Competition Newsletter
A Note From the Technical Director
Bob Underwood CompuServe: 76117167
We are not very far away from one of those important days in the competition flier's calendar — the first day of September! For those who have forgotten, that is the last day that rule proposals can be postmarked and still be included in the present rules cycle.
Therefore, if you want to have any impact on the rules for the years 1990–91 you have precious little time to act. If you miss the date it will be 1992 before you can effect a specific change without some special procedures.
During the last cycle I submitted several proposals. That may happen again this time around, although I realize that some persons feel that since I don't fly much RC Scale on a competitive basis perhaps I shouldn't be involved in making specific rule proposals. I am certain that there might be an element of truth in that thought.
On the other hand, most days here at Headquarters and during trade shows the issue of rules is constantly part of what I am called on to handle. In some ways it is possible for me to be somewhat more objective, because I receive the passionate pleas of both sides of many issues and, having no vested interest, perhaps can more easily see the forest. Also, with constant contact with all parts of the rule book, I have a unique opportunity not afforded many other persons.
With these preliminary comments concluded, let me pass on some concerns and circumstances that have occurred since the present set of rules has been formulated (actually, some of these were generated back during the last cycle but were never acted upon).
Please note that I have some personal thoughts about proposals on these items, but am tempted to refrain from addressing the issues until we see whether others might be inclined to seek changes. So here goes. Remember that these are a compilation of other persons' ideas, plus little interesting discoveries that I have personally made as I cruised through the book for the nine-thousandth time.
General Section
We have a statement on page one of the competition rules that creates a very interesting situation. It states, "When contests are advertised as AMA events, specifically or by implication (for example: FF Class A Gas), the entrants naturally assume that AMA regulations apply and deviations must therefore be clearly spelled out in advance, particularly in advertising to attract out-of-towners (this cannot be done in the Contest Calendar)."
Making "minor adjustments" to the rules has become an ever-increasing practice. While this activity may not have caused any major problems in the competition world yet, we see glimmers of problems just below the surface.
For example, the Scale Masters program has employed two deviations from the standard AMA Scale rules quite successfully for several years:
- They combine two classes, Sport Scale and Giant Scale, into one class.
- They limit the scale operations (sometimes mistakenly referred to as "mechanical options") to two rather than the three listed in the rule book.
These minor changes have not detracted from the program at all. The deviations are clearly spelled out in the advertising, and everybody I have talked to on the subject has no problem with that concept.
However, when I mention the possibility of someone suggesting another type of deviation in Scale — such as not requiring the rounded safety nut or spinner — or, in Control Line, dispensing with the requirement for a safety thong in those events where it is mandated, the immediate response is, "Whoa! You can't allow that, because those are safety rules."
By now I am certain you know the question that comes to my mind when I hear that: Who makes that decision? On what basis is it made? At what point does the combined effect of many deviations actually transform the event into another one which is no longer the "rule book event"? In the words of the delightful king from the musical The King and I: "It is a puzzlement!"
For years a number of people have suggested that the Criteria for Cancellation of Contests has problems. I've had to deal with that section as a CD and have found that many people hold quite different ideas about what it means. I had one contestant at an event walking by me every so often with a wind meter as he let me know that the wind was 32 mph (or whatever). The implication was that if it reached 40 mph, everything would automatically have to come to a halt. In practice, that's probably true, since by that time all the models would have blown away, but if you look at the paragraph in the rule book you see that the "basic responsibility" remains with the Contest Director.
Many people seem uncomfortable with the extremes listed for cancellation. They also recognize that certain types of models can operate when others cannot. As an example, last year at Lincoln when we selected the Control Line and Radio Control scale teams, the first flying day was quite windy. The RC models were able to compete one round of flying. Granted it was not a comfortable situation, but it was possible to fly. On the other hand, the Control Line models — being flown at the same site less than 100 ft. away from the RC site — simply would not stay out on the end of the lines.
