The basic problem I think is that there is no Expert or Beginner category for sport scale. Since Precision scale was eliminated and replaced with designer scale it forces experienced pilots with precision scale models to enter sport scale. There are a large majority of Precision scale models that do not qualify for Designer scale, so the only category left is sport scale. In my mind Precision scale never should have been replaced with designer scale, instead they should have replaced Precision scale with Expert sport scale and clarified that existing sport scale should be called Beginner sport scale.

Not everyone is ready to upgrade the precision scale models to FAI standards (documentation and the model)

Profile scale is great and not sure what should be done, maybe Expert and Beginner class is the answer.

Fun scale does not need any changes

My main complaint with the AMA Nationals is that they hold event weeks after all of the other CL events are done, If you happen to fly Carrier, racing or other Cl events it makes it difficult.

I agree, as do many, that Scale should be with the CL Nats.

The stumbling point, and one that no free solution, is that AMA has only three paved flying areas, and they are fully utilized by Stunt, Speed, and Racing. Perhaps at could be flown on the L-Pad the final weekend, after the Walker Cup finals in Stunt.  That would make Scale flyers hang around a cuple more days, but avoid a whole 'nother trip.

clscale 7
There are allready two classes in CL Profile Scale, Event 521.

The Rules states "There are two division(s is missing) of CL Profile Scale.  Division #1 is for the novice contestant only.  This is purely an ENTRY LEVEL division for CL scale competition.  Division #2 is open to any contestant with previous scale competition experience."

All it requires is the local contest organizers to add "2 Divisions" to their contest application form and advertisements of the event.

They should also state how it is to be determined that a contestant will be required to fly in Division 2.  Suggestion: (Entrants who have been NATS Scale competitors in any class above "Fun Scale" in the last 20 years will be required to enter Division 2) or something like that.

Clancy

I have waited 10 days for others to post their suggested changes.  I have Incorporated some of your comments into my proposals. Did I catch all of the problems?

PLEASE READ and comment.

QUESTION?  Should Fun Scale have two classes as stated for Profile Scale or should the two classes be moved to Fun Scale?

Clancy

Clancy, for me, it is a long time until the initial rules change proposals need be submitted for the next cycle.
I have not yet studied the details adequately except for one point.

Ref. your specific question, does it matter? Perhaps it should be simply recommended. The local club and CD will combine those classes as their financial position dictates.

On to another item:
Personally I see no reason for any restriction prohibiting any model from being flown in any 2nd or more  class/event if it is qualified to do so. Why make the CDs have to list that a model can be flown in different classes/events at their specific meet?
Let the newer guy with one  model fly it in Profile, if it is a profile, then Sport, then Fun Scale. That cannot hurt anyone except some trophy hound that may lose his usual 2nd or 3rd place that he has grown accustomed to. 

First, allowing such cross-over to happen, allows more experimenting, more interests and certainly I am betting will attract more attention at the local levels. If the local clubs can get enough entry fees and sell enough hamburgers to finance events, then events will happen. More local events will always get more larger events.

While my dad was not a "farmer" we did, on our 40 acres, enough farming to really help out in those '40s days, especially during the War years. One thing for certain is that if we did not prepare the ground, PLANT the SEED, and nourish the seedlings there was NO CROP to eat or sell to others.
There will always be those that rise to the top, however if those lesser levels are so restricted that they have no chance to fly against those that have a trailer full of specific event machines, then most lessers will not be coming back. They take the event financial support back home with themselves. One thing I have learned in the CDing of RC events for the past 'umpteen years is when the event fails to support itself, those sport-fliers -- and RC is mainly simple sport fliers -- in a club will stop the club from financing those events. They fly for personal satisfaction, and have no care for the "hobby" itself. They might find a thousand yankee dollars for an airplane but paying an extra $5 a year for a place to fly it brings them up-in-arms.

As I read somewhere in this forum, some clubs have tried to sponsor a CL Scale event and no one came. Well this rule restricting any model to one and only one specific event will continue -- as it has -- to keep the event for only those few good-ol'-buddies that perpetuate their own groups.

I will propose that such restriction be deleted in all events.

