April 2005 183
F o c u s o n C o m p e t i t i o n
Technical Director Steve Kaluf
[email protected]
I HOPE THIS column finds you enjoying
good weather and lots of time to practice or
test fly. For me, since this is being written in
late January and early February, it’s kind of
depressing outside where I am—cold and
snowy.
I have three different things I’d like to
write about this month: the multitude of
events we currently have in our Competition
Regulations, Radio Control 3-D Aerobatics,
and a recent letter I received from the North
American Speed Society (NASS—our SIG
for CL Speed) in response to a letter I
received from a member a couple of months
ago and published in this column.
Every few years I seem to get into a
discussion with someone regarding the
multitude of events we currently have in our
Competition Regulations (rule book). The
discussion always seems to go the same way.
Whomever I’m talking to feels we simply
have too many events in the rule book. I
agree. However, no one ever seems willing to
consider putting a rules-change proposal in to
cut any!
Believe me, the FF community would not
mind a CL Aerobatics event being eliminated,
but I expect the CL Aerobatics community
would have a problem with it. Of course they
wouldn’t care if an FF event or two were
eliminated, and so the story goes.
So, do we have too many events in the
rule book? The real question is, do we have
events in the rule book that are seldom, if
ever, flown? I have a suspicion that the
answer to that question is yes. Yet we have no
vehicle to automatically eliminate any events,
and I’ve already pointed out that it is very rare
that the community involved ever would.
How do we eliminate events that no longer
have a national following? I wish I had a clear
and concise answer to that question.
Here’s another angle to it all: should we
be adding/maintaining events that are based
on nostalgia or older designs, or should the
events all be current technology or be
pushing the competitive envelope?
Should we have some sort of standard that
states that if the event is not flown at so many
sanctioned events in a given time period, it is
automatically eliminated? Should we be
relying on the Contest Boards to eliminate
events that are no longer popular? Of course if
that were the case, we’d need to give them the
power to do so. Should AMA HQ have that
power? (I don’t think so!)
So what do we do? Do we need to do
anything? My feeling is that we do. I shudder
to think what our rule book will look like 10
or 15 years from now if we don’t. I’d
appreciate hearing from you on this topic.
Perhaps together we can come up with a
solution that will work for the majority of us.
Now let’s discuss adding events! How’s that
for a switch? Talk about talking out of both
sides of my mouth!
3-D RC Aerobatics is becoming
increasingly popular. It is being flown with
everything from 50% Scale Aerobatics models
to lightweight foam models (indoors and
outdoors) to helicopters (indoors and
outdoors). The manufacturers have embraced
this type of flying by providing more models
and accessories specific to this type of flying.
These routines are choreographed to
music, and the scores are typically based in
part on the music selection and how well the
routine was choreographed to the music along
with other criteria. The popular XFC in Ohio
is based on this type of flying.
3-D flying has also been much maligned
by some people. In most cases, due to the
person flying or, more important, the way the
person was flying, the criticism may have
been warranted, After all, “we modelers”
often tend to be our own worst enemies. We
really need to learn to respect each other, but I
digress.
The point is that this is a new segment of
our sport, and it is very popular. It draws huge
crowds to event that include it. It is high
power, high energy, and includes popular
music. In short, it may be the spectator end of
our sport that we need to “front page” model
aviation again.
That said, it is also a huge amount of fun to
fly, and that is the main thing, isn’t it? It is an
event in which you can let your creativity run
wild without being too constrained by rules.
Speaking of rules, I’m of the opinion that
rules are just what we need. Certainly events
like the XFC have good sets of rules;
however, we currently have no national
standard. This will only happen if we get
together, agree on a set of rules, and submit
them for consideration and publication in the
AMA Competition Regulations.
I’ve been talking to a small group of
principle players in the 3-D game and asked
them to consider helping move these events
forward. If you’d like to work on this as well,
feel free to do so. I do feel an organized effort
would be best, so if you’d like to be put in
touch with those I know are currently working
on it, contact me.
I also feel that getting 3-D events into the
rule book may help others understand more
about the events/maneuvers being flown.
Education is often, if not always, the key to
understanding.
This is an exciting time for our sport.
Battery technology and manufacturing
advances in general have helped move us into
a new generation of modelers and the way in
which we fly.
Finally, in the January 2005 issue I published
part of a letter I received from Leader Member
Mr. Robert Spahr regarding the methods we
use for pull testing CL Speed models. Mr.
Spahr felt that the current method could be
dangerous if the line were to break and the
modeler fell onto the model. In his letter he
suggested an alternate method of performing
the pull test.
