News:



Advertise Here

  • October 23, 2019, 02:52:16 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals  (Read 8840 times)

Online Trostle

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2555
CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« on: August 23, 2012, 05:03:33 AM »
Several comments follow:

1.  Rules change proposals during this current two-year cycle could have been made any time during 2011.  There were several change proposals submitted for CLPA, including some change proposals to either change the current AMA General rule on the BOM requirement (which is the current rule that applies to CLPA) as well as some proposals to adopt a BOM rule specific to our CLPA event.  Two of those BOM proposals passed the Contest Board Initial Vote earlier this year.  Subsequent to that Initial Vote, two cross proposals were submitted.  These resulting four BOM change proposals were considered by the Board in their Interim Vote completed on July 15 and the result, as posted on this forum, was that the single CLPA BOM proposal, CLA 13-8-1-C will be considered by the Board in their Final Vote by 15 September.  A 60% vote in the Final Vote by the Contest Board is required for a change proposal to be approved.  This process has been explained on this forum.

2.  Any AMA member can submit a change proposal.  Change proposals could have been submitted any time during 2011.  For those who seriously wish to change our CLPA BOM rule, there was ample time to have initiated their ideas this past year.  It does little good at this time to try to change the current the rule for an average kit, or to try to initiate any number of other changes for this change cycle.

3.  There have been some recent posts here that suggests that Board Members should not be allowed to submit change proposals or perhaps hot be allowed to vote on proposals submitted by the Board Member.  Just because a Board Member submits a proposal does not mean that that proposal will automatically be approved.  There is plenty of evidence and experience within the CL Aerobatics Contest Board that a Board Member submitted proposal does not get an automatic approval.  So, if there is some such restriction, a Board Member can simply find another AMA member who agrees with and submits a proposal that is drafted by the Board Member.  Restricting Board Members from acting on their own proposals would essentially become meaningless.

4.  Regarding the single BOM change proposal, CLA 13-8-1-C, that will be considered by the Aerobatics Contest Board next month:  The proposal was written to provide words in our CLPA rulebook that defines how the current BOM rule from the AMA General rules has evolved as applied to our CLPA event.  Pre-sheeted foam wings have been accepted ever since they first appeared on our circles 30 or 40 years ago.  LIkewise, pre-assembled parts have also been accepted over the years.  CLA 13-8-1-P does not change what we have allowed over the years.  This is explained in the proposal and I will not discuss it further here.  The other cross proposal considered by the Board was well written and showed that a lot of careful thought went in to its preparation.  Depending on the outcome of the upcoming Final Vote, the ideas in that other cross proposal which allowed only one pre-assembled part (as in a foam wing) could and should be considered during the next change cycle.  There was a change proposal that would not allow any pre-assembled parts.  That proposal was well written and well thought out but it did not pass the Board's Initial Vote by a wide margin.  As explained in earlier posts, if this CLA 13-8-1-C does not pass the Board's Final Vote, (5 negative votes will prevent its passage) we will be using the current AMA general rule as we have, essentially, for the past 50 plus years.  If that happens, then hopefully, there will be some well written and well thought out proposals submitted in the next change cycle that starts on January 1.

5.  For some reason, the AMA officialdom has chosen not to post the results of the Contest Board Interim Vote on these BOM proposals.  I have posted here that CLA 13-8-1-P passed the Interim Vote, thereby discarding the two initial BOM proposals and the other BOM cross proposal.  As soon as the AMA posts the "official" Interim Vote results, I will be glad to post how the Board individually voted on these four BOM proposals.  Also, I will post the individual votes on our Initial Vote earlier this year.  As far as I am concerned, how each Board Member votes is not to be any secret.

Keith

 

Offline Derek Barry

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2660
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2012, 06:23:41 AM »
Hey Keith,

You make a lot of good points. First of all, my comment about proposing that CB members not be allowed to propose rules was obviously a joke because such a proposal would never pass the initial vote. Also, I am not that naive either, I know that you and the other CB members have friends and could get a rule proposed without your name on it. I do, however, wonder if it would carry as much weight without your name on it??? It has been proven that rules you propose seem to pass whether they are what the majority wants or not...pattern points!

My fear is that some of the districts were not correctly represented. Maybe it is because the people in each district did not contact their CB member, if so it would be their own fault. I know that my CB member voted as I and the other members of my district asked him to. I am aware of another district where that was not the case. I know that nothing in this process is hidden, you may have to actually do some work yourself and look for it but you are correct it is all out in the open.

You and I have been in contact this entire time and you know how I feel about your proposal. Yes it is written better than the current rule but I feel that it allows entirely too much prefabrication. You already know this so I assume that you are not surprised that I am voicing my opinion. I do not believe that your rule will benefit stunt and more specifically the Nats. I see it as one more nail in the coffin for the BOM. I was quite honestly very surprised to see it pass the interim vote. I truly believe that it is not what the majority of the Nats attending stunt comunity wants and that is why I hope that it does not pass. If it does I hope that Eric will resubmit his proposal for the next cycle so that we may correct this mistake. My fear is that once we open Pandora's box it will be very hard to close!

Respectfully,

Derek

Offline peabody

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2691
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2012, 06:32:17 AM »
Bravo Keith....

Rule change methods are clearly spelled out in the Rule Book.
Following those steps, while time consuming, allow plenty of input from all concerned.

I would also add that I know that being a Contest Board member (CLPA or other persuasion) is a thankless task.

I also know that those serving in the position often have to be cajoled to accept, and remain at, those positions....

Thanks to you, and all CLPA CB members for your work and dedication.

Offline RC Storick

  • Forum owner
  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 11776
  • The finish starts with the first piece of wood cut
    • Stunt Hangar
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2012, 06:43:35 AM »
I thank all who serve on the board. However I agree with Derick that I too wonder how much weight a rule would have without your name on it. Just because a salesman sells you a car does not make it the best car.We had 2 years with out patten points that rule was a rule that only a select few wanted. I personally think this is one more nail in the BOM coffin. Just like the rule interpretation of 05. Only one diffrent thing is this is going through the correct channels. So many are turned off by this unfixed rule, its going UN noticed because so many think it does not matter or will not pass. A rule should be a rule not a appeasement. Just like the first amendment it doesn't need to protect free speech it was written to protect unpopular speech.