Clancy, for me, it is a long time until the initial rules change proposals need be submitted for the next cycle.
I have not yet studied the details adequately except for one point.

(Clip)

Hello Hoss,

It has been a long time since we have talked and even longer since we have flown together.  The Air Force World Championships were an experience only topped by the Navy Nats.

Regarding rules change proposals.  All of a sudden, there really is not that much time left to get change proposals in for this cycle.  The cycle that we are in now has changed slightly since the previous cycle.  Change proposals need to be received by the AMA by March 15, 2010.  (It used to be September 31 in the previous cycles.)  Also, the form has changed in that only any one AMA member must sign instead of the three signatures before and one had to be a Contest Director.

The rules change process can be found on the AMA site at

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/CBProcedures.doc

Or it can be found on the AMA website by going to Rules, then click on Contest Board Procedures.

This document shows the schedule for the two year change cycle and also has the change proposal form.  

Also, the change proposal form can be found at the same place (Rules) under Contest Board Procedures.

You DO NOT want to go to the AMA Documents section from the AMA home page for this change form.  That  AMA document 333 is still the outdated form that requires the three signatures used in previous change cycles.

Keith Trostle
Chairman, CL Aerobatics Contest Board

Please note that I had incorrectly listed the cutoff date for Change Proposal submissions as December 31, 2009.  The correct Change Proposal deadline is March 15, 2010 as now shown above.  Nevertheless, it is advisable to submit proposals as early as possible to allow the Contest Boards more time to obtain feedback from their repective districts as well as to discuss those proposals among themselves.

Keith

Hello Hoss,

It has been a long time since we have talked and even longer since we have flown together.  The Air Force World Championships were an experience only topped by the Navy Nats.

Regarding rules change proposals.  All of a sudden, there really is not that much time left to get change proposals in for this cycle.  The cycle that we are in now has changed slightly since the previous cycle.  Change proposals need to be received by the AMA by December 31.  (It used to be September 31 in the previous cycles.)  Also, the form has changed in that only any one AMA member must sign instead of the three signatures before and one had to be a Contest Director.

//SNIP//

Keith Trostle
Chairman, CL Aerobatics Contest Board

Yeah, Keith, a long time ago it was. I'm really gonna try to be at that Old Time Stunt Contest in Tucson in 2010.
Hope to see you and maybe share some old time reviews.

If you have an EARLY downloaded 2009 Membership Manual on your computer, it has some wrong info. No need to ask me how I found that out.

The current Memb. Manual has been corrected, however the AMA management doesn't have the "whatever" to publish a note saying changes have been made.

Here is the schedule for the 2010 rules changes. Directly from AMA:


>>>>>>>>
RULE PROPOSAL CYCLE SCHEDULE

(Exhibit C)

Odd Years

Jan 1 – December 31 Accept basic rules change proposals. Review of proposals as they are received by the chairpersons. Publish proposals as received.

Even Years

Jan 1 – Mar 15 Accept basic rules change proposals. Review of proposals as they are received by the chairpersons. Publish proposals as received.

Apr 15 Initial vote ballots sent to contest boards.

May 1 Initial vote due at AMA HQ.

May 15 Initial vote results published

May 31 – Jul 30 Accept cross proposals. Cross proposals reviewed by chairpersons. Cross proposals published.

Aug 1 Interim vote mailed to contest boards.

Aug 15 Interim vote due at AMA HQ

Aug 30 Final vote sent to contest boards.

Sept 15 Final vote due at AMA HQ.

Sept 30 Final vote results published.

Oct 15 Generate proofs, distribute to chairpersons, do final edits

Nov 15 – Dec 31 Make final changes to rule book and publish.
<<<<<
 So I have almost 6 months, so for right now: 

Let's see now, it is past the middle of August, so there are really less than 4 1/2 months to get change proposal to the AMA.

Keith

Keith: Being much older than you, I still use the "old math".    Deadline is Mar. 15 '010. Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan. and Feb by my count is 6 full months.

Check out this one: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_8978044/anchors_9027947/mpage_1/anchor/tm.htm#9027947

Oh Lordy, the Oct. Extension time is coming up so I best get to my '08 income taxes. Hate it, just hate it. 

