News:




  • October 19, 2017, 07:36:24 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models  (Read 1090 times)

Offline Matt Piatkowski

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« on: October 10, 2017, 07:32:49 PM »
Hello,
The AMA rules state the following:

2.1. Builder of Model.
The CD shall make every reasonable effort to ascertain that each pilot has
completely “constructed‟ the model(s) the pilot uses in competition, with
“constructed” to be interpreted as the action required to complete a model
starting with no more prefabrication than acquiring 1 of the 2 main
structures preassembled prior to merging and finishing. The 2 main
structures are considered to be: 1) the wing(s) and 2) the fuselage(s).
Flaps, rudders, elevators & horizontal stabilizers are not considered main
structures, therefore there are no limitations on level of their
prefabrication, and only the finish portion of this rule applies to them. In
unconventional stunt designs, such as a multi-engine wing with engine
nacelles, or a flying wing, they are to be considered as multiple merged
structures, so no level of prefabrication is allowed, and on multi wing
planes, the wing total counts as one structure, but the pilot must be the one
who joins and aligns the multiple wings together. In the case of take-apart
models, the take-apart hardware must be installed by the pilot. The pilot
must be the person who applies the finish to the plane, to “finish” meaning
the pilot fills the surfaces and applies the covering and finish to the
completed model where covering and finish is applied. Whereas on the
surface of the main structures, molded structural surface underlayment’s
including but not limited to molded fiberglass, or carbon fiber that are
filled or colored as a result of the manufacturing process that may show as
part of the final finish may be used, as long as this surface underlayment is
Academy of Model Aeronautics
Competition Regulations | Control Line Precision Aerobatics 2
applied, filled and colored by the pilot. Control systems such as but not
limited to the bellcrank, control horns, pushrods, etc. may be purchased,
but must be installed by the pilot. Other accessories and hardware may be
purchased or otherwise obtained for their function such as, but not limited
to: engines, tanks, wheels, canopies, airframe take-apart hardware, and
have no bearing in the way “main structures” are counted."

Do I understand correctly that Yatsenko's models are therefore excluded from any competition governed by the AMA rules and this means from all major events in the USA?

Thank you,
Matt


Offline Howard Rush

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 5922
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #1 on: October 10, 2017, 09:17:38 PM »
No.  The only events in the US that require the modeler to have build his or her stunt plane are the three age class events at the Nats. 
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 7859
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2017, 09:32:05 PM »

Do I understand correctly that Yatsenko's models are therefore excluded from any competition governed by the AMA rules and this means from all major events in the USA?

  RTF and similar models are not allowed at the US Nationals in Open, Senior, and Junior Aerobatics.  People like Orestes have gotten what has been ruled a kit from the Yatsenkos that has been allowed, but that's not what you normally get from them.

   The intent, very clearly supported in the stunt community by a large margin, is to ensure that if you win the most coveted trophy in stunt, you do it using the same standards as everyone else before you.

   Essentially all other contests in the US are run using Skill Class Aerobatics rules, including NATs Advanced and the other unofficial events. In those events, you can fly anything you want, but if you didn't build and finish your own airplane, you don't receive appearance points. This is a moot point for anything but expert in the most hotly-contested areas, otherwise, you can make up the difference by flying better.

    Note also that ARFs and ARCs also do not receive appearance points in any case. The "ARC" as a special category was created as the result of a rule change made at the 2005 NATs that was later ruled invalid since it wasn't ever passed by the contest board.


Offline Matt Piatkowski

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2017, 05:52:08 AM »
Hi Howard,
Hi Brett,
Thank you for clarifying this important rule.
By the way: I feel it would be beneficial for everybody to have the BOM rule either worded differently or add to it two sentences from Brett's explanation.
1. "RTF and similar models are not allowed at the US Nationals in Open, Senior, and Junior Aerobatics"
2. "All other (then NATs) contests in the US are run using Skill Class Aerobatics rules, including NATs Advanced and the other unofficial events. In those
    events, you can fly anything you want, but if you didn't build and finish your own airplane, you don't receive appearance points.

Now...let me tell you why I am interested in such matters. Flying C/L stunt is one of the items on my bucket list. Three years ago I made my first three warped loops and almost had to change my underwear, now I fly the entire pattern on the intermediate level. I have learned a lot, primarily from this forum, understand much better the complexity of the sport and want to improve my flying.

I believe that everybody can improve whatever he or she is doing by learning from the people who do it better. This learning for me will be the participation in the C/L stunt contests.

There are only few C/L stunt contests in Ontario, Canada where I live and the number of competitors is small therefore I started thinking about attending the competitions in the US in 2018 season.

Where can I find the list of events?
By the way: I am going to 2018 Brodak's.

Regards,
Matt



Offline Paul Smith

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 4290
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2017, 09:33:36 AM »
Wouldn't you say that all local contest directors have the option of waiving or enforcing the BOM?

ADDED; Providing the exception has been announced in advance and safety is not compromised.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 06:57:13 AM by Paul Smith »
Paul Smith

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 7859
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2017, 10:18:37 AM »
Wouldn't you say that all local contest directors have the option of waiving or enforcing the BOM?

  Sort of. No one can "waive" anything on the day of the contest, at least not according the CD rules. You *can* state that there are special rules (like no appearance points) but they have to be stated in the contest sanction papers and listing. That's to make sure that any variations are noted before someone shows up after possibly long travel and planning, and fund that, say, there are no appearance points and then find you have wasted your travel time and cost.