Power of the media in its correct manner to get the message out uncensored. Not skewed by corprate conglomerates. I give free rein to views I don't agree with as long as they don't personally attack a person. But I also think I deserve equal time on issues I believe in. Hence the form letter to make sure that there is a second chance for ALL to be heard. Not just a select few.

I would rather see 2 more years of status quo than try to fix a rule that is so far off the mark its questionable to interpretation. We need a clear cut rule!Listen to the first 5 min of this video this man is 96 years old and a self taught aircraft engineer who dropped out of school at 14. He knew Einstein and is probably the most interesting speaker I have ever listend to.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2012, 07:58:09 AM by Robert Storick »
AMA 12366

Offline Steve Fitton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2174
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2012, 07:36:00 AM »
Bottom line, if you have feelings one way or another about this, its fine to vent here but make sure you contact your Board rep and let him know how you feel.  Be polite to your rep and they will welcome your input.
Steve

Offline Doug Moon

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1942
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2012, 08:16:00 AM »
....The proposal was written to provide words in our CLPA rulebook that defines how the current BOM rule from the AMA General rules has evolved as applied to our CLPA event.  Pre-sheeted foam wings have been accepted ever since they first appeared on our circles 30 or 40 years ago.  LIkewise, pre-assembled parts have also been accepted over the years.  CLA 13-8-1-P does not change what we have allowed over the years....

I have found this view during this current proposal process to be quite perplexing and a big change from years past with the BOM was placed on the chopping block.  The view back then, 8-10 years ago, was that we should not change the rule to fit people's actions but people's actions should fit the rules.  I remember taking quite a beating from many when I was on the side of just scrapping whole thing to end the never ending battle.  My position was the rule says this, many are doing this without a care about what rule states.  Many Many Many times it was stated on the forums by many different people directly to me, "we donít do this in our district"  "everyone around here builds their own planes" "you are just wanting the rule scrapped because you canít build" "You are just a wannabe" etc etc...
I am confused by this line of thinking now.  Now it all of sudden is ok to you to say in an official rules proposal to the AMA "everyone is doing it so letís get the rule to match the actions of the entrants."
 
Excuse me but What in the hell?  

An explanation as to why it is ok when KT says this people actually applaud but when others were saying this in the past it was met with less than a positive response?

And for the record the BOM has not evolved one bit.  You even said so yourself if this rule doesnít pass we will then have the same rule we have always for the past 50 plus years.  I say again, the rule has not changed.  
What has changed is how people interpret the rule and what is considered acceptable in their own minds and what they are comfortable with when they sign the entry form for event 322 and PAMPA classes where appearance points are awarded.  We cannot as a group go down this path with our rules, especially for BOM.  We cannot try to write the BOM based on competitors interpretations of the rule over the past years of competition.  If we do so we will end the BOM forever.  KTís rule loosens up the BOM for sure.  There is no denying that.  But the premise of the rule is where the real fault lies.  Because in a few years/rules cycles one could very easily state that the competitors as a whole are now interpreting he BOM rule to allow everything but clear coasts and gel coats so the rule is not needed and therefore should be dropped.  A rules proposal is submitted based on this thought process and away it goes.  Reasoning behind a BOM rule change should not be based on a perception of how modelers are now interpreting the rule.

In the case of the BOM the modelerís actions should fit the rule, not the other way around.

This proposal should not pass.

Thank you for reading
Doug Moon
AMA 496454
Dougmoon12@yahoo.com

Offline peabody

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2691
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2012, 08:52:23 AM »
I believe that the rule as presented makes a TON of sense...
I also believe that a definition of the rule is necessary...."average kit" don't hunt anymore...
I believe that we must do more than we have in the past to promote and grow stunt, and that the BOM and all the arguements about what an "average kit" is have caused some to shy away...
I know for a fact that ARCs / ARFs that are glued together can be "built wrong" and that alignment takes skill.
I am not a big fan of requiring the modeler to "finish" the model, but suppose that that is what it takes to really qualify as "BOM"....
I believe that it is impossible to satisfy all that participate in the event currently, but that the proposal satisfies most and allows newcomers to participate at all levels.

I also believe that Keith was very unselfish in proposing the rule.....he exemplifies "scratch builder" at the highest levels, yet he realized that it is time that CLPA stop being exclusionary.....

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 11336
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2012, 10:44:01 AM »
My dad was a local politician in the Damascus, Oregon area for more years than I've been alive.  Founding member of the Damascus water board in the 1950s, reforming member of the Boring Volunteer Fire Department board as it transitioned from a gentleman's drinking club to something resembling its name, active in various statewide fire rules initiatives that brought Oregon's fire code in line with the 20th century, and finally founding mayor of the City of Damascus.  It's a record of public service that I wouldn't have been able to live up to had I tried.

He didn't get rich.  He didn't get wine, women and song -- he got work, and lots of it, and all of it on top of (and sometimes during) the work he was doing running his own business and supporting a family.

And -- much like the members of the contest board -- he had to attempt to satisfy a number of constituents who refused to pay attention to the way things are done, and what their neighbors wanted, and generally anything that extended past the ends of their own noses.

So to everyone who wants to take less than 1% of their leisure time to stand back and complain about what the contest board does: if you think you can do a better job then step up to the plate, sacrifice half or more of your modeling time, and do it.  Keep in mind that while you're doing it that to keep your integrity you don't serve you -- you serve the whole modeling community.  Not just you, not just your circle of friends, not just the enthusiastically vocal minority on the forums, not just people who go to the nats: you must serve everyone in the AMA.  Ted Fancher had a post here that exemplified this.  He was reporting on voting as a deputy for his district rep, I can't remember the wording but it boiled down to "this isn't what I want at all, but based on our poll of the members of my district, it's how I'm going to vote".  So when you do stop being a squeak and start working at greasing the wheel, keep in mind that if you're doing your job right you'll be called on to champion measures that you personally disagree with -- while you're getting complained at by people who won't do a fraction of what you do for the community, but who are perfectly happy to criticize you for your efforts.