As only three members downloaded my Proposed Rules Changes, I am  posting them here for all to read.


AMA Competition Regulations Rules Change Proposals

Scale (Control Line only) Proposed Rules changes.

Scale General
Page SC-3
Reason for change. To clarify rule and give guidance to the Scale Judges.
Paragraph 6. Profile fuselages:
Change from “Profile fuselages are permitted unless the rules for the particular event specifically state that they are not allowed.  The scale judges will apply appropriate downgrading of score for the non-scale fuselage and for the appearance.”
Change to “Profile fuselages are permitted in all scale events unless the rules for the particular event specifically state that they are not allowed.  The scale judges will apply appropriate downgrading of score for the non-scale fuselage and for the appearance, except in event 521 CL Profile Scale and event 526 CL Fun Scale.”

Page SC-4 
Control Line Sport Scale event 509.
Reason for change. Many models entered in event 509 CL Profile Scale and event 526 CL Fun Scale have the Dihedral angle reduced or changed to zero dihedral.
5. Model Requirements: Second paragraph.
Change from “Enlargement of wing and tail area, increased dihedral angles, changes in landing gear placement------”
Change to “Enlargement of wing and tail area, changes in dihedral angles, changes in landing gear placement------”

Page SC-4
Control Line Sport Scale event 509
Reason for change.  For consistency in the rules.
5. Model Requirements: last sentence.
Change from “The contestant will be allowed only one entry in CL Sport Scale.”
Change to “The contestant will be allowed only one entry in CL Sport Scale.  At any one contest, this entry may not also be entered in CL Designer, Profile or Fun Scale, although separate models may be entered by the same contestant in these events.”

 Page SC-5
Reason for change - To clarify 3 copies of three-views to expedite judging.    
6. Proof of Scale.
Paragraph 6.5:  Second sentence.
Change from: “Up to three (3) sets of the same three-view used as documentation will only count as one (1) page in the documentation to also facilitate rapid judging”
Change to: “To expedite judging, up to three (3) sets of the same three-view used  as documentation may be provided by the contestant and will only count as one (1) page in the documentation presentation.”

Page SC-6
Reason for change - Safety provision
7. Static Judging:
Reason for change.  Improve Safety.   Reference RC Sport Scale evens 51, 512, 513   Page SC-15 Paragraph 7.5.f.
7.5 No changes shall be made between judging and flying which alter the scale appearance of the model except as noted below.
Add Paragraph.  “f. Sharp pitot tubes projecting from the wing or fuselage will be removed before flight as a safety consideration.  No downgrade will be made in the flight realism score.”

Page SC-7 - 8
Reason for change. To clarify method of breaking a tie.
12. CL Official Score:
Change from “The official score shall be the total static points (100 maximum) and the average of the two (2) best flight scores (100 maximum). If only two (2) rounds are flown then the official score will be the total of the static points (100 maximum) and the best single flight score. To break a tie, the best single flight will be added to the static score.  If this does not break the tie, add the average of the three (3) best flights to the static score. If this does not break the tie then add the average of the four (4) best flight scores to the static score.”
Change to “The official score shall be the total static points (100 maximum) and the average of the two (2) best flight scores (100 maximum).  To break a tie, the best single flight will be added to the static score.  If this does not break the tie, add the average of the three (3) best flights to the static score. If this does not break the tie then add the average of the four (4) best flight scores to the static score. If only two (2) rounds are flown then the official score will be the total of the static points (100 maximum) and the best single flight score (100 maximum).  To break a tie if only two rounds are flown, add the average of the two flight scores to the static score.”

Page SC-8
Reason for change. For consistency in the rules.
Control Line Designer Scale for event 524.
ADD “4. The contestant will be allowed only one entry in CL Designer Scale.  At any one contest, this entry may not also be entered in CL Sport, Profile or Fun Scale, although separate models may be entered by the same contestant in these events.”