    For the vast, vast, majority of stunt contests (as far as I know everything except the NATs, event 322 Junior/Senior/Open), there's no BOM to waive, the contests are run under skill class aerobatics rules (events 323-326) where the BOM is not required. What you might unfortunately waive is the awarding of appearance points for 324-326 Not 323/Beginner has no appearance points at all in the baseline rules.

   Of course, what you are supposed to do, and what you could do and probably get away with, are two separate things. The CDs have wide discretion in many areas, with safety considerations and "sportsmanship" being specifically called out in different spots in the rule book. The safety aspect is rarely used (although  have seen it) and I have never seen the "sportsmanship" aspect used in stunt,  although I would certainly have done it in several cases had I been in charge*.

    The sanction/penalty for the CD violating the rules, making unadvertised rule modifications, etc, is unclear and *might* conceivably result in your CD license being pulled, but the method for pursuing a complaint is unclear and I haven't ever heard it being pursued or who would pass judgement, or whatever.  I have seen two cases (both at the NATs) where I might have expected such a process to have been undertaken with some justification, but when the CD of the contest is also the AMA Technical Director, I am not sure where you would go.

    Brett

* I did do it at rocket contests 40+ years ago and once kicked someone out entirely for repeated rules violations. It's a lot easier to cheat in rocket contests, since there are a lot of actual rules compared to stunt  - where if you can pass the pull test without cheating you are pretty much free to do anything you want.  Note also that at least one of the cases I would have tossed someone from a stunt contest was *cheating on a pull test*, the old "allen wrench through the eyelets" trick. That was because, again, the fine gentleman involved was a repeat offender, having already been caught doing the same thing in previous contests. The ensuing spew of justification along the lines of "well, so-and-so used overlength lines at the '1971 South Fargo Stunt Criterium' so it's no worse than that" said a lot about the individual in question which was fully supported by subsequent events.

Offline Traian Dorin Morosanu

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2017, 10:25:33 AM »
The kits are perfectly legal from the rules point of view.

The CD shall make every reasonable effort to ascertain that each pilot has
completely “constructed‟ the model(s) the pilot uses in competition, with
“constructed” to be interpreted as the action required to complete a model
starting with no more prefabrication than acquiring 1 of the 2 main
structures preassembled prior to merging and finishing. The 2 main
structures are considered to be: 1) the wing(s) and 2) the fuselage(s).

The main structure acquired preasembled is the wing.
 
Flaps, rudders, elevators & horizontal stabilizers are not considered main
structures, therefore there are no limitations on level of their
prefabrication, and only the finish portion of this rule applies to them.

Check they are all prefabricated ready for the modeler to do the finish.

In the case of take-apart models, the take-apart hardware must be installed by the pilot.

Check as the take apart components come separate and the fuselage has to be assembled.

The pilot must be the person who applies the finish to the plane, to “finish” meaning
the pilot fills the surfaces and applies the covering and finish to the
completed model where covering and finish is applied. Whereas on the
surface of the main structures, molded structural surface underlayment’s
including but not limited to molded fiberglass, or carbon fiber that are
filled or colored as a result of the manufacturing process that may show as
part of the final finish may be used, as long as this surface underlayment is
Academy of Model Aeronautics Competition Regulations | Control Line Precision Aerobatics 2
applied, filled and colored by the pilot.

No problem here as you still have to fill the small imperfections and apply the finish to the model.

Control systems such as but not limited to the bellcrank, control horns, pushrods, etc. may be purchased,
but must be installed by the pilot. Other accessories and hardware may be
purchased or otherwise obtained for their function such as, but not limited
to: engines, tanks, wheels, canopies, airframe take-apart hardware, and
have no bearing in the way “main structures” are counted."

Check as that is part of building of the fuselage.

So in short they are perfectly legal.


 R%%%% That being said BOM has to go away. The only place BOM has a place is in scale modeling, other than that it has done nothing for our enjoyment or for growing our hobby. All aspects of the hobby that are currently growing, NONE of them have a BOM rule in place. Kids that used to fly are not doing it anymore or have moved on to other disciplines where they can buy their stuff and have fun. Most people who build anymore in the hobby are the same that used to build back in the 1980 1990. You give them to build a Flake https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?2789554-Building-Falke they go crazy because is so hard for them. How in the world you want to attract new members? How has it been going lately. Do you want to grow a hobby or kill it? Fact is there are NO builder modelers out there anymore with very few exceptions, the only "building" they do is to install a servo fix a little here and there and there is where is stops and also as far as they want to go with the building. I flew DLG in the past few years. There are thousands of active members with many competitions that draw at least 45-50 members each time they get together and that is throughout the nation regardless where you are in the country. If there was a BOM rule in DLG you would have 10-20 members if that.  You know what they all enjoy their prefabricated models and look forward to the next best thing out there and they make massive progress because they spend time in the air and the membership is growing constantly. You know the definition of insanity and I don't have to tell you what that is.
I remember in 96 when i came to the NATS first time. There where about 20 members in every class Starting with beginners and i think open had like 30 plus on top of that not to mention of clasic. That was a time when when most modelers where still building from scratch or kits. Things change and we are in 2017 if you did not notice that and the new modelers have other expectations less free time and and simply do not want to mess with the building. But they sure would want to compete and enjoy the hobby, but as soon as you tell them they have to build their own model they go away in RC or somewhere else they are more welcome. How was at the last NATS? 24 advanced and 33 open participants and how many new names in the last 15 years? How about new members around the local flying fields? What about new kids coming in to this hobby?
I say lets clarify the BOM rule with a swift kick in the ass, and adopt FAI rules and call it a day and let our flying do the talking. If you like building go ahead but do mot impose it on others that do not like that do not have the expertise and frankly the time to do so.
Each goal you meet is a moment of happiness
Happiness is the harmony between what you think and what you do. Mahatma Gandhi

