Competition Newsletter
A Note From the Technical Director
Bob Underwood CompuServe: 76117,167
It has been written that, "A rose by any other name smells as sweet." At the risk of having a literary giant do a 360 in the grave, consider the misnomer, "A rule by any other name smells the same." This month's column is devoted to the fond hope that some light can be shed on what we are really talking about when we talk "rules" in some instances.
Let's start with the everyday "let's-have-fun-on-Saturday/Sunday" sport flier. What are the rules that exist to govern his flying as far as the Academy is concerned? Simply stated, they can be found on page 133 of the rule book and are called the AMA Safety Code. There are no others.
As you study that set of rules, you immediately become aware of the fact that the items included are very general in nature. They have to be this way. There are several thousand flying sites around the country, and to try and tailor a set of rules to each of these sites would be a lesson in futility. In addition, the way in which the Code is written allows any person to fly in areas that are not permanently established sites. There are few other organizations that provide insurance coverage and yet allow the wide operational latitude available through the Code.
Many of you may have noticed that the rules for your club field are far more comprehensive than the Code. This is the exciting feature of the AMA Safety Code! Through the actions of your club you can take the basic Safety Code and fit it to your specific site or needs. Some clubs have added prohibitions dealing with alcoholic beverages, or special flight patterns, or a host of other possible rules to handle special situations. Those rules then become a part of the Safety Code under General Rule three.
While sport fliers have only one brief page of very general rules to follow, the competition modeler must conform to a host of additional regulations. These are found within the general section of the category as well as the specific event that he is flying. Of course the Safety Code is still part of the "required reading" for the competitor.
There are many things that happen within the entire modeling community that are the product of a blending of rules and recommendations. If you attended a sport flying session at a control-line site, you probably would find many practices being carried over from competition rules. Line attachment is an example. While there is no specific method required for sport control-line flying, you would probably find most sport models employing the methods shown on page 19 of the rule book.
In essence, the modeler is following the recommendation suggested at the top of page 18 in "Control Line, General," paragraph number 1: "…Although the following general and specific rules primarily govern competitive activity in AMA events, it is strongly recommended that, in the interests of safety and consistency, they be followed in all control line activity."
Of course, another reason for the commonality in line connection is that the manufacturer will develop his product to the greatest common factor which, in this case, is the requirement for competition.
Another example of this "rule by any other name…" is the use of frequency control (flags, pins, impounds, etc.) at radio-control sites. I would be most uncomfortable flying at a site that did not require some type of frequency control. Imagine, if you will, a field with no transmitter flags or identification, no pins, and no impound! Would you want to fly there if there were more than a half-dozen persons or frequencies to keep track of during the day?
Now that we have (I hope!) established the need for a frequency-control system at all RC sites, let's ask the critical question: where are the "rules" that establish a frequency-control system within the AMA structure?
RC sport flier, you now need to check the Safety Code; RC competitor, you need to check page 42, "Radio Control, General," and your specific event.
But, to save you some time, let me relate that there are no "rules" addressing frequency flags and pins! In a couple of cases you will find reference to impounds in a specific event (such as Pattern).
Now, before you reach for the phone to tell me that you have been to events or fields that wouldn't let you fly because you didn't have a flag on your transmitter, let's review what I said in an earlier paragraph. Remember what we said about a club being able to establish specific flying site rules and they become part of the Safety Code under General Rule three? That's why, when you were a guest at another field, you had to have a frequency flag. It was their rule! (And a wise one at that.)
When you went to the Nats to compete and your transmitter was checked for frequency and sidebands and you had to have a flag and you had to use a pin and you had to impound your transmitter, you did so because they were the Nats' rules. We were practicing what we preach on pages 127–129 of the rule book. Remember, the CD has the authority to require such controls at a sanctioned event.
The information pertaining to frequency control found in the rule book (as recommendations of the Frequency Committee) has been very carefully thought out by that group and is strongly supported by the Executive Council. It represents a standard that makes it easy for a person to move from one field to another—or to any site, for that matter—and be able to recognize the system being used.
If you have flown at many fields at all, you have discovered many variations of the pin concept, the concept of frequency control. Some fields use an additive system, while others use a subtractive system. Some use pins on the antenna while others use paddles placed on a board.
One suggestion I heard of recently involves the use of a simple nylon vest with a large white patch on the back accenting HUGE channel numbers in black. Everybody can tell at a glance what frequency is in use, and it's virtually impossible for the "pin" to be lost.
Or, how about the ultimate? What if your club had 22 members and you simply assigned a specific personal frequency for each person's use? Farfetched? Possibly. Could it be a "rule" for your club? Certainly!