Keeping your mouth shut during the designated time for input then suddenly waking up and complaining that you weren't heard isn't help: it just wastes everyone's time, and irritates the people who are good enough to volunteer huge amounts of their time on your behalf.  The rule-change process and schedule isn't a huge secret: it's right there in the General Competition Regulations for anyone who's literate in English and cares enough to spend the time to read and understand.  Some of the squeakiest wheels in this debate have obviously failed to read the pertinent rules at all; while the mid-cycle changes to the BOM rule itself has been a bit confusing, I don't see any excuse at all for the people who complain about it or the rules-change process without even bothering to check what's already written down.

Personally, I'm going to try (and, being human, sometimes fail) to be supportive.  When I do complain about something I'm going to try to be rational and specific and include suggestions for improving things.  And if I want to propose a change -- I'll do like the rules say, and wait until 2013 to do so at the proper stage of he rules-change cycle.
AMA 64232

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

Offline Derek Barry

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2660
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2012, 10:50:37 AM »
I believe that the rule as presented makes a TON of sense...
Yes it does make sense, if you cant beat them join them.
I also believe that a definition of the rule is necessary...."average kit" don't hunt anymore...
"Average kit" argument is dumb. Everyone knows what a "kit" is and what BOM means.
I believe that we must do more than we have in the past to promote and grow stunt, and that the BOM and all the arguements about what an "average kit" is have caused some to shy away...
Some of us are doing things to promote stunt others just sit behind a computer and talk about it. That has nothing to do with the BOM.
I know for a fact that ARCs / ARFs that are glued together can be "built wrong" and that alignment takes skill.
Not as much skill as cutting, shaping, gluing, and finishing an airplane.
I am not a big fan of requiring the modeler to "finish" the model, but suppose that that is what it takes to really qualify as "BOM"....
No that would be the FOM finisher of the model.
I believe that it is impossible to satisfy all that participate in the event currently, but that the proposal satisfies most and allows newcomers to participate at all levels.
This proposal satisfies the minority not the majority!

So in conclusion just about everything you said was incorrect.

Derek
« Last Edit: August 23, 2012, 11:17:32 AM by Derek Barry »

Offline Derek Barry

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2660
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2012, 11:01:33 AM »
My dad was a local politician in the Damascus, Oregon area for more years than I've been alive.  Founding member of the Damascus water board in the 1950s, reforming member of the Boring Volunteer Fire Department board as it transitioned from a gentleman's drinking club to something resembling its name, active in various statewide fire rules initiatives that brought Oregon's fire code in line with the 20th century, and finally founding mayor of the City of Damascus.  It's a record of public service that I wouldn't have been able to live up to had I tried.

He didn't get rich.  He didn't get wine, women and song -- he got work, and lots of it, and all of it on top of (and sometimes during) the work he was doing running his own business and supporting a family.

And -- much like the members of the contest board -- he had to attempt to satisfy a number of constituents who refused to pay attention to the way things are done, and what their neighbors wanted, and generally anything that extended past the ends of their own noses.

So to everyone who wants to take less than 1% of their leisure time to stand back and complain about what the contest board does: if you think you can do a better job then step up to the plate, sacrifice half or more of your modeling time, and do it.  Keep in mind that while you're doing it that to keep your integrity you don't serve you -- you serve the whole modeling community.  Not just you, not just your circle of friends, not just the enthusiastically vocal minority on the forums, not just people who go to the nats: you must serve everyone in the AMA.  Ted Fancher had a post here that exemplified this.  He was reporting on voting as a deputy for his district rep, I can't remember the wording but it boiled down to "this isn't what I want at all, but based on our poll of the members of my district, it's how I'm going to vote".  So when you do stop being a squeak and start working at greasing the wheel, keep in mind that if you're doing your job right you'll be called on to champion measures that you personally disagree with -- while you're getting complained at by people who won't do a fraction of what you do for the community, but who are perfectly happy to criticize you for your efforts.

Keeping your mouth shut during the designated time for input then suddenly waking up and complaining that you weren't heard isn't help: it just wastes everyone's time, and irritates the people who are good enough to volunteer huge amounts of their time on your behalf.  The rule-change process and schedule isn't a huge secret: it's right there in the General Competition Regulations for anyone who's literate in English and cares enough to spend the time to read and understand.  Some of the squeakiest wheels in this debate have obviously failed to read the pertinent rules at all; while the mid-cycle changes to the BOM rule itself has been a bit confusing, I don't see any excuse at all for the people who complain about it or the rules-change process without even bothering to check what's already written down.

Personally, I'm going to try (and, being human, sometimes fail) to be supportive.  When I do complain about something I'm going to try to be rational and specific and include suggestions for improving things.  And if I want to propose a change -- I'll do like the rules say, and wait until 2013 to do so at the proper stage of he rules-change cycle.

I certainly hope you were not referring to me with this. If you were it would only once again prove your ignorance of this event, the people that are involved in it, and how much they care about the future of an event that some of them have been a part of for many many years.

And all the people that are apposed to this rule are those who it affects the most. NATS CONTESTANTS but since I have never seen you there I can't imagine that you would understand that either.

Derek

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 11336
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #10 on: August 23, 2012, 11:23:12 AM »
I certainly hope you were not referring to me with this. If you were it would only once again prove your ignorance of this event, the people that are involved in it, and how much they care about the future of an event that some of them have been a part of for many many years.

Well, I hadn't been aiming it specifically at you, but if you have reason to feel guilty then by all means take it as written and see if it fits.

Quote
And all the people that are apposed to this rule are those who it affects the most. NATS CONTESTANTS but since I have never seen you there I can't imagine that you would understand that either.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad_hominem

I agree with you that the rule affects the Nationals most deeply.  None the less, they do affect local competitions.