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 7859
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #7 on: October 11, 2017, 11:05:11 AM »
I believe that everybody can improve whatever he or she is doing by learning from the people who do it better. This learning for me will be the participation in the C/L stunt contests.


   That's a very good idea and flying a contest flight is worth about 1000 practice flights by yourself. Don't be concerned about the BOM, if you are planning on flying a Shark or similar RTF model, given that you are just starting, you will lose at most 20 points out of 635 or something like that, usually more like 15, and you will have a generally *much* better-flying model than your Beg/Int/Adv, even most Expert, competitors. "Reduced Pattern Beginner" almost isn't a competition event, if you can get through the reduced pattern without crashing you are probably going to win. Intermediate, if you can get a clean flight without leaving out laps, a maneuver, overruning, underruning, etc, you will likely be in the Top 3 and the gaps are typically much larger than a few points because of things like that.  Advanced is a bit tougher nut to crack but the fact you got to spend 6 months+ practicing instead of building should make a big difference. You will have to fly well to have much success at the bottom end of expert but your airplane will almost certainly fly better than your competitors, and it starts to make a big difference in the results at this level.

   Top guys in expert, the "Usual Suspects" like Paul/David/Ted/Doug/Derek/Orestes/Howard/some random slug, etc, you will not be able to beat them giving up 15-20 points, and even if you get 18 appearance points, you have to really master a huge array of skills and more-or-less adopt the event as a way of life for decades.  There are WAY more people in this category than you might imagine or know about, they are around 40-50 guys in the USA who could realistically make the US Nationals Top 20 at any given time if their week goes well, and are capable of operating at this level. There are at least 4-5 in Canada, too, maybe more. But North America is a pretty big area of which to spread them out, and they tend to occur in clusters (not coincidentally) like the SF Bay Area, Eastern Texas (Dallas/Houston), Georgia/FLA, etc.

  Note also that many of the 40-50 are stuck in ruts. Anyone without a traditional "handicap" can reach the Paul/David/Orestes level but almost no one will and less than a dozen have ever operated at that level. That's because they get on idea/approach in their head and can't shake it despite abundant evidence that it isn't working for them (i.e. the scores and contest results). To succeed at the highest levels you have to be willing to realistically or even harshly evaluate your own performance and results, and ask others to do the same. Listen, learn, be willing to change, and you have a chance, stop doing that and you will tread water forever. It takes an immense amount of old-fashioned work, but simply expending energy alone doesn't work, you have to learn every aspect of the event in every detail. There are plenty of people who know bits and pieces but it's a lifetime's work to master it all.

   It's a very difficult challenge; that's why it's worth doing. Retaining/strengthening the BOM and appearance points is just one manifestation of the US stunt communities desire to ensure that the difficulty and value of doing to is maintained.

    Brett

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 7859
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #8 on: October 11, 2017, 11:12:56 AM »
So in short they are perfectly legal.


   The Shark RTFs ARE NOT LEGAL FOR BOM and will not be permitted. The Shark "kits" such as those supplied to Orestes are OK. ARFS and ARCS are no longer permitted (since the removal of the "2005 Interpretation"). No amount of twisting by foreigners and people wanting to sell complete model to exploit the event for commercial reason is going to change that.


 
Quote
R%%%% That being said BOM has to go away.
 <<snip>>
I say lets clarify the BOM rule with a swift kick in the ass, and adopt FAI rules and call it a day and let our flying do the talking. If you like building go ahead but do mot impose it on others that do not like that do not have the expertise and frankly the time to do so.

     Thanks, we will add that to the small pool of votes "against". You know how to write a proposal, go right ahead, but you know how it will turn out. Make sure and change this rule, too:

1. Applicability. These rules specify the requirements and judging criteria for Control Line Precision Aerobatics. This is a subjectively-judged event combining modeling craftsmanship skills and the precise and accurate execution of prescribed aerobatic maneuvers. All pertinent AMA regulations (see sections titled Sanctioned Competition, Records, Selection of Champions, and General) and the Control Line rules shall apply, except as specified below._



   I find it sad that you don't get the point of the event, but you can miss out all you want.

    Otherwise, no.

    Brett

Offline Traian Dorin Morosanu

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #9 on: October 11, 2017, 12:04:06 PM »
I wanted to say more.

About foreigners part FYI I am an American citizen you Jack a%^.

I will sure propose that rule change. I have no problem with that.

Each goal you meet is a moment of happiness
Happiness is the harmony between what you think and what you do. Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Fredvon4

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1199
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #10 on: October 11, 2017, 12:52:38 PM »
Traian

I do not know if Brett is a jack ass...might be, never met him..yet...
But from my Forum POV he is just a great guy who has a lot of experience and a good valid perspective on the top level completion of Precision Stunt..

