participants be second or even third generation flyers. Yes, some of our numbers are getting up there in years, but there are people getting into or back into the hobby, once they discover it, that will be taking their place and it will be for the reasons that most of us fly it. There is the challenge of the pattern, the challenge of getting that consistent engine (or motor) run, the satisfaction of building a nice looking flying machine, and the connection that you get when you feel every little thing the airplane is doing, every bounce from your own prop wash, seeing how you stack up in competition against the other guys and the friends you make and the camaraderie that is created. You yourself came back to control line for probably the some of the same reasons. And like Jim stated, there is something to be said about the stability of the event that keeps guys coming back. Take R/C cars for example. You don't see anybody that are life long R/C car enthusiasts or racers because there is no stability in the event. Rules and classes are changing all the time, and it's hard to stay current and competitive. Guys get burned out and frustrated and drop it like a hot stone. In any endeavor, you can't please everyone, and C/L stunt has a basis that reaches a pretty wide spectrum of people and brings them together, and as someone that has participated in several other disciplines, I can say I haven't seen  or experienced that in any of the others. I've sat here at the keyboard a long time, trying to express how I feel about this and it really is difficult for me to put into words. C/L stunt is C/L stunt. You tweek it here and there as needed when needed, but you can't make it like anything else. I hope this all makes some kind of sense.
   Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

[Ted Fancher]

Wonderful thread!

You'll all be happy to know I don't have time to pontificate...just one thought about the reasons people enjoy (enjoy may not be a strong enough term, by the way) stunt for a lifetime.

I think it would be impossible to overestimate the attractiveness of an event which requires the participant to actually build the object with which he competes.  Even more attractive is the fact that the skill with which he does so is rewarded when the trophies are handed out.  There is more than a little "artist" in the average precision aerobatic flyer and very little regard for the status symbol of "ownership" rather than "craftsmanship".

Precision aerobatic fliers are "special"  in that way.  That single facet of the event is what allows individuals who have little or no chance of ever winning "the big ones" to become acknowledged and applauded practitioners of the skills required.  A household name who never won! How many activities provide that capability for self fulfillment?

I believe we "fiddle" with that at our own peril.

Ted Fancher

[don Burke]

"I think it would be impossible to overestimate the attractiveness of an event which requires the participant to actually build the object with which he competes.  Even more attractive is the fact that the skill with which he does so is rewarded when the trophies are handed out.  There is more than a little "artist" in the average precision aerobatic flyer and very little regard for the status symbol of "ownership" rather than "craftsmanship". "

The attraction of model airplanes for me has always been the "thrill" of designing, building, and flying something that is unique to me.  At my age I compete only in racing as a pitman since I'm on the down side of the curve of handling something that affects my vertigo senses.  I practiced the "pattern" in my early years at the time the hourglass was added, but now I'm content to watch those who do such a good job of manuvering the results of their craftsmanship. 

I don't think fear of change is unique to our sport.  IMO change is something that is feared because the status quo is so comfortable.  I don't fear change, I just don't like to see it done only to benefit those with big pockets.  I have to agree with Dan that people get burned out with "change" and the flow of change out of their wallets.  I also agree with him about the hovering R/C airplanes.  They were a passing fad at my local R/C field, but I think a lot of people saw how much financial commitment it took.  They lost their shine fairly quickly as most of those flying them apparently had no regard for anyone near them, including the neighbors, and they became persona non grata.


 

[Eric Viglione]

I truly think George Lucas must have been a Control Line flier at some point. The Jedi must build his own Light Saber to pass muster as the story goes...

I don't think we have an aversion or fear of change per say. We like new models, designs, paint methods, building methods, power trains, etc. It's the framework under which we compete that I think most like to remain constant.

As much as I love innovation, and am up to my eyeballs in a high tech job where change is the only constant, I'm going to have to side with the FES here, (Flat Earth Society) when it comes to the pattern itself.

When it comes to certain sports, like Golf, Baseball, etc. And you are competing for something like a perpetual trophy, you tend to want to be competing under the similar conditions as the greats of your chosen craft in history did. In the case of Baseball, it's all about the statistics, and we all could recite every players stats as kids, and some of us still can. New ball players gage themselves against the stats of players from the 50's to this day (at least the one's not taking enhancing drugs). In Stunt, we still compete for the brass ring the same way, and most of us kinda like it.