And even if the rules change proposal only affects the Nationals, the backbiting affects us all.
AMA 64232

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

Offline Doug Moon

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1942
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #11 on: August 23, 2012, 11:43:56 AM »
Tim,

I guess you haven't been following along very closely with this years BOM rules proposals.

KTs original proposal was discussed at length on this board prior to the initial vote. I contacted my rep and asked he vote no.   
Then once again after the cross proposal it was once again discussed. 
Then brought up again for discussion in the average kit thread after the vote was in that this one would pass on to the final vote.

I and others that I know have contaced our reps with our decision we wish them to make.  I know my communication was professional and to the point and stuck to the subject matter at hand.  The proposal.  My rep contacted me back and thanked me for my input. I am confident others that I know were professional as well in their expressions of how they wish their rep to vote. 

You also mentioned that people should step and take a turn on the board themselves instead of crying about it from the sidelines.  Have you looked into how one gets themselves on the board?  It's not a volunteer position and there is no term.  It is appointed position by the AMA VP for the district. 

As far as the rules proposal process goes.  I don't understand why this keeps being brought up.  No one that I see here is complaining about the process and or not understanding how it works.  Why keep bringing that up?
Doug Moon
AMA 496454
Dougmoon12@yahoo.com

Offline Doug Moon

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1942
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #12 on: August 23, 2012, 11:46:14 AM »

And even if the rules change proposal only affects the Nationals, the backbiting affects us all.


Can you please be specific.  You seem to insinuating something is going on.  If you have something to say then just say it.
Doug Moon
AMA 496454
Dougmoon12@yahoo.com

Offline Derek Barry

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2660
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #13 on: August 23, 2012, 11:52:31 AM »
Well, I hadn't been aiming it specifically at you, but if you have reason to feel guilty then by all means take it as written and see if it fits.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad_hominem

I agree with you that the rule affects the Nationals most deeply.  None the less, they do affect local competitions.

And even if the rules change proposal only affects the Nationals, the backbiting affects us all.


Guilty? No.

 If you think I have not been a part of this proposal process since for long before you gave Keith advice in writing his rule (yes I know you did) you are sadly mistaken. I didn't "Keep my mouth shut during the designated time for input then suddenly wake up and start complaining" Keith and My Contest Board Rep. knew exactly how I felt during the whole process. As a matter of fact we worked with Keith on his rule and he on ours that is why some of the verbage is similar. He knew that i felt his was too lenient and that i didn't think it reflected what the majority wanted. So your assumptions (if they were aimed at me) were misguided.

Derek

Offline Derek Barry

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2660
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #14 on: August 23, 2012, 11:57:56 AM »

As far as the rules proposal process goes.  I don't understand why this keeps being brought up.  No one that I see here is complaining about the process and or not understanding how it works.  Why keep bringing that up?

Tim obviously doesn't understand how it works because it is not to late to try and get the proposal shut down. The final vote is not until September 15th.

Derek

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 11336
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #15 on: August 23, 2012, 12:29:00 PM »
Tim obviously doesn't understand how it works because it is not to late to try and get the proposal shut down. The final vote is not until September 15th.

Derek.  If you could please point to where I said anything about it being too late to get the rule shut down entirely then please quote it here.  It will certainly come as a surprise to me.

The point of my post isn't that we shouldn't try to get the rule shut down (I'm of two minds on that, because I think it's much clearer than the current one), it's agreeing with Keith that complaining about just the sort of detail that rules proposals address, long after the rules proposal window has shut, is counterproductive.

I do not know why you feel bound to continually put words in my mouth, but do please stop.  It is neither fair nor honest.

If you can highlight something that I actually have said and find it within yourself to critique the ideas therein instead of the author, then by all means take an opportunity to experience the delights of fair and open debate.  But engaging in this sort of "I have a bigger conversational hammer than you do, neener" sort of exchange doesn't advance any good causes.  And pulling out the "I'm a big wheel, now shut up" argument makes you look anything but larger in a country founded on the proposition that all men are created equal.

If you know what I said to Keith, you know that I stated in passing that to the extent that I have any opinion at all I feel that his rule is too permissive.  Which, in turn, means that you know that you and I agree on that point.  I find it interesting that you can turn my attempt to be helpful and supportive into an opportunity for a snide remark, and I find it mystifying that you should consider your position so exaulted that you should treat your ground troops so.

And finally, if you've actually read my comments about rules then you should also know that I do, indeed, understand how the process works.  I suggest that you go back and linger on the part where I state that the rules change process is written in plain English and publicly available, and square that with your cheap shot above.

AMA 64232

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

Offline RC Storick

  • Forum owner
  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 11776
  • The finish starts with the first piece of wood cut
    • Stunt Hangar
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #16 on: August 23, 2012, 12:46:39 PM »
So to everyone who wants to take less than 1% of their leisure time to stand back and complain about what the contest board does: if you think you can do a better job then step up to the plate, sacrifice half or more of your modeling time, and do it.

I sure hope the crack sitting behind a computer screen was not pointed at me. Because this takes a lot of my free time up.

Where do I sign up? Its a term appointment and not event voted on.

This is like a biblical interpretation one guys said Jesus meant this and the next guy says no he meant that. A clear concise rule is what we need not some watered down version to make everyone happy. Build your own model starting with raw materials of any kind with no out side prefabrication of any kind for the main structure of the aircraft. Definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over expecting diffrent results. With the same crew in charge of the same things it will remain the same.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2012, 01:12:42 PM by Robert Storick »
AMA 12366

Offline Derek Barry

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2660
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #17 on: August 23, 2012, 12:48:06 PM »
Derek.  If you could please point to where I said anything about it being too late to get the rule shut down entirely then please quote it here.  It will certainly come as a surprise to me.

The point of my post isn't that we shouldn't try to get the rule shut down (I'm of two minds on that, because I think it's much clearer than the current one), it's agreeing with Keith that complaining about just the sort of detail that rules proposals address, long after the rules proposal window has shut, is counterproductive.

I do not know why you feel bound to continually put words in my mouth, but do please stop.  It is neither fair nor honest.