He has long written on this subject opposing the views of a LOT of "foreigners" relating to our USA BOM rule

I doubt his "foreigners", reference was directed at YOU personally

I feel compelled to point out that EVERY aspect of a changing USA (American) society has seen many attempts to be MORE inclusive by diluting traditions and standards.

I can think of NO singe activity where the reduction of a tradition or standard has increased participation... beyond some local fad

Competitors in every avocation I can think of, desire to WIN in a venue that is significant--- and distinctly places them equal to or above their peers

Walker Cup winner has a prestige...5 time cup winner more so... WC has it's own prestige... but IMO not so much as single or multi Walker Cup name on the Trophy...

sport flyer Fred's opinion





"A good scare teaches more than good advice"

"Worry is the interest you pay when you borrow trouble"

"The unpunished never learn"

Fred von Gortler IV

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 7859
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #11 on: October 11, 2017, 08:40:54 PM »
I wanted to say more.

About foreigners part FYI I am an American citizen you Jack a%^.

I will sure propose that rule change. I have no problem with that.

   I recall your first NATs trip very well, Dorin, I know exactly who you are. Do you think you are the first person to have this idea?

     Brett

Offline Trostle

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2169
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #12 on: October 11, 2017, 11:11:32 PM »
Hi Howard,
Hi Brett,
Thank you for clarifying this important rule.
By the way: I feel it would be beneficial for everybody to have the BOM rule either worded differently or add to it two sentences from Brett's explanation.
1. "RTF and similar models are not allowed at the US Nationals in Open, Senior, and Junior Aerobatics"
2. "All other (then NATs) contests in the US are run using Skill Class Aerobatics rules, including NATs Advanced and the other unofficial events. In those
    events, you can fly anything you want, but if you didn't build and finish your own airplane, you don't receive appearance points.

(Clip)

Regards,
Matt

Interesting suggestion, but would be redundant and totally unnecessary. 

Paragraph 2.1 provides the basis for the builder of the model rule as it applies to CLPA,  events 322 through 326.

Paragraph 2.2 provides for the age classifications - Junior, Senior and Open (event 322) as well as Skill Classes (events 323 through 326).  The BOM clearly applies to the age classifications, event 322.

Paragraph 15.5.5 clearly states that the BOM rule does not apply to the Beginner class and no appearance points will be awarded.

Paragraphs 15.6.6, 15.7.2 and 15.8.2 clearly state that the "contestant need not be the builder of the model to compete; however, no appearance points will be awarded to the contestant who does not build and finish his/her own model.  For contestants who do build and finish their own models, appearance points will be awarded per the appearance section of the CL Precision Aerobatics event."

It just so happens that since the adoption of the Skill Classes, essentially the only contest for event 322 we have in the US is our Nationals where the BOM is required as specified in Paragraph 2.1.  This does not preclude an organizer from holding a contest for event 322 (age classifications) nor should there be a rule that even suggests that the Nationals would be the only contest for event 322.

Keith


Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 7859
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2017, 10:33:52 AM »
Hi Howard,
Hi Brett,
Thank you for clarifying this important rule.
By the way: I feel it would be beneficial for everybody to have the BOM rule either worded differently or add to it two sentences from Brett's explanation.
1. "RTF and similar models are not allowed at the US Nationals in Open, Senior, and Junior Aerobatics"
2. "All other (then NATs) contests in the US are run using Skill Class Aerobatics rules, including NATs Advanced and the other unofficial events. In those
    events, you can fly anything you want, but if you didn't build and finish your own airplane, you don't receive appearance points.


    I agree with Keith, this appears to be redundant. And while it is currently working out like this, I can see no reason to restrict  322 JSO to *just* be at the Nationals.

   When the sanction is granted, you have to specify the event by paragraph, along with any variations. It will say (for example)  "Golden State Stunt Championships, PAMPA Classes (events 323-326), OTS, and Classic per current PAMPA rules". If you are at all unclear you can turn to the rule book where it says exactly what is required for 323-326, and then go to the PAMPA website and look up the OTS and Classic rules.

    If you want to know what to expect at a particular contest, the sanction will tell you. My statements were blanket about what is almost always happening at US stunt contests, but each specific contest has it's rules listed in the sanction papers. 

    The most common variation is (unfortunately) not using appearance points, but to first approximation you shouldn't even concern yourself with that at this point. As noted above, it hardly matters in the contest results until you get to the very upper echelons, and starting from your point, realistically, that is not going to be an issue for quite some time. If they are used, it doesn't matter, and if they are not used, you are 15-20 points ahead of where you would have been.

     Remember - against almost anyone aside from the *very top* competitors, the 40-50 people I was talking about above, you can *always* fly better enough to make up the 15-20 points. Your results are *completely and entirely* in your own control, and if you ever convince yourself otherwise, you are off the track. You need to bear that in mind at all times.

   Once you get to The Usual Suspects, then, you fate is still in your own hands, but you *are not* going to fly better enough than David to make up 18 points. That, too, is entirely in your own hands - you can choose to learn how to build, finish and trim it to that level.

   

   Brett

Offline Derek Barry

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2498
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #14 on: October 13, 2017, 06:43:17 AM »


I will sure propose that rule change. I have no problem with that.

Good luck with that.

Derek

Offline Steve Fitton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2087
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #15 on: October 13, 2017, 04:14:21 PM »
...
I will sure propose that rule change. I have no problem with that.