So—when we come down to that now—famous bottom line, your club has one whole lot of latitude in developing operational rules for your field. It's true, however, that there are Headquarters field clubs which really prefer that someone else take the heat for a "rule" being made. This occurs not because the group is lazy or disinterested, but often because a split occurs within the group. They can't get off dead center; and having an outside "authority" impose the rule solves the problem for them. The group can point to that source and say, "Hey, that's the way it's done." They made the rule, and we have to follow it!
'Nuf for now!
CIAM REPORT
F3A — RC Aerobatics
Ron Chidgey Subcommittee Chairman
Those diabolical devils in Paris have done it again! Just when I get the schedule down pat, they go and change it on me. That's right. Beginning January 1, 1988 a new schedule of maneuvers for F3A will become effective, along with an updated and more definitive Judges' Guide. Actually, it's a very nice schedule, although a bit more difficult with a total K of 64.
First, let's list the maneuvers with their K-factors, then we'll discuss some of the finer points of the schedule.
- Takeoff Sequence — 5
- Figure M with ½ Rolls — 5
- Half Reverse Cuban Eight — 5
- Four-Point Roll — 4
- Immelmann Turn — 1
- Reverse Top Hat — 1
- One-and-One-Half Turn Spin — 3
- Square Horizontal Eight — 3
- Top Hat with ½ Rolls — 2
- Avalanche — 3
- Half Cuban Eight — 2
- Triangle Rolling Loop — 2
- Stall Turn with ½ Rolls — 1
- Cobra Point Roll — 1
- Half Square Loop with ½ Roll in Vertical — 1
- Six-Sided Outside Loop — 1
- Split "S" — 1
- Square Loop with Four ½ Rolls — 1
- Humpty Bump with Options — 1
- Reverse Knife Loop — 1
- Half Square Loop with Full Roll in Vertical — 1
- Three-Turn Inverted Spin — 1
- Landing Sequence — 3
Total K = 64
You will notice right off that the takeoff and landing will again be scored, but not just as a takeoff and a landing, but as part of an overall takeoff sequence and landing sequence. The reason for placing these two maneuvers back in the schedule was simple. The subcommittee found itself adding 10-point penalties here and there for various infractions while the pilot was not under the pencil, so the solution was to place the pilot under the judge's pencil from beginning of flight to end of flight. This will very effectively put an end to a lot of shenanigans even though both maneuvers are only K-1.
The Takeoff Sequence contains a downwind pass which is actually defined as a trim pass so that minor deviations in flight path are allowed. The actual touchdown in the Landing Sequence is not a spot landing but is defined as a touchdown in front of the judges with scoring ceasing after the model rolls 10 meters.
The Figure M with ½ Rolls is another old friend, but this time with a slight wrinkle in the pilot's favor. Both stall turns can be done in either direction, so both turns can be into the wind in a crosswind condition.
The Humpty Bump with Options is also a maneuver the pilots will learn to love. The maneuver can be performed with ¼ rolls up and down with a push or pull across the top so that it can be used for crosswind correction, or it can be performed with only a ½ roll into the up leg with a push or pull across the top if no crosswind correction is needed.
If you are anxious to get started on the 1988 schedule, you can order a complete copy of the maneuver descriptions with a list of downgrades and the new Judges' Guide from AMA HQ at no charge. The text for both will probably be appearing in print in magazine articles and newsletters very shortly and also will be in the 1988–89 AMA rule book that will be out early next year.
Plenary action on a couple of other F3A items should be mentioned, even if they are of less interest to most of us:
- A proposal (from both the People's Republic of China and Italy) to allow the awarding of ½ points in judging was defeated. Even though a lot of judges feel the need for ½ points, it was felt that a 10-point scale is really enough if judges learn to use it.
In my limited experience as a judge, the hard part for me is to overcome the tendency to find a happy medium, then jump up one mark for a better maneuver and down one mark for an inferior maneuver. This practice effectively narrows the scale to three or four points, and, while it becomes the easy way out for a tired judge, it is not the proper way to judge. It was felt that the eventual use of ½-point judging (actually the same thing as a 20-point scale) would narrow the effective range of most judges even more and would do more harm than good.
- The last item concerns a U.S. proposal to extend the finals from the present two rounds (with the best score counting) to three rounds (with the best two scores counting). The normalizing would then be changed to 1,000 points instead of the present 2,000 points so the finals would retain the same weighting of 40% of the final score. The proposal originated with Mike Harrison and is a good one, since it tends to reward the more consistent flier. It was approved by the Plenary and becomes effective January 1988.
That just about covers the F3A action for this time, but I would like to again invite everyone to write with any kind of constructive criticism, pro or con, on F3A matters, including "Why don't they...?" items. I will respond to as many as I can, but even if I can't respond, you can be sure your ideas were heard.
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
