Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
January 18, 2018, 03:00:08 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
 
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: [1]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: AMA General Rules Proposals that will affect AMA Indoor  (Read 573 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
dslusarc
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 21
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 726

Topic starter


Ignore
« on: January 07, 2018, 09:07:49 AM »

 Dear Indoor Community,

I want to point out to the indoor community two AMA general rule proposals that will have a direct effect AMA indoor records and AMA Indoor events.
Both proposals are listed here.
http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/ruleproposals/indoorff.aspx

These are listed under Indoor as they are changes to the AMA general rules which apply to all models so Indoor is included.

IFF 19-01
This will eliminate allowing one flight to set two national records at one time. As a Junior I set records with one flight with a model fitting two classes, such as EZB and Int Stick, 65cm F1D and Hand Launch Stick. This practice would no longer be allowed. Only one class record could be flown for at a time.

IFF 19-02
This will take AMA events that do not received 10 entries at the Indoor Nats during a 2 year rules cycle and reduce those events from official AMA events to AMA "provisional" status which means national records are no longer kept. After two more years, if still below 10 entries then the event is deleted from the rule book.
 
I feel these are important proposals that must be reviewed by the Indoor community before the March 15, 2018 rules proposal deadline. .
-
Don Slusarczyk
Indoor Contest Board Chairman
Logged
Olbill
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 53
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,255



Ignore
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2018, 10:02:59 AM »

The second proposal would eliminate just about all indoor events in a couple of years.
Logged
leop
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 5
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 145



Ignore
« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2018, 12:41:21 PM »

I second Bill's concerns on the class NATS entries.  Furthermore, it should be noted that the site and date of the NATS has a big influence on entry numbers and the classes entered.  I hope this rule change does not even make it past the first vote.

LeoP
Logged
mkirda
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 12
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 619

WWW

Ignore
« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2018, 01:35:25 PM »

Cross-posting from the Yahoo group.

Greetings.

So I am not privy to the rationale behind either one of these two rules proposals.

Any rules change should be made to rectify a problem with the existing rules.

For #1, I don't understand the problem. If a model that meets two sets of rules is flown and breaks a record in those two events, then the record is broken in both events. I don't see any harm in this, so it doesn't make much sense to me why this proposal even exists.

For #2, the proposal as written will take a sledgehammer to the indoor events. An easy loophole would be to have ten people just sign up for every event each year and keep all the events as is.

If I have to guess the rationale behind proposal #2, it would be that indoor has too many events and too few participants and this popular! ity contest is a way to cull that number of events down.

Let's say that I even agree with this assessment: that we need to cull the number of events in Indoor.
The real question then is: Is this the right way to go about it?

To answer that question, I would say No.

Careful consideration and extensive consultation with the existing indoor fliers is what is needed.
Local clubs fly events that appeal to them, however not all local fliers attend the NATS.
Why this is would be a discussion for another day. But the lack of fliers at the national contest determining what can be flown locally is sort of backwards.

Either way, I would urge the contest board to vote NO on both proposals.
At the same time, I would urge them to figure out how to:
1) Increase participation at the NATS, and to
2) Begin consultation with local clubs to see if culling any indoor events makes sense.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

Logged

leop
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 5
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 145



Ignore
« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2018, 04:54:04 PM »

Both proposals are from Jerry Murphy of Colorado, a member of the AMA Outdoor Free Flight Contest Board.  Jerry Murphy was the applicant for the P-18 class rule proposal in the last rules cycle.

I find it enlightening to note that at the 2017 Nats in Rantoul, the following  took place:

LPP had 14 entries but only 8 fliers,
STD-Cat had 13 entries but only 8 fliers,
HLG had 9 entries but only 5 fliers
P-18 had 8 entires but only 7 fliers,
A6 had 7 entries and 7 fliers,
F1D had 7 entries but only 6 fliers,
Mini Stick had 5 entries and 5 fliers,
etc.

No class had 10 fliers.  Using entries rather than fliers makes it easy to manipulate things by spending money for entries but not flying.  The previous year's 2016 Nats at Rantoul had more attendance but many classes still did not meet the 10 entry standard.