Have fun storming the castle!
Steve

Online Dane Martin

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1494
  • heli pilot BHOR
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #16 on: October 13, 2017, 05:03:26 PM »
I usually end up feeling like I put my foot in my mouth when I try to comment on posts; but here goes nothin.....

Why is BOM such a frequent topic? If you don't build an airplane,  then you don't have an airplane. Is there some store I don't know about where people are supposed to be buying airplanes from, and that's why BOM is requested to be abolished?

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 7859
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #17 on: October 13, 2017, 08:21:07 PM »
I usually end up feeling like I put my foot in my mouth when I try to comment on posts; but here goes nothin.....

Why is BOM such a frequent topic? If you don't build an airplane,  then you don't have an airplane. Is there some store I don't know about where people are supposed to be buying airplanes from, and that's why BOM is requested to be abolished?

    It's largely because there are a few people who are willing/want to/are currently building airplanes for people, and they want to expand the market. These are the hyper-expensive RTF models like the Yatsenko Shark (something like $4500) and custom-built airplanes, like someone building a Patternmaster with a 20 point finish and delivering it to you complete (for some large sum in the thousands of dollars). To do this, they want to make sure they can sell an airplane to guys who want to fly it in the one contest that really matters, the US Nationals, and to make sure that their customers are not "penalized" all the rest of the time.

   There are valid (but in my opinion, wrong) arguments about how it "will increase participation" or something like that and some people genuinely believe it should be a "flying contest" instead of a modeling contest. There are reasonable people who hold that opinion, not many, but they are to be respected.

     But the vast, vast majority of these arguments start with the commercial builders and their acolytes trying to confuse people about how a "bunch of elitists" are trying to keep you from flying in a contest because you didn't build your airplane. The premise is entirely faulty in all regards, and the people who start it *know full well* it is nonsense. But, trying enlist support for a position like "we want to sell $5000 airplanes to 4 guys willing to pay it and change all the rules in order to do it" is impossible, it sounds exactly like it is, we want to exploit a tiny number of really rich guys, so lets break everyone else's even to do it.

   That argument is a dead loser. But, change it a bit - there's a bunch of elite "name" fliers (like those awful West Coast people) with a stranglehold on stunt preventing economy ARFS and ARCS* from flying in contests, and they will all look down on you, Joe Bellcrank. They are the ones keeping 5000 guys from going down and flying in the park ever Sunday, wouldn't it be great it we had that, but a few self-styled hot-shots like Derek and Brett want to prevent it. If we, the Joe Bellcranks of the world, all join together, we can finally put a stop of this horrible abuse of power and prestige!   That argument at least has a chance - and it almost succeeded in destroying the entire event in 2005.  These people don't care even one little bit about guys flying $100 ARFs in the park, but they claim to in order to get their real goal, selling a few airplanes a year for thousands of dollars to rich people.

  This has been going on for the last 15-20 years or so in earnest, as soon as it became practical to exploit Chinese slave labor rates to build a complete mostly-functional $120 CL stunt ARF for a profit.  Every single time we make an attempt to get a reading on what people really want, it has always come out about 80/20 FOR keeping the BOM and appearance points, but that doesn't stop the same arguments being started by mostly the same people over and over again. There are only a few, but they are the source of ALL of it for the entire time I have been participating in stunt. 

    Of course as noted above and repeated over and over, PAMPA rules have permitted ANY airplane, BOM or not, to fly in the contest. That's WHY the PAMPA events (now the official AMA Skill Class Aerobatics events {323-326, BEG/INT/ADV/EXP}) are used at essentially every contest since the mid-70's. So in terms of participation, NO ONE IS EXCLUDED from essentially any local contest in the USA for the last 40+ years. So that is entirely nonsensical as an argument. But, because the false impression is repeated and repeated, lots of other people still believe that if you show up with an ARF they will kick you off the field, perfectly reasonable people with false information.

  Stunt has never been about "strictly flying", at least not since the late 40's. It has *always* been an event where you build a model, then compete with it.  The original questions were about what BOM means, and in recent years we have reinforced that, along with closing some loopholes formed by the same sort of crazy protests by tiny groups (particularly the ARF loophole, formed in a few hours on Sunday at the 2005 NATs when people threatened (the same people as above) to file "protest after protest" to make a political point that, incidentally, became moot on WEDNESDAY EVENING)).

      The same argument goes on and on, either because the anti-stunt crowd figure the only way to win is to just make it so exasperating that the rest of us give up (not likely...) or that at this point, the arguing *is* the point, since they know that they can't hope to succeed on the merits of their position. About the only time you see me post something angry on here or SSW dealing with these few long-term pains in the ass whose sole contribution and sole purpose is to "tweak" people to get a reaction.

   I would also note that this argument is almost entirely an internet phenomenon. The amount of time spent on this topic at flying fields over the years, in the ~40 ish years I have been a serious participant, is under 5 minutes. It just doesn't come up, people show up at a contest, fly their airplanes, everybody shakes hands and goes home. A complete non-issue.