If you can highlight something that I actually have said and find it within yourself to critique the ideas therein instead of the author, then by all means take an opportunity to experience the delights of fair and open debate.  But engaging in this sort of "I have a bigger conversational hammer than you do, neener" sort of exchange doesn't advance any good causes.  And pulling out the "I'm a big wheel, now shut up" argument makes you look anything but larger in a country founded on the proposition that all men are created equal.

If you know what I said to Keith, you know that I stated in passing that to the extent that I have any opinion at all I feel that his rule is too permissive.  Which, in turn, means that you know that you and I agree on that point.  I find it interesting that you can turn my attempt to be helpful and supportive into an opportunity for a snide remark, and I find it mystifying that you should consider your position so exaulted that you should treat your ground troops so.

And finally, if you've actually read my comments about rules then you should also know that I do, indeed, understand how the process works.  I suggest that you go back and linger on the part where I state that the rules change process is written in plain English and publicly available, and square that with your cheap shot above.



"So to everyone who wants to take less than 1% of their leisure time to stand back and complain about what the contest board does: if you think you can do a better job then step up to the plate, sacrifice half or more of your modeling time, and do it.  Keep in mind that while you're doing it that to keep your integrity you don't serve you -- you serve the whole modeling community.  Not just you, not just your circle of friends, not just the enthusiastically vocal minority on the forums, not just people who go to the nats: you must serve everyone in the AMA.  Ted Fancher had a post here that exemplified this.  He was reporting on voting as a deputy for his district rep, I can't remember the wording but it boiled down to "this isn't what I want at all, but based on our poll of the members of my district, it's how I'm going to vote".  So when you do stop being a squeak and start working at greasing the wheel, keep in mind that if you're doing your job right you'll be called on to champion measures that you personally disagree with -- while you're getting complained at by people who won't do a fraction of what you do for the community, but who are perfectly happy to criticize you for your efforts.

Keeping your mouth shut during the designated time for input then suddenly waking up and complaining that you weren't heard isn't help it just wastes everyone's time, and irritates the people who are good enough to volunteer huge amounts of their time on your behalf.  The rule-change process and schedule isn't a huge secret: it's right there in the General Competition Regulations for anyone who's literate in English and cares enough to spend the time to read and understand.  Some of the squeakiest wheels in this debate have obviously failed to read the pertinent rules at all; while the mid-cycle changes to the BOM rule itself has been a bit confusing, I don't see any excuse at all for the people who complain about it or the rules-change process without even bothering to check what's already written down.
"

That should just about do it!

You insinuate that just because some of us do not agree with Kieth's proposal that we have put no work in ourselves. I am sorry if I am offended by someone who "thinks" they know what is best for stunt when the rest of us have been a part of it for most of our lives and seen the good and bad that can come from rules proposals. You insinuate that we are not willing to "step up to the plate, sacrifice half or more of your modeling time," to do positive things for stunt. Well sir how many articles have you written for Stunt News, how many Team Trials have you spent your own personal time and money to run" How many Nats have you helped run? I can't imagine why someone like me would be offended at your unwarranted claims. I cant imagine why I would get offended when someone that does not compete at the Nats whats to tell me how they think it should be ran. I cant imagine why someone like me would be a little aggravated that they spent 6 months coauthoring a BOM proposal just because some people don't understand what build your own damn model means so they lawyer it to death. Those people are part of the problem not the solution!

Derek
« Last Edit: August 23, 2012, 01:13:04 PM by Derek Barry »

Offline Derek Barry

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2660
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #18 on: August 23, 2012, 12:56:02 PM »
And nothing against the CB because many of the are my friends but I do not think voting on a couple rules every other year is necessarily a "huge amount of time" either.

So go ahead Tim, wow us with your vast knowledge of all things stunt.

Derek

Offline Doug Moon

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1942
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #19 on: August 23, 2012, 01:11:18 PM »
....The point of my post isn't that we shouldn't try to get the rule shut down (I'm of two minds on that, because I think it's much clearer than the current one), it's agreeing with Keith that complaining about just the sort of detail that rules proposals address, long after the rules proposal window has shut, is counterproductive....


Tim, you are mistaken when you write this.  RIGHT NOW IS the time to reach out to your CB rep and tell them how you want them to vote, yes or no, as teh final vote has not yet happened.  If we as a group do not then they have to vote how they feel and that might not always be what the collective group as a whole would want.  And if dont reach out then we as a group have done our part of the process either.

The window for proposing a rule is closed at this time, yes.  BUT that is not and has not been any part of this discussion what so ever.  I dont know where you were going with that.
Doug Moon
AMA 496454
Dougmoon12@yahoo.com

Offline RC Storick

  • Forum owner
  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 11776
  • The finish starts with the first piece of wood cut
    • Stunt Hangar
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #20 on: August 23, 2012, 01:18:04 PM »
Please fill out and send this form letter to you contest board member and CC a copy to Greg Hahn
Click on this image to download

Include your AMA Number

I will allow equal time to a form letter agreeing with the proposal as well. This is a equal opportunity site. If some one makes it I will post it for you in the correct spot next to this one.
AMA 12366

Offline Bill Little

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12794
  • Second in COMMAND
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #21 on: August 23, 2012, 01:20:54 PM »
Hi Derek,

Since I have not been able to get to a NATS in a *while*, I have not pushed hard on the BOM proposed changes.  BUT!  from all I have heard from my friends that DO consistently fly the NATS, I know that a strong BOM is wanted by the majority of those whom it directly affects.  I do plan to fly in the NATS again so I am somewhat interested in how the BOM issue goes.

I agree that we both saw the original BOM was enough, but as you say, it was "lawyered" to death.  So, I would really like to see a fairly strict BOM that leaves little to the imagination.  Any one knows if they "built" the model, some may *believe* that certain issues are allowed, but most all know the actual answer to whether or not they "built" their model.  I can go along with sheeted foam wings, maybe even built up wings.  But I cannot go with a box of preassembled parts that are ready to put together and spray paint on.  I sincerely hope the correct thing gets done with the BOM.