Our AMA rules for classes need not include the FAI classes if my reading of the FAI regs is correct.  However, given that the F1D class is used for the Indoor World Championship and is often the most popular class at US event sites where flying F1D's, let's say, is more fun, it would be a shame to exclude that class (and classes like F1L, not to mention the US originated EZB class) from the AMA classes.  I have some more harsh comments that I will not make in public but both rule changes, especially #2,  are an open attack on indoor duration in general.  In part, it is the breadth of the different class rules and reasonable, well flying model types that makes indoor free flight a fun and attractive sport.

LeoP (wearing my fire suit)
Logged
fred
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 276



Ignore
« Reply #5 on: January 07, 2018, 07:05:46 PM »

Bureaucrats! 
Sure.. reduce the events .. the participation is declining...  Lose the all those  unimportant events  for simplified clerical loads.
   Declining  participation  is largely due to aging out..  Demographics .
Does that mean it's Any less important to those who still practice their skills?
Elimination would also eliminate (alienate ?) those  Remaining members .
 
 All of which .. Seriously Questions the continuing purpose of the AMA.. to be blunt.
Logged
leop
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 5
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 145



Ignore
« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2018, 07:32:16 PM »

Fred,

These were not AMA proposals but a proposal from a member of the AMA who is also on the Outdoor Free Flight Contest Board.  Every AMA member has the right to submit rile proposals in all classes.  The proposals were not, I suspect, from the AMA staff so that paper work could be reduced.  But, I think you are correct in seeing the obvious result of the proposals as a means to reduce participation in Indoor Free Flight as we practice the sport today..

LeoP
Logged
Olbill
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 53
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,255



Ignore
« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2018, 11:53:55 PM »


 All of which .. Seriously Questions the continuing purpose of the AMA.. to be blunt.

Agreed.
Logged
Balsaboy53
Copper Member
**

Kudos: 0
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 5



Ignore
« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2018, 04:17:09 PM »

I have read both proposed rule changes, and although I do not attend the Nats, I strongly disagree with these proposed changes.  Just leave things alone. Thanks Don for bringing this up.
Logged
dslusarc
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 21
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 726

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #9 on: January 17, 2018, 10:56:01 PM »

I have prepared two Indoor proposals to protect the status quo on these two issues. It has been stated that the current proposals were to be withdrawn but as of yet they have not, so if still up by in a few weeks I will submit my proposals as a safe guard.

Don  
Logged
Olbill
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 53
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,255



Ignore
« Reply #10 on: Today at 10:51:28 AM »

Thanks for staying on top of it Don.
Logged
Greg Langelius
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 15
Online Online

United States United States

Posts: 507




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: Today at 11:29:25 AM »

If something's broke, fix it. If nothing's broke, what's the hubbub? These proposals should be voted down. The author of the proposals should be required to show good cause for proposing them.

Greg
Logged

New knowledge is found by re-examining old assumptions.
jakepF1D
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 429


1996 World Champs



Ignore
« Reply #12 on: Today at 01:25:15 PM »

I've been in contact with Cliff Hiatt and Tony Stillman regarding these rules.  Cliff has indicated that he believes the rules will be re-submitted, but he hasn't as yet given me a definitive response whether they've actually been withdrawn.  

I also asked that Cliff and Tony evaluate 19-01 for acceptability per the Contest Board Procedures section 8.1.2.3.  The statement of intent uses examples that are already specifically disallowed in the Outdoor Free Flight rule book per section 10.  This major factual error should make the rule as proposed unacceptable, and it's unclear to me why it was ever published.
« Last Edit: Today at 01:39:46 PM by jakepF1D » Logged
jakepF1D
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 429


1996 World Champs



Ignore
« Reply #13 on: Today at 01:29:40 PM »

And to be clear, if either rule does come up for a vote, I will be voting no.  I've also been included on an email list that was copied to every District XI contest board member, and I responded with a request that everyone vote no.  Every board member that has responded so far has indicated they will also vote no.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!