Should we generate different criteria for the various events or disciplines? Perhaps more decision-making power should be placed in the contestants' hands in advising the Contest Director. What about sanctioned events that are not contests?
I have had persons ask why we require the AMA number on the "upper side of the right-hand lifting surface." As far as I know it goes back to the builder-of-the-model-rule days. Additionally, it has always been a form of advertisement, if you will. More importantly now, it allows identification of the model in the event of an accident and an insurance claim. People have suggested that the identification issue is the major concern, then why not just use the Safety Code to indicate that the modeler's name and address and AMA number must be in or on the model—and forget the placement requirement.
There is an interesting issue with respect to this situation. The rule as stated on page 10 of the rule book is very explicit. It says, "All models entered in competition excepting Indoor and Scale models . . ." However, if you look at various events you will discover specific identification plans for that event (check RC Pylon, for example). Which set of rules takes precedence? If you say the General rule on page 10 takes precedence, then you will have to come to my aid as I wrestle with which Helicopter blade is the "right-hand lifting surface." Hmmm!
Free Flight
Several questions have been raised concerning the Free Flight CO2 event that have never been answered. Some persons have questioned the statement, "powered by commercially available CO2 engines and tanks." There are replacement heads available for glow engines that allow them to be powered by CO2. By the way, used to effect this is "commercially available," therefore it has been generally accepted that these engines meet the rule. But some persons have pondered the problem.
The second rule that is a concern states that, "The ratio between the tank volume and the piston displacement shall not exceed 130." Most persons seem to be accustomed to seeing ratios expressed in the manner of "one to something." It is usually written out in the form 1:130. The question has been asked if there is a mistake in the book and it should read 1:30. I have looked up the original rule proposal. It reads just the way the rule book does.
This leads to a third problem. As I understand it, using a larger converted glow engine and a CO2 tank with a volume 130 times that of the engine's piston displacement can achieve a motor run time of at least three minutes. Part 4e of the rules for the event states, "The maximum duration to be recorded for any flight is 2 minutes." Another "Hmmm!"
A couple of other quick Free Flight concerns:
- A gray area seems to exist concerning the Jetex event and its relationship to the Safety Code. For those that fly the event, item 8 of the Code seems to take care of it by stating that those rockets "permanently attached (as per JATO use)" are acceptable. Perhaps it would be wise to specifically list the Jetex event so there is no question in anyone's mind.
- Should we keep events in the book if they are never sanctioned? Anyone ever hear of a sanctioned AMA Cub event (119) run as per the rule book?
- We still don't have any information that explains what a "category" means. The proposal I submitted last time failed, but I feel certain that someone in the Free Flight community could generate a proposal that would define the term "category" so that when someone calls here at Headquarters we are able to answer consistently. For example, the Indoor events listed are often questioned; a clear definition would help.
Indoor
The greatest source of confusion and concern in Indoor results from the melding of the FAI and AMA rules and classifications. A significant number of errors crept into the Indoor section of the book last cycle. A very large part of these occurred in the FAI-related sections. This office is not without fault in this matter. However, the principal concern revolves around the fact that while the FAI rule cycle technically is a four-year cycle, in practice changes tend to occur yearly—and sometimes twice a year under certain circumstances! This makes administration very difficult with respect to AMA contests.
Logic seems to suggest that we formally incorporate any of the FAI rules that impact on our AMA events into our rule book and divorce the FAI completely as we have done in the other categories.
There is a minor problem in the actual naming of the events, particularly for people not well acquainted with them, but at times even the people who fly the events are confused. Improvements were made during the last cycle to clarify these people's minds. But there have been questions like, "Where are the rules for Microfilm?" The only place that the word "microfilm" is used is to say in a few places, "No microfilm allowed." I suspect that the last thought is picking at its name, because those members who participate in this very challenging and difficult form of modeling know the ropes.
