Control Line: Aerobatics
Ted Fancher
Proposed changes under discussion
This column addresses proposed amendments to three fundamental aspects of the Precision Aerobatics (Stunt) event:
- Elimination or modification of the Builder of the Model rule (BOM)
- Reduction or elimination of appearance points
- Use of skill-group classifications at the Nats in lieu of the traditional age classes
These proposals have surfaced repeatedly over the years, especially regarding BOM and appearance points. Historically most efforts died because rule changes require substantial effort to enter the AMA rule book. Recent organizational changes, however, mean the timing for discussion is important.
PAMPA and decision-making
PAMPA (Precision Aerobatic Model Pilots Association) is now recognized by the AMA as an official special-interest group. Through its Board of Directors, PAMPA can submit AMA rule-change proposals that the Control Line Contest Board is likely to approve unless there are strong objections (typically financial). That effectively places decision-making power for Stunt in the hands of competitors.
With that power comes responsibility: proposals submitted by PAMPA should be what competitors truly want and should benefit the present and future of the event. There are no official proposals at this time — only discussions — so this is the right moment to consider possibilities and forward opinions to the PAMPA Board.
- To join PAMPA or for more information: PAMPA, 329 Lincoln Place, Brooklyn, NY 11238.
- PAMPA publishes Pro Stunt News.
Stunt's health and the "don't fix it" argument
Stunt is probably the healthiest Control Line event. Since PAMPA's advent, entries at the Nats have been consistently high, drawing the perennial top competitors plus significant local entries regardless of location. Other events show peaks and valleys; Stunt has maintained a steady level of activity.
Clubs focused on Stunt or listing Stunt as a major interest have grown across the country (Northwest, Northeast, New York/New Jersey, Midwest, Southeast, California, Southwest). Given this strength, my basic position is: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Before making substantial format changes, we must be very certain not to alter the chemistry that makes Stunt attractive to a wide variety of people.
Why BOM and appearance points are linked and should be retained
The Builder of the Model rule and appearance points are intrinsically linked. Stunt attracts people because of its demands and diversity. A successful Stunt pilot must be part artist, part mechanic, part craftsman, part scientist, part athlete, part con-man, and a full-time seeker of excellence.
Any of those elements can hook a new participant. Once hooked, aspiring pilots use their strengths to overcome weaknesses until they master the rest. Examples include Les McDonald (artist/craftsman turned legend) and Al Rabe (scientist who mastered the rest). Removing elements that attract certain people risks losing those who "can" rather than gaining only those who "may" if things are made easier.
Stunt will never appeal to a huge audience; if we change it to attract the many, we may lose the people who make it great. For those reasons I favor retaining the BOM rule and appearance points.
Exception for the Expert class
I do make one exception: in the Expert ranks, a pilot should be allowed to fly an airplane he did not build, provided he acknowledges the fact and forfeits appearance points. Losing appearance points will generally make an Expert non-competitive, but his presence can be an incentive and learning opportunity for advancing fliers.
I do not support this exception for less-skilled classes. Allowing a lower-skilled pilot to fly an expertly built and trimmed aircraft would be unfair when building and trimming skills usually develop in parallel with flying skills. It would be equivalent to entering your own plane but having a far superior flier work the handle for you.
Appearance points — a personal anecdote
I believe appearance points matter. For example, I recently finished fourth at the California North/South Championship despite having the highest flying points. I flew an older, beat-up imitation and gave up 8–10 appearance points to each of the three pilots who beat me. The planes ahead of me were clearly more attractive and deserved their appearance points.
When flying scores are close and appearance points decide the winner, I say that's not a bad way to go. Spectators are drawn to beautiful airplanes; appearance points reward the craftsmanship and presentation that help attract new people to the event.
Skill classes at the Nats
I have changed my mind about skill-group classifications at the Nats. Until recently I felt the time was right to give them a try. It seems to have worked. (Discussion on specific implementation details is appropriate for PAMPA deliberations.)
Conclusion
Stunt is in good shape. Changes that strip away elements that attract the diverse kinds of people who make the event vibrant should be approached with caution. Keep BOM and appearance points, with a limited exception for Experts, and continue careful study of skill-class implementation at the Nats.
Ted Fancher 158 Flying Cloud Isle Foster City, CA 94404
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