Take care, little buddy!
Bill
Big Bear <><

Aberdeen, NC

James Hylton Motorsports/NASCAR/ARCA

AMA 95351 (got one of my old numbers back! ;D )

Trying to get by

Offline Derek Barry

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2660
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #22 on: August 23, 2012, 01:33:39 PM »
Hi Derek,

Since I have not been able to get to a NATS in a *while*, I have not pushed hard on the BOM proposed changes.  BUT!  from all I have heard from my friends that DO consistently fly the NATS, I know that a strong BOM is wanted by the majority of those whom it directly affects.  I do plan to fly in the NATS again so I am somewhat interested in how the BOM issue goes.

I agree that we both saw the original BOM was enough, but as you say, it was "lawyered" to death.  So, I would really like to see a fairly strict BOM that leaves little to the imagination.  Any one knows if they "built" the model, some may *believe* that certain issues are allowed, but most all know the actual answer to whether or not they "built" their model.  I can go along with sheeted foam wings, maybe even built up wings.  But I cannot go with a box of preassembled parts that are ready to put together and spray paint on.  I sincerely hope the correct thing gets done with the BOM.

Take care, little buddy!
Bill

Hey Big Bear,

That is exactly how I feel too and I even helped to author a BOM proposal that allowed one unfinished component to be purchased (like a sheeted foam wing) but that was it, just one. Keith's rule allows anyone to buy a "quick build" kit where all of the major components are assembled and just have to be put together by the pilot. I feel, as do many others that this is too far and could lead to bad things in the future. The current rule may be vague but it does not "allow" the things that Keith's rule does. I hope it all works out in the end but I am a little worried that we may be nearing the end of a true BOM rule.

Derek

Offline PJ Rowland

  • AUS - 29541 AMA - 809970
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Melbourne - AUSTRALIA
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #23 on: August 23, 2012, 11:41:47 PM »
" Build your own model starting with raw materials of any kind with no out side prefabrication of any kind for the main structure of the aircraft. "

Id vote for that !

If you always put limit on everything you do, physical or anything else. It will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.Ē - Bruce Lee.

...
 I Yearn for a world where chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.

Offline peabody

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2691
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #24 on: August 25, 2012, 05:50:28 AM »
As near as I can learn, pre-assembled / built / molded components had been a part of our event since it's inception.

Advances in technology and materials have been significant during that time and it is foolish to turn our backs on or ignore them.

I also feel that we (CLPA fliers of any level) must be as inclusionary as possible to people interested in participating in the event if there is any hope at all for growth....or even to sustain the current level. That should be our paramount objective, not a test to see who has the most glue on their fingers.

Offline RC Storick

  • Forum owner
  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 11776
  • The finish starts with the first piece of wood cut
    • Stunt Hangar
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #25 on: August 25, 2012, 07:01:44 AM »
Sorry Peabody:
 The reason our event is so successful is the creation of these planes and the challenge. Take out the challenge why do it? I for one don't want to see if I can buy a better airplane than my competition. This comes from a guy who has spent thousands trying to make the top 20. I can build already as good as the top guys. Why would I not want this rule to pass so I could sell my stuff?
AMA 12366

Offline peabody

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2691
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #26 on: August 25, 2012, 07:33:47 AM »
Spark....
I just don't want to see the event dwindle to you, Derek and Matt's (both of them) standing around waiting for 16 other guys to lie about using prefabricated components to make a "top twenty" day....

Offline RC Storick

  • Forum owner
  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 11776
  • The finish starts with the first piece of wood cut
    • Stunt Hangar
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #27 on: August 25, 2012, 07:55:45 AM »
the quickest way yo kill this is to relax the BOM
AMA 12366

Offline peabody

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2691
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #28 on: August 25, 2012, 08:05:20 AM »
Come on Spark....the BOM has been, essentially, what Keith has proposed for years and years....since the beginning of the event, actually.
The screamers / "purists" have put quite a few off.....

Offline RC Storick

  • Forum owner
  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 11776
  • The finish starts with the first piece of wood cut
    • Stunt Hangar
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #29 on: August 25, 2012, 08:23:39 AM »
This is just a way to introduce store bought planes such as the shark. Its the end of stunt as I know it. THIS IS WHY the vocal minority better get ready for a large impact from the MAJORITY. I will help this happen if possable. I would like to see it so its set in stone and the anti BOM crowd don't get another run at it. I called my rep and he said that 70% said vote for Keith's rule. That was not my vote. SO I started calling people and they said what vote? So now everyone better get on the wagon before its too late. I talked to another person and they said they didn't want Keith's rule but their rep would vote it in anyway. I want 1 person one vote. I don't need someone voting in my behalf.

Why is it when we had a poll here that it failed yet it passes somewhere else? I'm so sick of the BS I will fly scale and you can keep this @#$%. I know many who feel the same way. So scale will become the next largest event. Its already growing till they kill the BOM there too.

Why do you have such a interest in a event you don't even fly? In the last 10 years how many NATS have you flown? Ten years is a long span. I can tell you how many and how much for me. 7 times at aprox 1500.00 in expsenes and the cost of the airplanes is upwards of 10,000 dollars so we shall say 20 grand. I would say thats a vested interest. Plus the time and lost wages.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 08:43:37 AM by Robert Storick »
AMA 12366

Offline Doug Moon

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1942
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #30 on: August 25, 2012, 09:14:04 AM »
Removing/Reducing the BOM from the Nats event 322 will not increase participation in CL as a whole.  Increased participation in CL as whole is what will increase participation at the nats level.

Now we have all skill classes available at the nats as well.  If people want to compete at the nats without having built their model or using a model that doesn't fully comply with the BOM then by all means enter the other events that don't require BOM in order to enter.  Or go to the team trials.  I have been to it, it's awesome!

You will be exposed to one of if not the most well oiled machine of a big contest on the planet.  Once you go through that ringer for a week you will want to return time and time again. 

If 322 fancys your interest then build a plane and enter.  No big deal.