Page SC-8
Reason for change. To correct error.
Control Line Profile Scale for event 521.
Change from “The event rules are identical to 509, Control Line Sport Scale, with the following paragraph replacing paragraph 3. Event 521 Profile Scale is exempted from the dummy pilot requirements from rule 3. Event 521 Profile Scale is exempted from the retract rule, requiring flying with wheels up if the prototype had retractable landing gear.” 
Change to “ The event rules are identical to 509, Control Line Sport Scale, with the following exceptions. Event 521 Profile Scale is exempted from the dummy pilot requirements, (CL Sport Scale event 509  paragraph 5. Model Requirements.)  Event 521 Profile Scale is exempted from the retract rule, requiring flying with wheels up if the prototype had retractable landing gear. (Realism in flight, Paragraph 4.2.e.)” 

Page SC-8
Control Line Profile Scale event 521
Reason for change. 
Reason for change. Many new scale modelers ask how to modify the outline of an airplane for a profile body.  Do you take the extra body width from the wing span or just the body?
Note: This is how most modelers do it.
Proposed Change:  To add a description of a suggested method of building a model with a profile body.  This is how the profile body to wing and tail are usually done.
Control Line Profile Scale event 521
1. Model Requirements: Add the following new paragraph.
2. Design and static Judging Guidelines: To maintain the scale wing and tail span, the leading and trailing edges of the wing should be extended  to the center line of the body, without changing the overall wing span of the model.  Since the flaps and ailerons are part of the wing they should  remain scale size and shape.  If the airplane had a wing fillet, the fillet should remain scale size and shape and be located at the profile body.  In a like manner, if the plane modeled (like a P-51 for example) has a leading edge extension or other similar feature, the feature will be of a scale size and be located at the profile body.  The Horizontal Stabilizer and or Elevator should be done in a similar manner as the wing. Reducing the model's overall wing and tail span the same amount the fuselage was reduced to create the profile, is cause for loss of static points.

Page SC-8
Reason for change. For consistency in the rules.
Control Line Fun Scale for event 526.
ADD Paragraph: “5.  Model Requirements. The contestant will be allowed only one entry in CL Fun Scale.  At any one contest, this entry may not also be entered in CL Designer, Sport, or Profile Scale, although separate models may be entered by the same contestant in these events.”


Page SC-8
Control Line Fun Scale for Event 526
Question?  Should there be a downgrade if the contestant enters a “Profile” model in this event?
The rule book is mute on this point therefore the static score should be reduced if a Profile model is entered. 
Note:  Many entries in Event 526 are Profile models and Profile models have even won the NATS in the past.

Note: This rule change would allow a “new to scale” modeler to fly “what he brought”.
   My proposed answer.
   Change from “3. Flying: ”All rules as per CL Sport Scale (event 509).”
   Change to “2. 1. Static Judging Guidelines:  A Fun Scale model is not to be down graded in static judging for a profile    body.  3. Flying.  All rules as per CL Sport Scale (event 509).  Except CL Fun Scale is exempted from the Dummy Pilot rule    (CL Sport Scale event 509  paragraph 5. Model Requirements.) and the retract landing gear rule.(CL Scale Flight Judging    Guide, Realism in flight, Paragraph 4.2.e .) CL Fun Scale is exempted from  the model must stand still without being held by    a helper before take off. (CL Scale Flight Judging Guide section 4.3 Takeoff (mandatory).  Note: This does not restrict a   contestant from using a throttle for flight and taxi options.”

Page SC-9
Control Line Scale Flight Judging Guide   
Reason for change: Contradictory statements, Sentence 5 contradicts sentence 6 and 7..
4. Judging the flight: Sentences 5 through 7:
Change from “A judge should not wait until a maneuver is completed before trying to assign a grade.  Judges should assume that a contestant is going to perform a perfect maneuver/scale operation and should, therefore, start with a grade of 10 points.  Any faults that are observed should be the cause of points deducted.
Change from “A judge should wait until a maneuver is completed before trying to assign a grade.  Judges should assume that a contestant is going to perform a perfect maneuver/scale operation and should, therefore, start with a grade of 10 points.  Any faults that are observed should be the cause of points deducted.
 
Clancy C. Arnold
AMA12560

Clancy