RADIO CONTROL AEROBATICS
Ron Van Putte — 111 Sleepy Oaks Rd., Ft. Walton Beach, FL 32548
In the February column I printed a letter I'd received from an RC sport flier regarding his perception of Pattern fliers. I did it because it reflected many sentiments I'd heard sport fliers voice about Pattern fliers over the years, and it was a way of putting the subject in the column without making it sound like the whole thing was my idea.
I also printed the letter I'd sent to him. Then I made some comments about the situation. I really thought that part of the column was an honest look at our image—deserved or not—and might serve to point out where we might improve on how Pattern fliers relate to each other and to other modelers in general.
Not long after the column appeared in print, I received a long letter from Tony Frackowiak, who took me to task for some of the things I wrote. I won't reprint his entire letter, but I will reprint segments of it and make comments I believe are appropriate.
I'm doing this because Tony apparently sent a copy of his letter to the vice president of District 7 of the National Society of Radio Controlled Aerobatics (NSRCA), who (with obvious great glee) published it in his column in the January–February NSRCA newsletter, the K-Factor.
Since so many people have seen it, I believe that I must respond in print. I have the choice of either sending my response to the K-Factor or putting it in this column. You see my choice.
Tony's first point
"I've seen a lot of different issues come and go in Pattern, and the event continues. One thing I haven't seen until the last two or three years is your constant use of your column to seemingly stir up trouble. If all you portray Pattern as is an event with numerous problems, then there is no wonder that someone would interpret Pattern as a 'sad' event."
I have to assume that what Tony refers to are my comments on issues like the initial resistance to the Turnaround style of flying, the suitability of certain sites for the Nats, and the two- versus four-stroke issue. As I understand the charge, what Tony implies is that I manufactured the issues and beat on them until they became real issues. Regarding any of these issues, anyone who thinks that I invented them wasn't (and isn't) paying attention to what was (and is) going on.
A lot of people dropped out of Pattern because of Turnaround. It's still a sore point with many fliers who grudgingly stayed with Pattern even though they initially didn't like Turnaround. There is even one Turnaround-hater on the RC Aerobatics Contest Board who didn't drop out. He just voted no on every Pattern rules change proposal that didn't involve bookkeeping cleanups. I guess that's his way of getting even (with who?) for the Turnaround rules having passed during the last rules change cycle.
Every Nats site selection has its problems for one or more groups. When I reported the needs of the Pattern fliers, they appeared to be largely ignored by the AMA officials who made site selections. I was echoing comments I'd heard from other fliers. When I used the word fiasco to describe the 1992 Nats, I was referring to the reduction in the flight-line Pattern sites from three to two by direction of our Air Force host.
It's a good thing there weren't more contestants, or the number of rounds would have been reduced. If anyone felt I was commenting on the hard work by the Nats volunteers, I sincerely apologize.
Based on comments by fliers who are familiar with the potential Lubbock Nats site, it appears that it would have been guaranteed that we would fly in crosswinds.
Regarding the two- versus four-stroke issue, I can't believe that anyone who went to a Pattern contest last year and observed what was happening in competition would conclude that I manufactured that issue. My comments merely reflected what I'd heard from fliers. I may have highlighted the issue, but I certainly didn't create it.
Judging issue
Tony wrote: "On the judging issue, this is a problem in a subjective sport, and always will be. I do wish that you would drop this opinion that some judges automatically judge four-strokes higher. This is sounding too much like sour grapes from someone against progress."
As far as I'm concerned, some judges do automatically judge four-strokes higher. Other fliers have attributed statements to certain judges, who said that they generally scored four-stroke airplanes higher because of the four-stroke airplanes' ability to make bigger maneuvers, even though maneuver size is not a judging factor.
One judge at the 1991 Team Selection Finals told me exactly that. When I pointed out that maneuver size was not a judging factor, he told me that he was going to do it anyway because he thought that bigger maneuvers looked better. He is not the only one. I don't like that—and it sounds like I'm against progress, so be it.
Squabbling and pettiness
Tony also wrote: "As to the issue of squabbling and pettiness in Pattern, sure there is some. I've been as guilty as, or maybe more so, than most. I've given some, and I have surely received some. But if you think that Pattern is bad, go to a race or a scale meet."
This sounds something like, "We're not as bad as those others, so we must be okay." Sorry, but that doesn't cut it with me.
I've never cared much for squabbling or pettiness, whether it was in my sport or somebody else's. It really bothers me when the person seems to be doing it for his own benefit or to entertain other fliers at the flight line. If you don't think it's a problem, please just try to listen objectively to the talk at your next Pattern contest. I think we need to clean up our act.