It's the local level where the future nats participants come from.  If there is nothing local you can bet there will be nothing national. If more participation in CL is the real goal then the push should be to remove appearance points from PAMPA skill classes to increase contest participation due to any and all forms of entry are accepted.  BEFORE anyone says it I ALREADY know BOM is not a requirement now to enter PAMPA classes.  But let's be real, people want to go to contests to see old friends and have fun BUT they want to try to win too and borrowing a plane and spending several hundred bucks to go and not be competitive because they are behind 17-18 points out of the hole is not something most people want do.  It's just to costly to do all that with no chance in the game.  Leave the BOM for 322 alone.  To be the overall National champion you have to build your own plane. That shouldn't change. Changing it wont increase participation in CL. It's not a valid argument.
Doug Moon
AMA 496454
Dougmoon12@yahoo.com

Offline Doug Moon

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1942
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #31 on: August 25, 2012, 09:27:51 AM »

I also feel that we (CLPA fliers of any level) must be as inclusionary as possible to people interested in participating in the event if there is any hope at all for growth....or even to sustain the current level. That should be our paramount objective, not a test to see who has the most glue on their fingers.


CLPA fliers are inclusive. BUT competition rules by their very nature are not.  I am not talking safety rules here. Competition rules state what you can and or can't do.  That in itself is exclusionary.  It always has been and always will be.  All sports and competitions of any kind have this.  It is what makes for competition.  In CLPA we have some safety rules for sure and they set some limits for health of the competitors and the spectators.  But as long as you pass the safety rules anything goes!!  I mean ANYTHING you can get to fly the pattern is allowed.  BUT in 322 you have to have built it to enter.  Simple as that.  It is not exclusionary just part of the competition.  Don't sit there and make 322 out to be an exclusionary event because it requires BOM.  That is simply false.  The BOM requirement is what actually keeps the event OPEN.  It may not seem that way but it does.  Take a look at other competition events that don't have BOM.  One plane begins to dominate the scene and everyone gets one or several and BOOM now you truly have an exclusionary event.  If you canít "acquire" this said model you wonít be competitive.  Usually there is a large monetary cost involved as well.  It ruins events time and time again, CL an RC alike. I think that is why RC ďflyInsĒ are so popular.  You can go and congregate and have a blast flying whatever you have in your arsenal with other people of like interests.  But as you soon as you put rules on it and hand out a first place trophy for some kind of competition those with lesser equipment canít compete and there end up not coming.  If you donít have to build it the one with the biggest checkbook coupled with most amount of free time to practice will have a decided advantage. 
Doug Moon
AMA 496454
Dougmoon12@yahoo.com

Offline Derek Barry

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2660
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #32 on: August 25, 2012, 03:39:21 PM »
CLPA fliers are inclusive. BUT competition rules by their very nature are not.  I am not talking safety rules here. Competition rules state what you can and or can't do.  That in itself is exclusionary.  It always has been and always will be.  All sports and competitions of any kind have this.  It is what makes for competition.  In CLPA we have some safety rules for sure and they set some limits for health of the competitors and the spectators.  But as long as you pass the safety rules anything goes!!  I mean ANYTHING you can get to fly the pattern is allowed.  BUT in 322 you have to have built it to enter.  Simple as that.  It is not exclusionary just part of the competition.  Don't sit there and make 322 out to be an exclusionary event because it requires BOM.  That is simply false.  The BOM requirement is what actually keeps the event OPEN.  It may not seem that way but it does.  Take a look at other competition events that don't have BOM.  One plane begins to dominate the scene and everyone gets one or several and BOOM now you truly have an exclusionary event.  If you canít "acquire" this said model you wonít be competitive.  Usually there is a large monetary cost involved as well.  It ruins events time and time again, CL an RC alike. I think that is why RC ďflyInsĒ are so popular.  You can go and congregate and have a blast flying whatever you have in your arsenal with other people of like interests.  But as you soon as you put rules on it and hand out a first place trophy for some kind of competition those with lesser equipment canít compete and there end up not coming.  If you donít have to build it the one with the biggest checkbook coupled with most amount of free time to practice will have a decided advantage. 

Exactly right!!!! When I went to the Joe Nall (the biggest RC fun fly in the country) I cannot tell you how many people asked if we still had a BOM and then went on to tell me how much not having a BOM killed their event. In RC pattern, If you do not have $20,000 to buy a plane you don't stand a chance to win. That is why there are only 10 RC pattern guys competing at the Nats every year.

Derek

Offline PJ Rowland

  • AUS - 29541 AMA - 809970
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1931
  • Melbourne - AUSTRALIA
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #33 on: August 26, 2012, 12:45:53 AM »
I think its pretty obvious trying to eliminate BOM isn't good for the betterment of anyone's skill set.

Coming from the other side of the fence I learnt to build as a requirement to fly. I learnt to build better as a requirement to fly better ; I learnt to build MUCH better and paint MUCH better as a requirement to compete in Open in USA. There would only be a very small percentage of fliers where I come from who can build their own models..  I don't think ( not building your own model ) helps you become a better flier. 

The standard of aeromodelling skill in the USA is as good as it gets. Period. 

I can count on 1 hand the amount of fliers out here who could build even close to a 15 + score in AP - Many would be shocked to see how good you REALLY need to be to compete.

Relax BOM and you WILL dilute the event . Period.
If you always put limit on everything you do, physical or anything else. It will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.Ē - Bruce Lee.

...
 I Yearn for a world where chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.

Offline Jim Thomerson

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2090
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #34 on: August 26, 2012, 09:24:20 AM »
I don't have a dog in this fight, but just want to make an observation.  I think the first readily available and widely accepted commercial part was the sheeted foam wing.  There is a good argument that a straight and reasonably light wing is the most important part of a successful stunt airplane. 

Offline RogerGreene

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 313
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #35 on: December 04, 2012, 08:55:05 AM »
Since 20 points are given for appearence points, then allow only three (3) points for ARFs planes and planes that have more than one (1) part, pre manufacured part/assembly, ie foam wing.

Then allow from 3 to 20 points for planes that have only (1) part manufactured, ie foam wing. To justify that the plane has been built with only one (1) manufactured part, a photo of each assembly by itself and before its covered, must accompany the plane to the appearence judging place.