    Brett

*ARCs started when people asked to get their ARFs without the covering on them, in order to not use the basic color schemes or the horrible chinakote covering that is notorious for falling off or coming up. But it was invented as a separate category by the "2005 Interpretation" from that year's NATS. This carved out a niche where it was not supplied with a finish, so the interpretation allowed someone to assemble ARF, then apply a finish, and be qualified under the BOM at the NATS and get appearance points in the PAMPA classes. Most of us had argued that this was not a valid rule since it had never been passed or even presented to the CL stunt contest board. Finally, in 2011, the AMA Technical Director agreed and rescinded it, and said if you want such a rule, make the proposal and vote on it. Of course, none of the supporters even bothered to try since they knew they were in the extreme minority. A few years later, Eric Viglione wrote and successfully lobbied for the current CL stunt BOM requirements, and completely independently but in the same cycle, I proposed the "Purpose of Event" change that I posted above. Now, it is in no way unclear that the event is intended to be both a building and flying contest, and exactly what that means in terms of allowable prefabrication. Both passed and those are rules, and I have had nearly nothing but good feedback for both.

Offline Derek Barry

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2498
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #18 on: October 14, 2017, 08:33:00 AM »
Also, as stated many times before; the idea that eliminating appearance points will boost participants has been disproven many times. We haven't used them on the east coast for more than a decade and the numbers have not changed, and certainly haven't grown substantially. If anything, Brodaks, a very large contest that does use appearance points has hundreds of entries every year proving quite the opposite.

Derek

Online Dan Berry

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 406
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #19 on: October 14, 2017, 10:13:53 AM »
Ahhhhhh....... You guys have it easy with Control Line rules proposals compared to Free Flight.
At least there are several guys proposing rules that aren't smart and will go nowhere.
In the FF world this is all accomplished by one individual.

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 7859
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #20 on: October 14, 2017, 11:33:26 AM »
Ahhhhhh....... You guys have it easy with Control Line rules proposals compared to Free Flight.
At least there are several guys proposing rules that aren't smart and will go nowhere.
In the FF world this is all accomplished by one individual.

     Well, for the most part we know where it is coming from, everyone knows what the deal is, and in real terms, it's a non-issue. In fact, for all the garment-rending histrionic posts in the internet about how we are all killing the event and every kid in America would fly stunt planes if we just *do SOMETHING, NOW!!!!*, only a couple of proposals have ever been written on the topic directly.

    This fits the model - complain and complain about it in public, do nothing official to accomplish the stated goal, then when another round starts, claim the lack of action is because They are conspiring against you, Joe Bellcrank, and the lack of change is the "proof". It takes roughly a minute to write one of those proposals, I have written a dozen in an evening (all of which passed, not because I am one of Them, but because *it resolved an actual issue or wording problem* that most people recognized as a problem with a valid solution).

      But if you put it to an honest CLACB vote and lose miserably because people tell the members they don't want it, then, you can't claim that there are legions of supporters out there clamoring for change - which there are not. Leave it to unsupported assertions, "lots and lots of people support me but are afraid to speak up" sort of thing and then you can claim anything. So you can keep it going indefinitely.

    BTW, the proposals to adopt FAI are another story. There are a number of quite sensible and reasonable people who want that, although they appear to be in the minority. That would also get rid of BOM and appearance points, but the proposers are not in it primarily for that purpose. They genuinely believe in making a uniform set of rules. That's an entirely different argument, but the anti-stunt/anti-BOM people usually jump on the FAI bandwagon and proclaim it to be a wonderful thing because it serves there ends perfectly. Many/most of the people who have actually flown in the TT or WCup or World Championships know enough about FAI and it's machinations to know they don't want our rules to be subject to that process. But many of the bandwagon-jumpers know *nothing* about FAI and just see it as a way to get rid of BOM.

    Brett

Online RC Storick

  • From concept to reality
  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 11391
  • The finish starts with the first piece of wood cut
    • Stunt Hangar
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #21 on: October 14, 2017, 02:35:04 PM »
In My opinion appearance point should be 40 points the equivalent of one maneuver. I know it use to be 80 then for some reason dropped to 40 then 20. We also got 5 starting points.
AMA 12366

Online Dan Berry

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 406
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #22 on: October 14, 2017, 02:39:07 PM »
  . But many of the bandwagon-jumpers know *nothing* about FAI and just see it as a way to get rid of BOM.

    Brett

Yeah, the FF guy is REAL big on trying to infect AMA events with FAI crap.

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 7859
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #23 on: October 14, 2017, 03:56:29 PM »
In My opinion appearance point should be 40 points the equivalent of one maneuver. I know it use to be 80 then for some reason dropped to 40 then 20. We also got 5 starting points.

    In fact, given that the Top 5 scoring range has gotten so much larger, it makes some sense to increase the appearance points in order to restore their influence on the results. Back through most of the 90's-early 00's, the total range of the scores once you got to the Top 5 was very small, maybe 10 points top to bottom. With maybe 5 points variation, the appearance scores were about 1/3 the result. Now you have more like 20-25 points spread which means the appearance score is a smaller influence on the results. So I would probably want to have it that way for Top 5 and Top 20.

    However, it would have a very large influence on PAMPA classes. With a max of 20 point deficit for a borrowed/hand-me-down/ARF/RTF, you can pretty easily overcome it even through Advanced in most areas. You couldn't overcome 40 in Advanced, maybe in INT. I don't care much about RTFs, but I do care about other people's airplanes and hand-me-downs. The skill class rules have worked very well for almost half a century, I would be a bit concerned with what effect this would have.