Nevertheless, there are examples that demonstrate that Pattern fliers can be some of the most considerate and compassionate people around. Tony Frackowiak said that he was sometimes as guilty of squabbling and pettiness as other Pattern fliers.
I have witnessed another side of Tony. At the Seguin Nats, a young contestant in Sportsman fired his O.S. engine. I asked Tony if he could help the flier, because Tony worked for World Engines, a U.S. importer of O.S. engines at that time. I knew he had some spare parts for O.S. engines with him. Tony completely rebuilt the fired engine using spare parts and even used a part he removed from one of his own engines—for free. The flier finished second in the event. It is that kind of image I'd like others to have of our event.
NSRCA leadership
Congratulations to Rick Allison on his selection as president of NSRCA. He beat Mike Ingalls by a whopping one vote! Either candidate would have made a fine president. Rick brings a wealth of enthusiasm, brains, and a refreshing sense of humor to a tough job. I'm sure that Rick will do more than pull his own weight (pun intended).
I'm also sure that you will join me in thanking Bryan Henderson for the great job he did as president. He invested considerable amounts of time, talent, and money as our president. The tremendous growth in size, responsibilities, and reputation of NSRCA can be directly attributed to him. Thanks, Bryan—see you on the contest trail.
Letter from Frank Ellis
I get letters from lots of places, but when I got one from Frank Ellis, it really caught my attention. The return address on the envelope was Dept. of Corrections, Probation and Parole, in Louisiana. I wasn't sure I wanted to open it! Fortunately the contents of the letter had nothing to do with the return address. Apparently Frank works for them and carried an envelope to send the letter.
Here's an excerpt from Frank's letter:
"Last evening I had two telephone conversations with fellow Contest Directors Albert Glenn of Memphis, Tennessee, and Gene Goldstein of San Antonio, Texas. From these two conversations, it would appear that CDs around the country face virtually the same problems.
"Albert's discussion centered on the selection of a date for a contest. Unfortunately, in our area, as you are well aware, there are a limited number of fliers to entice to a Pattern contest. It is necessary to rely on fliers traveling considerable distances to provide for adequate attendance. The scheduling of two contests on the same weekend greatly diminishes the attendance at both contests. We saw this unfortunate experience on several occasions in our NSRCA district.
"A Pattern contest scheduled in Georgia the same weekend as the Memphis contest greatly reduced attendance at both contests. Fliers such as yourself have to decide between contests of similar distance, thereby reducing attendance at one or both contests.
"A simple solution is at hand. I have discussed with Paul Verger, NSRCA District 3 Vice President, the possibility of Contest Directors in our area coordinating dates and avoiding the duplication of contest weekends. Not only does this provide for bigger contests, but a larger selection of contests for the flier to participate in.
"Gene's problem is one faced by many CDs. Last year several members of our club, the Cajun R/C Club, made the long trip to San Antonio for that area's Pattern contest. It was an excellent contest, well run and well attended. Gene's problem, one that threatens even hosting a contest this year, is that of having a sufficient number of judges to officiate at his event.
"This is a problem faced by most, if not all, clubs. Have we come to that time when contestant judging is the norm? In this part of the country, contestant judging is a dirty word.
"Hopefully, we, as fliers and competitors, will be willing to donate our time to our neighboring clubs, allowing these folks to host well-judged contests. I know that we, as members of the Cajun R/C Club, are willing to do our part to assist any Contest Director to host a contest. I truly feel most fliers feel the same.
"Hopefully, your article will generate ideas from our fellow Pattern fliers to assist us in solving these problems."
Thanks, Frank. I have a couple of comments on what Frank wrote. I've concluded that 300 miles between contests is not enough. Most contests I attend are more than 300 miles away. Besides, the 300-mile restriction only applies to contests in the same AMA district. I live about 200 miles from Louisiana, which is in a different district.
District contest coordinators are not required to coordinate with each other and normally do not. So it is really left to the individual Contest Directors to coordinate with each other. I don't have an alternate solution. Does anyone else?
Judging problems are getting tougher to solve. The Turnaround style of flying places a greater load on judges. There was a time when you could put your least experienced judges on the lower classes because the load wasn't as heavy. No more.
Now it is tougher to train judges, and the load on them is greater, so they need more breaks. That means you need more judges. I believe that a responsible mix of club, contestant, and United States Pattern Judges Association (USPJA) judges may be the best way to go.
The only alternative I can conceive is, as Frank suggests, for adjacent clubs or Pattern fliers to donate their time to judge (and not fly). The negative aspect of this idea is that the pool of potential contestants would be reduced.
Any other ideas?
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