My 2 Ę

Roger Greene
Fly Stunt <><
AMA 435R
USAF Veteran 1962-66 SAC
Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% of how you react to it....

Offline john e. holliday

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 20445
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #36 on: December 04, 2012, 09:35:34 AM »
Still flogging a dead horse.     If you have a proposal, write it up and let several people see it.   If you get a favorable response, then submit it for the next rules cycle.  If you have appearance points or not, the ones who practice and get thei planes adjusted will win.
John E. "DOC" Holliday
10421 West 56th Terrace
Shawnee, KANSAS  66203
AMA 23530  Have fun as I have and I am still breaking a record.

Offline RogerGreene

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 313
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #37 on: December 04, 2012, 10:39:07 AM »
Ok, thanks John.
Fly Stunt <><
AMA 435R
USAF Veteran 1962-66 SAC
Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% of how you react to it....

Offline Steve Helmick

  • AMA Member and supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 8761
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #38 on: December 04, 2012, 06:08:12 PM »
I'd like to see it written up and submitted. I'm tired of the perpetual bickering, like most.   :o Steve
"The United States has become a place where professional athletes and entertainers are mistaken for people of importance." - Robert Heinlein

In 1944 18-20 year old's stormed beaches, and parachuted behind enemy lines to almost certain death.  In 2015 18-20 year old's need safe zones so people don't hurt their feelings.

Offline Mike Keville

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2321
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #39 on: December 11, 2012, 08:21:12 PM »
Pretty much wraps this one up.

At least for now.

Riiiiiight!
FORMER member, "Academy of Multi-rotors & ARFs".

Offline Bradley Walker

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1194
    • The Urban Rifleman
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #40 on: April 03, 2013, 02:41:11 PM »
"The reasonable man adapts himself to his environment. The unreasonable man adapts his environment to himself, therefore all progress is made by unreasonable men."
-George Bernard Shaw

Offline john e. holliday

  • 2019 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 20445
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #41 on: April 04, 2013, 08:10:25 AM »
You are two days late.  Well my calender now says four days late.
John E. "DOC" Holliday
10421 West 56th Terrace
Shawnee, KANSAS  66203
AMA 23530  Have fun as I have and I am still breaking a record.

Offline Shorts,David

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 79
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #42 on: October 08, 2019, 11:28:46 AM »
Hi Gang,
I know this thread is very old,  but I'd hate starting a new one and display my vast ignorance.  You seem like the guys who would know my answer.

1. At some events the CD has published that ARC's shall receive 1/2 normal appearance points. I think that is a reasonable CD discretionary choice at their events, however at other events the CD chooses a 0 point for ARCs. Is there an official rule on this? My argument is that with hundreds of preexisting models out there built by older friends who no longer fly, it would be nice to give them a second life by refinishing them.

2. Somewhere I read definitions of builder of the model but I can't find them anywhere. Something to the extent of building around 51% of the model. Or using a prefinished wing, or perfinished fuselage, but not both? Am I totally wrong here?

3. Does one need to explain to the CD or appearance judge what has been done from contest to contest? Case and point, my strega which began life as an ARC but is no longer a Strega. I also have planes I have built from kit and scratch, but I'm wondering about those inbetween planes? Another would be the impact wing I inherited from my dad after he crashed. I built a new airplane around it but didn't build the wing.
David

Offline peabody

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2691
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #43 on: October 08, 2019, 11:32:17 AM »
David.....the Academy web site has a clear Builder of the Model rule. Read it.

Offline Tim Wescott

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 11336
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #44 on: October 08, 2019, 01:13:55 PM »
David:  Here's the current CL Stunt rules: https://www.modelaircraft.org/sites/default/files/CL%20Precision%20Aerobatics%202019-2020.pdf.  If you go to modelaircraft.org and click on the "Events" tab there's a "rules" section.  You want CL Stunt and CL General.

You want to see section 2.1, "Builder of the Model".

1. At some events the CD has published that ARC's shall receive 1/2 normal appearance points. I think that is a reasonable CD discretionary choice at their events, however at other events the CD chooses a 0 point for ARCs. Is there an official rule on this? My argument is that with hundreds of preexisting models out there built by older friends who no longer fly, it would be nice to give them a second life by refinishing them.

Yes there is -- AMA Skill Class allows you to fly without being the official builder of the model (as opposed to Open, which is only flown at the Nats AFAIK).  But you don't get appearance points.  Some CD's do the half-points thing, but most don't.

2. Somewhere I read definitions of builder of the model but I can't find them anywhere. Something to the extent of building around 51% of the model. Or using a prefinished wing, or perfinished fuselage, but not both? Am I totally wrong here?

See the CL Stunt rules.  The 51% rule applies to homebuilt aircraft; the stunt rules say how much you can buy vs. build.

3. Does one need to explain to the CD or appearance judge what has been done from contest to contest?
They'll get used to you.  If points are to be awarded, the judges will ask.
Case and point, my strega which began life as an ARC but is no longer a Strega.

And will count as not having been built by you -- see the rulz.

I also have planes I have built from kit and scratch, but I'm wondering about those inbetween planes? Another would be the impact wing I inherited from my dad after he crashed. I built a new airplane around it but didn't build the wing.

You can use a wing that someone built, but not if it has controls installed, or if has been finished.  To avoid argument, just say you didn't build the plane, and have a blast.
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: 11336
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #45 on: October 08, 2019, 01:16:25 PM »
And a final note:

Unless you're in the top half of Advanced, appearance points don't matter much.  The point spread between 1st and 2nd in Intermediate (and usually even in Advanced) is more than the appearance points you'd get.  Even in Expert, the points I picked up by flying a plane built by a real expert, vs. what I had been flying, is more than the 17 appearance points that I lost.

So take what you have, fly it, and don't get stressed.
AMA 64232

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

Offline Shorts,David

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 79
Re: CLPA BOM Rule Proposals
« Reply #46 on: October 08, 2019, 01:40:16 PM »
Thanks Tim, I downloaded and read two different CL AMA pdfs, but somehow I missed that one.


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here