   Compromise position  - it's still 20 points, but for JSO we add a K-factor of 1.5 (effectively 30). For Skill Classes, the K-Factor is 1.0. That way a 20-point airplane is still perfect, and it has more effect on the NATs, but nowhere else.

      Brett

   

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 7859
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #24 on: October 14, 2017, 04:15:27 PM »
Yeah, the FF guy is REAL big on trying to infect AMA events with FAI crap.

   In our case, several highly-respected fliers, like Warren Tiahrt (who is on the short list of people most-highly-respected in stunt), proposed it. I strenuously disagree, both with the rules themselves, and to let the rules be subject to external control. Either you adopt them verbatim and let the FAI decide what to do, in which case you have virtually no say in what happens, and the actual rule-making process is entirely opaque. If you adopt them and then say that we are going to have it subject to our own control boards, then people like me are going to make it our life's work to put it back the way it was, which would take about 2 cycles or there would be a revolution.

     Brett

Offline Skip Chernoff

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 510
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #25 on: October 15, 2017, 06:09:36 AM »
Yo Brett let's not forget the Philly,Jersey and NY contingents....Regarding Brodaks, Experts and Advanced get judged. They wouldn't even let me display my (Intermediate) Ares.. I think one of the judges jokingly said...."get it out of here!" ....LOL. I love Brodaks,it's great!
I'm all for the BOM for "Experts" (Open) at the Nats only. At our Philly contest we have a pilots' choice award for the best looking plane, and award trophies in PA and Old Time.

I'm a model builder,but I like ARFs and ARCs as well, and they have a place in our hobby for those folks that enjoy flying but don't have the time or skill to build a "stunt ship". Let's try to promote our hobby! That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.........PhillySkip

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 9704
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #26 on: October 15, 2017, 08:36:40 AM »
In My opinion appearance point should be 40 points the equivalent of one maneuver. I know it use to be 80 then for some reason dropped to 40 then 20. We also got 5 starting points.

Bumping it to 40 sure gets my vote.
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 9704
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #27 on: October 15, 2017, 08:42:05 AM »
Wouldn't you say that all local contest directors have the option of waiving or enforcing the BOM?

Beware of terminology differences here.  To a lot of folks "enforcing the BOM rule" specifically means allowing or not allowing one to compete at all (i.e., Open/Senior/Junior stunt as at the Nats).  Awarding appearance points based on the BOM gets a different description.

And yes, awarding appearance points or not is up to the CD, and it's regional.  I can never remember what they do in central or south-central states, but the east coast pretty much doesn't, and the west coast pretty much does (they'd face mutiny if they didn't).
AMA 64232

The problem with electric is that once you get the smoke generator and sound system installed, the plane is too heavy.

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 7859
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #28 on: October 15, 2017, 10:03:13 AM »
Yo Brett let's not forget the Philly,Jersey and NY contingents....Regarding Brodaks, Experts and Advanced get judged. They wouldn't even let me display my (Intermediate) Ares.. I think one of the judges jokingly said...."get it out of here!" ....LOL. I love Brodaks,it's great!

No comment on what goes on at John's contest, sounds like a great week for everyone.

Quote
I'm a model builder,but I like ARFs and ARCs as well, and they have a place in our hobby for those folks that enjoy flying but don't have the time or skill to build a "stunt ship". Let's try to promote our hobby! That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.........PhillySkip

      We have been doing that with the PAMPA classes since the mid-70's or so, and they did it in WAM to some extent since 1948 or so. Since the mid 80's low point, we have had substantial growth compared to all other competition categories with a few minor exceptions. And JSO stunt + ADV+  the unofficial classes have generally been in the Top 3 in terms of individual entrants at the Nationals for a long time now even compared to most of the RC events and FF Gas. During that time, the rest of the CL events have dropped dramatically or died completely with a few scattered exceptions - most of which dropped BOM to try to "promote our hobby". At best, that didn't help, at worst, it dumbed them down and made them not worth doing for most of the participants.

     I am all for making stunt something people want to do. I suggest as a starting point examining what we have done correctly over the years that makes people almost pathologically dedicated to doing it.

     My point was that instead of sitting down and studying the problem and see why we have done so much better than the other events, we have people start by looking at the system as a failure, and with no real reasoning just harping on the same old failed ideas time after time. Even when they try it (like eastern contests dropping appearance points) and it either doesn't work or makes the problem worse, that doesn't register, they just come back with the same idea and try to impose it on everyone. 

       There are many people who genuinely want to help and sincerely think their ideas are great. They are very earnest, but demonstrably  wrong. They are wrong because for the most part they aren't fully engaged in the event in the first place, and have *no idea whatsoever* why the rest of us are so fascinated by it. And accuse anyone who disagrees of "not caring about the event" and being an "elitist".

   But it keeps getting stirred up periodically by people who don't care at all, and just want to make money off of it and they have to enlist others to fight for them, because otherwise, it immediately becomes obvious that they are in it for the fast cash, get their money for a few years, and then who cares what happens.

   Right now, we have an event that we know for certain appeals to *someone*. It appeals to a small but dedicated group because it's easy to do, but impossible to master. That will keep people doing it until they are physically unable to continue, and we see that all the time. Even the guys that supposedly "retire" keep coming back. We have a new wave of people coming in all the time, look at the TT thread - does that look like the "Usual Suspects" to anyone? The same "we are dying, we have to DO SOMETHING, NOW!!!!" crap has been going on since I started in the mid-late 70's, and in the larger model airplane area since the 30's - but it never happens. We shouldn't be complacement but at the same time, we shouldn't embark on changes entirely on speculation by people who aren't currently interested or involved, nor people who have a (barely) hidden agenda.