One thing with un-known patterns, is the risk to the plane. A lot of us that have learned the current pattern are fairly confident that MOST of the time we will come home with the same amount of planes in one piece that we left with. Going to some event where you will be competing and doing outside diamonds with the point down or some such stunt for the first time, could lead to an attrition rate that may lead to people like me brining an ARF or pukey profile instead of my PA ship to the event.

Then the flavor of the even changes from a "precision aerobatic" event to more of a "circus stunt" event. I hear lot's of fond memories of events like the Mirror meet from people, where they had all kinds of stuff going on like that, but it was not to everyones taste, and the airplanes were typically more like a combat ship that a modern stunt job.

Now, all that said, if someone wanted to come out with an "Unlimited Freestyle Class" or some such, and try it in your area, I say cool! Go for it! I might even come try it out. But I surely wouldn't want to disassemble the current event that works so well and still has a fairly broad appeal. New events should be tested out to see if they can stand on their own merit without endangering a current event that works.

My .02
EricV

[Chuck Feldman]

Oh wow,  What a post this is. Fear is a bad choice of words but it is understandable. If you follow this forum you may recognize me as one who on occasion posts statements that are anti AMA. These arguments I post are politely answered by folks who know more than me and they explain why and so forth. So I happily return to enjoying the sport and stop bitching about the AMA. Well this time I must say that the AMA with its long cycle of rule changes and procedures does do a good job of keeping CLPA preserved. It should be preserved because in my opinion CLPA is the premier CL event.
So as has been said in the replies to this post; If you really want to have something different then you have make an event anew. Changing something as good as CLPA is not the way to go.

[Brett Buck]

Brett,

I agree with what you are saying and it makes sense, I guess the more I think about it, I am really not looking for change necessarily to what exist.....I am thinking more on the lines of additions to the sport/hobby. I also think that everyone has hit the nail on the head by saying it needs to be done at a local level then catch on nationally, or not....interest will dictate that.

The patterns and competitions exist today because people like myself, like to compete, and measure their skill level against there peers. This is why everyone is saying we must have rules that are balanced, well thought out and work for everyone.....agreed. What I am advocating for is that we possibly expand our ways of testing our skills by entering other factors that people will like.

This could possibly be flying one round of unknown pattern figures averaged into your best score. This set of figures would not be known till the day of the contest. That said, I am already thinking of possible problems with this scoring system, but I think you see my point, and problems could be worked out over time.

I am committed to trying some of these ideas at a local my local contest in the future, maybe they will be a total bust, maybe it is something that could catch on, time will tell.

Thanks for your comment and ideas, that is what the forums are all about.

  You're quite welcome. I think we all appreciate a rational discussion on the topic, if nothing else it's a refreshing change! About the only type of change that is opposed actively is when people not really involved in the event start trying to alter the Nationals. Truth be told, that's about the only contest we really care about. The rules for that have been so completely refined over the years that *we have it down*. They are 95% correct and fair to all. And I should know, the stars are aligning to make me the 2012 or 2013 NATs ED - what a lucky break that will be, then EVERYBODY will love me, right?

    And yet, the archives here and on SSW are full of people who rarely or never even attend offering "helpful" suggestions. Fine so far, but when the obvious flaw or shortcoming of the suggestion are pointed out, the original poster frequently takes the opinion that we are all "afraid of change". And then it descends into a flame war. The "suggestions" fall into about 3 categories:

     an attempt to correct a problem that doesn't exist
     a radical change to "shake things up", who wants to see the same old guys win time after
     a change to further some sort of other agenda

   The first two are sincere but generally misguided attempt to help. Some of the scenarios are borderline delusional, but well-intended. The latter is almost always a disingenuous attempt to "get one up" or "get back at" someone, or to advance an economic agenda. Of course the motivation shouldn't matter  - if it's a good idea it's a good idea - but it does help explain the issues.

    When someone comes up with a GOOD new idea that solves a known problem, it is implemented as fast as it can practically be. Howard's seeding program and judge selection program are excellent examples - it addressed a know problem, specifically, the assertion that the seeding and judge selection was biases to favor certain groups. It wasn't favoring anyone, and it doesn't really matter which judges you pick, but the problem of the organizers being continually harangued and bad-mouthed was certainly very real. Now there is certainly no rational way to accuse them of any malfeasance - although you can easily find numerous posts here that, instead of people complaining about Warren Tiahrt and Shareen Fancher, complain that the seeding algorithm doesn't "favor" their favorites. That's so far into irrational that it's easily dismissed.

