RADIO CONTROL AEROBATICS
Ron Van Putte, 111 Sleepy Oaks Rd., Ft. Walton Beach, FL 32548
It's been another month, and I haven't received any more letters on the subject of what a beginning pattern pilot's first airplanes should be. Maybe your pattern juices hadn't started to flow until the warm weather thawed out. You should be heavy into the season by now, so let me hear from you or I'll be forced to assume you are as out of touch with what beginner pattern fliers need as I have been alleged to be.
Actually, my memory is very good, and I can remember clearly what it was like to compete in all the classes. Besides that, I fly in the current maneuver schedules during the training sessions for the judges in preparation for my club's annual pattern contest. It's not difficult for me to determine what I think is necessary to compete in the various classes, but that's the opinion of just one person. What do you think is necessary?
As you read this column, the results of the final vote on the 1994/1995 rules change proposals will have been publicized in both the "Focus on Competition" section of Model Aviation and in K-Factor, the newsletter of the National Society of Radio Controlled Aerobatics (NSRCA). Since I submitted several proposals, I'm probably a bit more interested in the results than the average pattern flier.
Collaboration and which proposals were submitted
I should tell you that some of my proposals were really the result of a collaboration with John Fuqua, who is the AMA District III RC Aerobatics Contest Board member. They were his ideas, but I provided input.
John thought it would have been an apparent conflict of interest for him to submit rules change proposals, so he asked me to propose them. For the record:
- My proposals: 94-4 and 94-10 through 94-12.
- John's proposals: 94-3, 94-5 through 94-9, and 94-13.
The important thing about the rules change proposals is not whether mine (or John's) were passed. I have opinions about what we should do in advancing pattern competition, and my proposals represent my opinions. If 60% of the RC Aerobatics Contest Board members voted for one of my proposals, it passed. It should mean that 60% of the board agrees with my opinion. I have to believe that none of the men voted for or against a proposal because of who proposed it. The proposal is important, not the proposer.
If none of my proposals passed, I wouldn't like it, but all it would really mean is that the board didn't agree with the ideas that the proposals represented. It wouldn't be the end of the world. On the other hand, if one or more of my proposals did pass, it would simply mean that the board agreed with my opinions. It should not be considered a victory for me. I hope that other proposers view the rules change process the same way.
The rules-change process and the Contest Board
Until I submitted my first rules change proposals nearly three years ago, I viewed the rules change process as a mysterious procedure involving an inner circle of self-proclaimed pattern experts who thought they knew what was best for the rest of us.
First, the truth is that the process is simple, and anyone who takes the time to obtain a copy of the Competition Regulations (the rule book) for 1992 and 1993 can read all about it in a few minutes. The process is described thoroughly on pages two through four of the current rule book. No smoke or mirrors are involved in the process. Personally, I've never been able to understand why it takes so long for the entire process, but that's another story.
Second, the RC Aerobatics Contest Board is predominantly made up of FAI fliers. That may rub some people the wrong way, but if not FAI fliers, who? We need people who have the breadth of experience to evaluate prospective rules changes in all classes.
Most board members have paid their dues by advancing through the ranks. I believe that they can still remember what it was like to be a Sportsman-class flier and vote on Sportsman rules change proposals accordingly. The same should be true for the other classes. FAI fliers have the background and intelligence to act in the best interest of all fliers.
How to participate in the rules change process
Even though the deadline for proposal submission isn't until September 1, 1994, it isn't too early to start considering prospective rules changes. You can participate in the rules change proposal process in several ways:
- Send in your own proposals.
- Get together with other pattern fliers and submit a joint proposal.
- If you're a member of the NSRCA (if you're a pattern flier, you should be), participate in the club's rules change survey that will be circulated by the NSRCA committee for rules change proposals. The committee will conduct the survey and make rules change proposals on behalf of the NSRCA for those topics that are supported by the NSRCA membership.
It is not an easy job. The last rules change committee chairman was Rick Allison, current NSRCA president. As I remember it, after his tour was complete, he commented that if given the choice of serving again or plowing a rock quarry, he'd start sharpening a plow. Maybe that's why the NSRCA didn't have a rules change committee and didn't submit any proposals for the latest rules change cycle.
The current rules change committee is headed by Paul Salverda, who is also the vice president for NSRCA District 7 (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and Utah). In the April 1993 K-Factor, Paul said that the survey will be published in the September or October K-Factor.
Participate in the survey, and be a part of our rules change process.
If you're not an NSRCA member, you can join by sending a $20 check payable to the NSRCA to Suzi Froehlich, NSRCA Treasurer, P.O. Box 41310, Phoenix, AZ 85008. Include your address, phone number(s), AMA number, and the class you're currently flying. You'll get a great newsletter—all about pattern—and have a chance to communicate with the real movers and shakers in U.S. pattern competition.
Reader input and a suggestion about four-strokes
One problem writing a column like this is that you occasionally get a writer's dry spell. I've written this column since the first issue of Model Aviation came out in 1975. Needless to say, I've had a lot of dry spells.
To help myself over a dry spell, I try to solicit reader response (that can be published), so I don't have to come up with every word you see here. Besides, I think that a form of reader input is mandatory for a viable column.
I've been accused of inciting readers by publishing things that I knew would provoke responses I could publish. I am afraid I've been guilty of that in several cases.
The downwind turn is a good example. I can say, "Every right-thinking flier with a grain of sense in his head knows that an airplane making a turn doesn't have any idea that a steady wind is blowing," and the responses will last for months. It's a technique for generating column material that works—if you don't use it too much.
So why the confession? One reason is that I have been accused of being opposed to four-stroke engines, so anything I say involving four-strokes is tainted with this reputation. I am going to make the following suggestion that involves four-strokes. I'd like honest reader input. I will use the responses in my column, but that's not why I'm suggesting it.
Here's my suggestion: Let's eliminate the displacement limit for all engines, while establishing an aircraft weight limit. The weight limit could be five kilograms ready-to-fly without fuel — the current FAI limit. Current noise limits would still apply. Comments? No bricks through the window, please.
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