     Brett

Offline Paul Smith

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 4290
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #29 on: October 15, 2017, 04:55:17 PM »
Bumping it to 40 sure gets my vote.

40 was really only 24 because there was 16-point minimum.
Paul Smith

Offline Steve Thompson

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #30 on: October 16, 2017, 12:44:34 PM »
I can see where ARFs provide an airframe you can learn with and not cry when you crash and total it.  You are out bucks, but not your time and creativity.  They are expendable and that can help when learning.

When it comes to showing up with something to be proud of...  Ya gotta build it yourself.  Even if it isn't perfect, it is YOURS.  You know every detail about it because you touched it all.  If it isn't perfect, your next build will be better.

I have see a lot of very nice show cars built with a checkbook.  I have much more appreciation for the car built entirely by its owner, even if flaws exist.  The guy that built his car can be proud of it, perfect or not.

Flying a store bought plane is not wrong.  But, you are missing out on the connection you get with something you created yourself to the best of your abilities.

Just my opinion...

Offline Gerald Arana

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 913
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #31 on: October 16, 2017, 03:50:42 PM »
I can see where ARFs provide an airframe you can learn with and not cry when you crash and total it.  You are out bucks, but not your time and creativity.  They are expendable and that can help when learning.

When it comes to showing up with something to be proud of...  Ya gotta build it yourself.  Even if it isn't perfect, it is YOURS.  You know every detail about it because you touched it all.  If it isn't perfect, your next build will be better.

I have see a lot of very nice show cars built with a checkbook.  I have much more appreciation for the car built entirely by its owner, even if flaws exist.  The guy that built his car can be proud of it, perfect or not.

Flying a store bought plane is not wrong.  But, you are missing out on the connection you get with something you created yourself to the best of your abilities.

Just my opinion...


I would have an extremely hard time agreeing with you more!

The BOM is the main reason (Other than burn out from glider comp) I came back to CL and it is getting harder to master, if I ever will, as each day goes by.

See you at Golden States!

Jerry

Offline john e. holliday

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 18660
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #32 on: October 16, 2017, 09:01:47 PM »
Do away with the BOM for Jr-Sr-Op and the Walker Cup can be put in a museum.   Leave USA Precision Aerobatic Rules alone.    You know when I was a contest rules member I got more response from outside my district then I did from my own district members. D>K
I was always taught to respect my elders, but it keeps getting harder to find one.
Today I broke my personal record for most consecutive days lived.
John E. "DOC" Holliday
10421 West 56th Terrace
Shawnee, KANSAS  66203
AMA 23530

Online peabody

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2280
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #33 on: Yesterday at 05:38:33 AM »
Reaching out to the folks that I have met from Europe/Asia and Australia, I have asked directly if the event (CLPA) is shrinking, stagnant or growing, and all have replied that it is growing, albeit slowly.
For a decade, I urged that PAMPA adopt a mission statement: to Promote and Grow Control Line Stunt in the US. Nothing. Instead they talk of the past.
Makes no sense.

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 7859
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #34 on: Yesterday at 10:57:06 AM »
For a decade, I urged that PAMPA adopt a mission statement: to Promote and Grow Control Line Stunt in the US. Nothing. Instead they talk of the past.
Makes no sense.

     Rich's version of "promotion" caused a train wreck of epic proportions from which we are still recovering.

    For those who don't know already, Peabody was one of the original "attack dogs" sent out or deciding on his own to promote the false concepts discussed above, very nearly resulting in the destruction of the entire event on several occasions. Fortunately, while he and a few others are still out pushing their nonsense, and innocent bystanders sometimes still get entrained in the flow of nonsense, almost everybody knows their back story and he has the credibility of a used car salesman, news reporter, or congressman.

   At this point Rich is like the Star Trek Doomsday Machine, still mindlessly causing destruction long after the war was lost.

   These threads always take a familiar course, where after a few seemingly reasonable posts  they start "losing", so the "anti-BOM" guys become hysterical and start making wild accusations, at which point the thread gets shut down. They counted on PAMPA doing something similar for years, and it was indulged, until finally we had to let everyone else see it, which quickly revealed their true nature. We will see if Rich (or the other obvious candidates) has learned anything from his past failures or not.

    Brett
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 12:12:48 PM by Brett Buck »

Offline john e. holliday

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 18660
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #35 on: Today at 10:24:37 AM »
Think he would ever have the nerve to show up at a NATS again.  I remember the year John Brodak had to find an event director for the Classic event as he asked me to take over and I pointed to Robert Brookins who did take it over and has done an outstanding job.   Need to get back to the NATS again my self as I miss all the people.
I was always taught to respect my elders, but it keeps getting harder to find one.
Today I broke my personal record for most consecutive days lived.
John E. "DOC" Holliday
10421 West 56th Terrace
Shawnee, KANSAS  66203
AMA 23530

Online peabody

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2280
Re: AMA rules and Yatsenko's models
« Reply #36 on: Today at 07:13:56 PM »
I simply stated facts....
While the  US watches CLPA dwindle, the rest of the world is seeing a resurgence.


Tags: