Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
May 26, 2018, 11:13:31 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 1313 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
dslusarc
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 22
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 735

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: 54
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,298



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: 147



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: 14
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 647

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: 147



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: 306



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: 147



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: 54
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,298



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: 9



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: 22
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 735

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: 54
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,298



Ignore
« Reply #10 on: January 18, 2018, 10:51:28 AM »

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

Kudos: 16
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 514




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: January 18, 2018, 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: 8
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 436


1996 World Champs



Ignore
« Reply #12 on: January 18, 2018, 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: January 18, 2018, 01:39:46 PM by jakepF1D » Logged
jakepF1D
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 8
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 436


1996 World Champs



Ignore
« Reply #13 on: January 18, 2018, 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
Olbill
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 54
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,298



Ignore
« Reply #14 on: January 18, 2018, 03:31:40 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.  

Apology accepted.
Logged
jakepF1D
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 8
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 436


1996 World Champs



Ignore
« Reply #15 on: January 18, 2018, 04:42:02 PM »

Both rules have been removed from the AMA website pending a response from the author.
Logged
dslusarc
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 22
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 735

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2018, 11:52:31 PM »

These are the two proposals I had written as a safe guard (they have not been submitted). These proposals would be additions to the current Indoor Rules in the noted numbered sections below.  

Proposal #1:
Summary of proposed change:
   To specify the only process by which an Indoor FF Class may be added or removed from the rulebook.

2.1 Addition or Deletion of Indoor Free Flight Classes
   The addition of, or deletion of, any Indoor Free Flight Classes (Section 4). can only be accomplished by a vote of the Indoor Contest Board. Any such proposal(s) must be submitted to the Indoor Contest Board in accordance with the normal Rules Change Procedure and Rules Change Cycle.

Proposal #1 seems to stating the obvious that the Indoor Board should be the only board that can add or delete Indoor classes, by adding it to the Indoor rules section, it would become part of the allowable exceptions to the general rules, so any future rule book change can not alter Indoor Classes by any other means than a vote by the Indoor contest board.  


Proposal #2:
Summary of proposed change:
   To specify the conditions in which multiple records may be set with an Indoor FF model.

12.4   Multiple Records
   When the specifications of a model, the method of timing, and the conditions of flight comply with the rules of more than one class or category, such model with a single flight (or single series of flights) may establish national records in more than one class or category if the performance exceeds the existing records. Responsibility for applying for national records rests with the flier and Contest Director.

This proposal is an exact copy of the current wording that exists in the general section, just adding it to the Indoor section so that if it ever were to be modified, the Indoor classes still follow the existing method.

I am partially tempted to submit these anyhow and if nothing comes of the now deleted proposals, then these can simply be voted down.
Don
Logged
Balsaboy53
Copper Member
**

Kudos: 0
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 9



Ignore
« Reply #17 on: January 19, 2018, 12:19:19 AM »

Well done, Don.  There might be a slight grammar error just after "Proposal #1"... you might have left out the word "BE" at the first part of the sentence... "Seems to >BE< stating the obvious"....
Logged
dslusarc
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 22
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 735

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #18 on: February 07, 2018, 11:18:29 PM »

Just as a follow up. Since the "deletion of events" proposal has been removed from the General rules section and moved to the Outdoor FF section, it no longer affects Indoor FF. It is now an issue for the Outdoor FF board to deal with.
 
However, the second General Rules proposal in regards to no longer allowing setting multiple records is a proposal that will impact Indoor FF. As I stated previously, I planned to submit a rules proposal to add the wording for setting multiple records to the Indoor FF section of the rule book. I have recently done so and today I was informed my proposal was denied for consideration.

In my conversation with the AMA today, there are really only two options going forward. The first is to start a campaign to get all other 70+ board members to vote the proposal down. The second is for me to  submit a General Rules proposal to allow individual Contest Boards the ability to decide if they want to continue or discontinue the practice of setting multiple records.  So I have just submitted such a proposal. I will keep you posted on how it goes.

Since the examples used by Mr. Murphy in his proposal were in regards to Outdoor FF classes, I did ask the AMA if Mr.Murphy was aware of what they had told me. That he can do a General Rules proposal to allow the individual Contest Boards to decide for themselves then submit a proposal for Outdoor FF to disallow the practice. I was then informed a short time later that Mr.Murphy was not going to revise his proposal. So it appears to me that that his proposal is indeed intended to change all record setting classes across multiple disciplines not just Outdoor FF.   
Logged
Olbill
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 54
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,298



Ignore
« Reply #19 on: February 08, 2018, 12:03:36 AM »

The plot thickens. It seems that there are a few people who have some sort of axe to grind with the indoor community.
Logged
dslusarc
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 22
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 735

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #20 on: February 08, 2018, 06:15:16 PM »

The general rules proposal I submitted is now up on the AMA website, it is proposal General Proposal 19-02:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/ruleproposals/Rules_change_proposals_general.aspx


Here is the proposal:

General Proposal 19-02

Give Brief Summary of the Proposed Change:

To allow each individual Contest Board the ability to decide if they will continue or discontinue the practice of setting multiple records with one flight.

State exact wording proposed for the Competition Regulations. List paragraph number where applicable.

This proposal adds paragraph 3.2 to the General Rules "Records" section (page 22). Paragraph 3.1 is the current wording and is unchanged.

Exact wording below to appear in the rule book:

3. Multiple Records

3.1. When the specifications of a model, the method of timing, and the conditions of flight comply with the rules of more than one class or category, such model with a single flight (or single series of flights) may establish national records in more than one class or category if the performance exceeds the existing records. Responsibility for applying for national records rests with the flier and Contest Director.

3.2. Individual Contest Boards with record setting classes, by default, will permit the setting of multiple records as specified in 3.1. Individual Contest Boards my restrict or prohibit the setting of multiple records for specific classes or categories by means of the Competition Regulations for those classes.

State logic behind proposed change, including alleged shortcoming of the present rule(s). STATE INTENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE


For at least 49 years (based on available published AMA rule books) the AMA has allowed a model that fits multiple classes to set multiple national records with one flight. This was most importantly true when I was a Junior setting my first indoor National records as I was able to set multiple records with one flight with a model that fit the rules of two classes. Presently there are still standing Indoor FF national records that were set in this way and some Indoor FF classes were intentionally created to allow this overlap to occur.

Because of a recent General Rules proposal that wants prohibit this long standing practice, it has become evident that various modeling disciplines may intentionally or unintentionally become affected by such a General Rules changes. Due to the way voting is done on a General Rules changes, it is possible that a rule change may pass even though one specific contest board votes unanimously against the proposal. This essentially allows other Contest Boards to alter the rules of a board they are not a member of.

This rules proposal allows each affected Contest Board to decide on their own if they wish to continue or discontinue the multiple records practice based on the needs of their specific sport. This proposal by default will keep the rules exactly the same as they have been for 49+ years. So for those Contest Boards that are content with the multi records practice, nothing else further needs to be done after adopting this proposal. For those Contest Boards that would prefer to restrict or discontinue the multi records practice, this proposal adds a pathway for those Contest Boards to make those changes by means of their Competition Regulations.

Don Slusarczyk
 
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!