    There are also a very few people involved or on the periphery of the event that are willing and able to go to extraordinary lengths including Federal felonies to harass and abuse the volunteers who run the NATs. One thing I know for certain is that with no volunteers, there are no NATs. Any number of judges and organizers have been the targets of this abuse over the last 25 years or so. Quite a few of them finally decided that it wasn't worth it any more, and I really can't blame them for that. I am currently the VP of PAMPA (although I haven't been able to fully participate since September due to other commitments) and I can assure you that protecting the people who run the event from this sort of crap is priority #1

   The reason we are protective of the NATs is that it has been wildly successful. Depending on how you count, CL Stunt is one of the largest individual events at the NATs. Several times in recent years is has been the *single largest* NATs event, and it's routinely in the top 3. Almost ALL of the other competition categories have dramatically fallen, C/L in particular. We keep hanging in there. All the other events also, as they were in the process of approaching death, made significant changes in order to "increase participation". At the very least, those change did not help, and in many cases I think they actually accelerated the decline (although there will be vehement arguments on that point). It also helps that stunt *doesn't have a lot of rules* - and thus fewer areas for exploiting them in a technology sense.

     So that's really the only area where change is met with resistance. Just about anything else is fair game, as long as it's well-thought out and a net positive.

      Brett

[RC Storick]

I have been reading and not posting in the last 6 mo. But I have to say this. Machines can put a pin stripe down perfectly but it still does not look as a good hand laid one with its flaws. The resistance is when you try to bend the rules that are in place to suit the need to use that machine to pin stripe instead of hand crafting. I'm not real good at typing and expressing my thoughts, but I can tell you this when it changes to buy and fly I am done for good!

[Paul Smith]

Outside of modeling there are lots of traditional sports in which people want LONG TERM CONTINUTIY, so new records can be compared with the past and so people can learn the games and buy the equipment and build the venues, these include,

Boxing, tennis, running, swimming, golf, baseball, soccer, and cricket.

Now if somebody else wants to start up a league for skateboarding, hot dog skiing, jet skis, or computer games, that's just fine. But don't expect the people who are invested in the traditional sports to welcome wholesale rules changes from outsiders or wanna bees who can't win under the established rules.


The title line:

"Why is change in this sport so feared??"

...is a cheap shot and an inaccurate one.  Opposition to a particular proposed change does not imply or indicate "fear". It mere indicates opposition to a particular proposed change.

If somebody wants a change that effectively creates a new event, just go ahead and create a new event.  If the idea has any merit, it will attract followers.

[Mark Scarborough]

Kudos to all who have posted!
this thread has remained positive, and enlightening, a GOOD exchange of ideas and thoughts.

I have not much to add except a comparison.....well ok, so an analogy?

If you want to play hockey, dont sign up for the soccer team,,,,
if there isnt a hockey team existing,, then form one,,
I am passionate about CLPA as it exists,, HOWEVER, that is not to say I would not enjoy another semi-parallel event of a more loose form?

[M Spencer]

My perception of a 'sports aerobatic' meeting is Flights scheduled Ea. 10 minutes. Form a que (crikey, the spellings evaporated. )
so as Ea, can fly when ready. Say 2 , moring and afternoon. So, if you dither too much , you miss.BUT ! theres no pressure. !?

Some one on P.A. with some wit , commentating on whos holding up the show, or needs a new prop, or repace plug or whatever)
without getting officious ( Harrasment would have to suffice , in good humour)
itd turn it into a bit of a carnival , rather than emulating a schuttle launch.So comments would be on tardiness , ballsed manouvres ,
apptitude and irregularities , maybe like a Rodeo ?

Same set up for combat and racing.Also , racing Fox .35 (std) Bi-Slobs couldnt be too much trouble . 60 ft. lines . If theres a stiff
breeze , the lap times could escalate atrociously. All good fun / sport.


Awards for differant 'form' in participation rather than 'top score ' ? i.e. biggest w.o.f.t.a.m. , best dressed,best 'near miss' (stunt only)
also youd fit a fair size tank in a Bi-Slob , Batten/relay  racing ? (change pilots) ,say 5 to a team.would you get an hour out of one ?