Control Line
Several of the items that I might be inclined to pass on concerning Control Line already have been addressed by a proposal for this cycle. There are some rules which contain terms subject to interpretation, but that is true of other categories as well.
For example, you can find terms like, "No sharp spinners." Someone must make a judgment call on that one.
We do have one potentially sensitive area in the Control Line rules. Several events have statements that indicate the event is exempt from rules in any other section of the rule book or in any other document. That presents an interesting exercise in the authority levels involved in the development of the General section of the rule book—or perhaps even of the Safety Code.
RC Aerobatics
"Everybody turn to page 55 in your hymnal." There, in item 6.5, you will find a definition of a safety nut used to cover the threaded end of the propeller shaft. Question: Does that describe the item that we commonly refer to as an "AMA Safety Nut"? You will find that term as a requirement in many other events, but strangely enough it doesn't appear in the General rules, the Safety Code, or any other document that I can locate. It is a nebulous little gadget that is manufactured by a number of different companies, required all over the place, but who can define it?
RC Pylon Racing
Currently, there are several pots boiling in this community that are being taken care of by Contest Board action. There is one very interesting feature which perhaps should be considered. For quite a while now we have had Sport Pylon listed as a Supplemental event. Actually it is three events, since it embraces three types of models. Last cycle we added Quickie 500 to Pylon Racing. Does that supplement the supplement? Is anybody still flying the Sport Pylon rules?
RC Helicopter
Rule 18.2 seems to indicate that a record of the points accumulated by competitors in the various contests around the country are kept on some file here at AMA Headquarters. This is not done, any more than that type of record is kept for RC Aerobatics, Sport Aerobatics, or Sport Scale. There are cards available for the Contest Director to sign and the individual to maintain.
Anybody figure out yet what the "right-hand lifting surface" of a Helicopter is?
Scale
Anybody ever sanction event 519, Nonflying Scale? Once again, be careful before you say, "Yes." Sure your club has probably had a static Scale event, but I bet you didn't use the rules in the book!
Why do we call Free Flight Outdoor Flying Scale "Gas Flying Scale"? I was the Nats Category Manager for Scale for five years, and I never did see a Gas model other than CO2. I was told of glow engines! Ah heck, Bob! That's back to picnicking!
RC Sport Scale now has a maximum weight limit, regardless of the number of engines, of 20 lb. One criterion that qualifies a model for Giant Scale is that it weighs 15 lb. Does that bother anyone? I have a 16-year-old model that weighs 11 lb., is powered by a clipped .40, has a 51-in. wingspan, and qualifies for Giant. (It's red, ugly, and quarter-scale!)
The reinstituted Precision Scale event goes to great detail telling you how to figure the score when using various numbers of judges and even tells you how to break a tie. Unfortunately, it doesn't tell you how to determine the flight score for a flight, the average of the best two, or what to determine the flight score to add to the static. When the event was flown years ago, it was the best single flight which was used.
Electric
We have a degree of confusion concerning the Electric rules as they relate to other areas of the book. A recent phone call asked the question, "What set of Free Flight Electric rules should we use?" My response was along the lines of, "Which do you want to use?"
The person's confusion centered around whether he should use the Free Flight Electric or the Electric rules. He suggested that they were rather similar to one another, at least in part. Then the gentleman mused as to whether he could use Free Flight Electric A and the Electric B at his contest. Of course he was told, "Yes, you can." He wondered if that might not be confusing. I suppose that it would be.
If you feel that there are areas that need to be addressed in the items I have brought before you, have at it! Just don't miss the September 1, 1988 submission deadline.
Please understand that none of the earlier comments are meant to be sarcastic, but rather to stimulate consideration of a set of rules that sometimes "grow like Topsy" and lose elements of continuity along the way. Then too, a little refinement often helps.
'Nuf for now.
It was great seeing our old friends again and also making new ones. We look forward to the 1990 Indoor World Championship and know it will be just as exciting, wherever it may be held.
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