I suggested in the column that if others felt
Mr. Spahr’s method was a better way, they
consider authoring a Rules Change Proposal.
Our SIG for CL Speed (NASS) does not feel
the method presented by Mr. Spahr is
acceptable and, in fact, took exception to the
fact that I suggested a proposal be authored if
members felt it appropriate.
The intention of my comments was not to
state a proposal should be authored, but to
throw the comments out there for the
consideration of Speed fliers. I actually wrote,
“What do you think? If this seems like a
better, safer way of doing a pull test, how
about someone authoring a Rules Change
Proposal?”
I’ve reproduced the relevant parts of the
letter from NASS below. You decide for
yourself.
“NASS understands that anyone can send
a concern to the AMA. The problem we have
is the reaction of the AMA Technical
Director, requesting in his column ‘how about
someone authoring a Rule Change Proposal?’
He admitted in his column that he was ‘not a
Speed flier,’ we feel that his response was
inappropriate at least and uncalled for at
worst.
“The North American Speed Society is
recognized by the A.M.A. as the body of
experts for the control line speed segment of
model aviation. We feel that an appropriate
response to this concern would have been to
refer Mr. Spar’s concern to NASS or the
Control Line Speed Contest Board.
“The AMA rules for pull testing the tether
and control system of a control line airplane
specifies that the pilot must apply the pull
test, unassisted, before each flight attempt;
the pilot must hold the fuselage and not the
wing of the airplane; and the pull must be of
the amount specified under the rules.
“Because of required high pull loads,
especially with the larger classes of Control
Line Speed airplanes, pull test scales are not
held by an official but are affixed to a solid
object or post. The official cannot simply
relieve a hand held load at the specified value
on the scale, but must communicate with the
pilot pulling the model as to when the
specified load is reached.
“It is very important that pull tests do not
exceed the specified load, so the pilot must be
told when to relieve the load. This is usually
done with hand signals. Shouting to the pilot
as much as 70 feet away is not safe as contests
are usually noisy and the command may not
be heard. Therefore the pilot must face the
scales and the official to see the hand signals
to stop the pull.
“The proper way for the pilot to perform a
pull test is to face down the lines to the
control handle and the pull test scale, hold the
airplane steady with hands and arms, place
one foot behind the other, keep the body low,
and pull with the legs and lower body. If a
part of the control system and tether breaks,
you simply keep your balance with the span
of your foot placement.
“After observing many years of pull tests
at AMA Sanctioned contests, and several line
brakes during pull tests, we have never seen
an airplane be pulled into a pilot’s chest. We
have very rarely seen a pilot fall down.
“The North American Speed Society sees
no need for a rules change proposal. Instead
we suggest oversight of pilots to insure the
pull test is performed properly and safely.
This will insure the integrity of the tether and
control system of an airplane.”
Till next time ... MA
Edition: Model Aviation - 2005/04
Page Numbers: 183,187
Edition: Model Aviation - 2005/04
Page Numbers: 183,187
April 2005 183
F o c u s o n C o m p e t i t i o n
Technical Director Steve Kaluf
[email protected]
I HOPE THIS column finds you enjoying
good weather and lots of time to practice or
test fly. For me, since this is being written in
late January and early February, it’s kind of
depressing outside where I am—cold and
snowy.
I have three different things I’d like to
write about this month: the multitude of
events we currently have in our Competition
Regulations, Radio Control 3-D Aerobatics,
and a recent letter I received from the North
American Speed Society (NASS—our SIG
for CL Speed) in response to a letter I
received from a member a couple of months
ago and published in this column.
Every few years I seem to get into a
discussion with someone regarding the
multitude of events we currently have in our
Competition Regulations (rule book). The
discussion always seems to go the same way.
Whomever I’m talking to feels we simply
have too many events in the rule book. I
agree. However, no one ever seems willing to
consider putting a rules-change proposal in to
cut any!
Believe me, the FF community would not
mind a CL Aerobatics event being eliminated,
but I expect the CL Aerobatics community
would have a problem with it. Of course they
wouldn’t care if an FF event or two were
eliminated, and so the story goes.
So, do we have too many events in the
rule book? The real question is, do we have
events in the rule book that are seldom, if
ever, flown? I have a suspicion that the
answer to that question is yes. Yet we have no
vehicle to automatically eliminate any events,
and I’ve already pointed out that it is very rare
that the community involved ever would.
How do we eliminate events that no longer
have a national following? I wish I had a clear
and concise answer to that question.
Here’s another angle to it all: should we
be adding/maintaining events that are based
on nostalgia or older designs, or should the
events all be current technology or be
pushing the competitive envelope?
