RADIO CONTROL AEROBATICS
Rick Allison, 15618 NE 56th Way, Redmond WA 98052
A change of near-global proportions has recently rolled over the RC aerobatics events, and so far very few competitors have noticed.
This quiet tsunami actually washed over more than just Pattern and Sport Aerobatics; every other event in the Competition Regulations was equally impacted, and I don't believe many participants in those events have noticed yet, either.
I'm referring to the new three-year AMA rules cycle, which replaced the old two-year cycle early last year. A brief explanation of the change and a new timeline was properly published in "Focus on Competition," but judging from the mail (both E-mail and the "snail" variety), many of you fail to read that section of the magazine thoroughly.
The new cycle is more than just an extended version of the previous edition; it makes some fundamental changes to the rules process. Whether some or all of these changes may turn out to be beneficial to competition over the long haul is still a matter of opinion at present.
The opinion of AMA leadership is, of course, very positive in this respect, as the new Contest Board Procedures document was produced by an AMA Project Team appointed by the Executive Council. The EC, in conjunction with the Contest Board Chairmen, subsequently voted to approve the document.
Leadership opinions in the competition-oriented Special Interest Groups vary from general acceptance to firm dislike of the new cycle's provisions.
In particular, the National Society of Radio Controlled Aerobatics (NSRCA) is on record as opposing the new procedures, and has been the most vocal of all the SIGs in registering disappointment. There are various reasons for this reaction, but it's fair to say that foremost is the removal of the clause that previously granted automatic initial-vote passage to proposals crafted by AMA Contest Board Advisory Committees.
AMA Advisory Committees, under both old and new procedures, are appointed by the Chairmen of the various Contest Boards and serve for the length of the rules cycle. The primary role of these ad hoc committees is to advise and assist the Contest Boards by comment as the CB members consider rules proposals, but the committees may also submit rules change proposals of their own.
As the Contest Board Procedures (both old and new) state that "...maximum utilization of existing Special Interest Groups should be made in selecting Advisory Committee members," these committees typically have been composed primarily or totally of SIG members—and under the old rules, they have been very effective instruments for making SIG influence felt in the rules process.
While the primary role of the Advisory Committees has not been changed under the new procedures, the decision to rescind the automatic initial-vote passage provision has been viewed in some SIG quarters as an affront and an attack on SIG influence in general. It is unlikely that this was the intent of either the Project Team or the Executive Council, but it is an understandable reaction by the SIGs—particularly in view of AMA's recently announced policy of partnership with the SIGs regarding competition matters.
All of this, regardless of the potential fallout at the upper political levels, is a moot point. As of now, the new Contest Board Procedures are an established fact, and as competitors we need to understand what changes the new system may bring to our events.
What changed
The first change is immediate and sweeping. Since the new procedures were implemented effective from the start of the current cycle (January 1, 1996), the present "red" rule book, Competition Regulations 1996 and 1997, will remain in effect through 1998 as well.
While the new procedures provide an extra year between editions of the Competition Regulations, the time limit for filing new rules proposals has been extended by only a month (from September 1 of the initial year of the cycle under the old procedures to October 1 under the new procedures). This means that every new rules proposal that will be eligible to go into the 1999–2001 rule book has already been submitted—as of October 1, 1996.
On the other end of the cycle timeline, the new procedures actually provide for one month less to generate, typeset, and proofread the new rule book—a change that is unlikely to prove beneficial if the goal remains a mistake-free and typo-free product.
The extra year of time in the middle of the new cycle is filled with a recycled concept: cross proposals. Cross proposals are described as "alternate means of accomplishing the objectives of a basic proposal which has passed the initial ballot." Cross proposals cannot be used to introduce new proposals or to introduce proposals that were defeated on the initial ballot—only to modify or reframe a proposal that has already passed the initial vote.
Under the new procedures, rules proposals that passed the February 1997 initial vote will be published in the June issue of Model Aviation (yes, next month's issue), and from then until July 15, cross proposals that address these basic proposals will be accepted at HQ. Cross proposals that have been accepted will then be published in the November issue.
In November 1997 the Contest Boards will vote again, this time on cross proposals. The results will be tabulated, and a final Contest Board vote on what actually goes into the new book will be accomplished by May 1, 1998, with the results published in the August 1998 Model Aviation (due out in early July 1998).
The new Competition Regulations will be published as of January 1, 1999 and the cycle will start all over again, with basic proposals due at HQ by October 1, 1999.
Practical effects
- In effect, the next time a "new" rules proposal (except Emergency and/or Urgent Proposals) for any AMA event can be submitted will be between January 1 and October 1, 1999.
- The actual effective date for any new rule generated in that cycle will be January 1, 2002.
- As a practical matter for those flying competitively in Pattern or Sport Aerobatics: any rule for which a rules change proposal wasn't at least submitted by October 1, 1996 can't be changed for the next five years. For those who have wished for some measure of stability in the events after the rapid pace of change in recent years, that wish has most definitely been granted.
Other provisions and observations
On the plus side, for the first time the new procedures provide for face-to-face meetings of the Contest Boards if necessary. Whether any such meetings will be budgeted for or actually take place is unclear, but the mechanism for them is included.
It is far too early to make any worthwhile judgments or predictions about the effects of the new three-year procedures for good or ill. That must await one or more completed rules cycles, and the pluses and minuses of the new system can then be weighed.
What we do need to know is that the rules of the rule-making game have changed. As competitors, all of us need to thoroughly understand the new system if we want to be actively involved in the conduct of our events. Under the old procedures, it was easy to let time "slip away" and have an important deadline zip past. It will be just as easy under the new procedures, but with a three-year cycle, the consequences of such inattention will reverberate far longer.
The reduction of Advisory Committee influence may mean that more of us will need to become personally involved in making our wants and wishes known to the Contest Boards, which are charged with the stewardship of our events. Concerted action through SIGs such as NSRCA and IMAC will certainly still be possible, and with a small shift or two in strategy and presentation may prove as effective as ever.
While a wake-up call may be in order, life and RC aerobatics will go on. If the increased stability and "tuning" ability written into the new Contest Board Procedures turn out to be the right fix, all of us will benefit. If not, additional changes are always an option. After all, the AMA is a representative, member-served, member-driven democratic organization composed of — all of us.
Next month we should have a short report by Dianne Kristensen on the International Aerobatic Meet in Oshima, Japan; some photos from the inaugural Masters World Aerobatic Champs in Greenville, South Carolina (courtesy of Tom Miller); and some assorted other short subjects.
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