Should we have some sort of standard that
states that if the event is not flown at so many
sanctioned events in a given time period, it is
automatically eliminated? Should we be
relying on the Contest Boards to eliminate
events that are no longer popular? Of course if
that were the case, we’d need to give them the
power to do so. Should AMA HQ have that
power? (I don’t think so!)
So what do we do? Do we need to do
anything? My feeling is that we do. I shudder
to think what our rule book will look like 10
or 15 years from now if we don’t. I’d
appreciate hearing from you on this topic.
Perhaps together we can come up with a
solution that will work for the majority of us.
Now let’s discuss adding events! How’s that
for a switch? Talk about talking out of both
sides of my mouth!
3-D RC Aerobatics is becoming
increasingly popular. It is being flown with
everything from 50% Scale Aerobatics models
to lightweight foam models (indoors and
outdoors) to helicopters (indoors and
outdoors). The manufacturers have embraced
this type of flying by providing more models
and accessories specific to this type of flying.
These routines are choreographed to
music, and the scores are typically based in
part on the music selection and how well the
routine was choreographed to the music along
with other criteria. The popular XFC in Ohio
is based on this type of flying.
3-D flying has also been much maligned
by some people. In most cases, due to the
person flying or, more important, the way the
person was flying, the criticism may have
been warranted, After all, “we modelers”
often tend to be our own worst enemies. We
really need to learn to respect each other, but I
digress.
The point is that this is a new segment of
our sport, and it is very popular. It draws huge
crowds to event that include it. It is high
power, high energy, and includes popular
music. In short, it may be the spectator end of
our sport that we need to “front page” model
aviation again.
That said, it is also a huge amount of fun to
fly, and that is the main thing, isn’t it? It is an
event in which you can let your creativity run
wild without being too constrained by rules.
Speaking of rules, I’m of the opinion that
rules are just what we need. Certainly events
like the XFC have good sets of rules;
however, we currently have no national
standard. This will only happen if we get
together, agree on a set of rules, and submit
them for consideration and publication in the
AMA Competition Regulations.
I’ve been talking to a small group of
principle players in the 3-D game and asked
them to consider helping move these events
forward. If you’d like to work on this as well,
feel free to do so. I do feel an organized effort
would be best, so if you’d like to be put in
touch with those I know are currently working
on it, contact me.
I also feel that getting 3-D events into the
rule book may help others understand more
about the events/maneuvers being flown.
Education is often, if not always, the key to
understanding.
This is an exciting time for our sport.
Battery technology and manufacturing
advances in general have helped move us into
a new generation of modelers and the way in
which we fly.
Finally, in the January 2005 issue I published
part of a letter I received from Leader Member
Mr. Robert Spahr regarding the methods we
use for pull testing CL Speed models. Mr.
Spahr felt that the current method could be
dangerous if the line were to break and the
modeler fell onto the model. In his letter he
suggested an alternate method of performing
the pull test.
I suggested in the column that if others felt
Mr. Spahr’s method was a better way, they
consider authoring a Rules Change Proposal.
Our SIG for CL Speed (NASS) does not feel
the method presented by Mr. Spahr is
acceptable and, in fact, took exception to the
fact that I suggested a proposal be authored if
members felt it appropriate.
The intention of my comments was not to
state a proposal should be authored, but to
throw the comments out there for the
consideration of Speed fliers. I actually wrote,
“What do you think? If this seems like a
better, safer way of doing a pull test, how
about someone authoring a Rules Change
Proposal?”
I’ve reproduced the relevant parts of the
letter from NASS below. You decide for
yourself.
“NASS understands that anyone can send
a concern to the AMA. The problem we have
is the reaction of the AMA Technical
Director, requesting in his column ‘how about
someone authoring a Rule Change Proposal?’
He admitted in his column that he was ‘not a
Speed flier,’ we feel that his response was
inappropriate at least and uncalled for at
worst.
“The North American Speed Society is
recognized by the A.M.A. as the body of
experts for the control line speed segment of
model aviation. We feel that an appropriate
response to this concern would have been to
refer Mr. Spar’s concern to NASS or the
Control Line Speed Contest Board.
“The AMA rules for pull testing the tether
and control system of a control line airplane
specifies that the pilot must apply the pull
test, unassisted, before each flight attempt;
the pilot must hold the fuselage and not the
wing of the airplane; and the pull must be of
the amount specified under the rules.
“Because of required high pull loads,
especially with the larger classes of Control
Line Speed airplanes, pull test scales are not
held by an official but are affixed to a solid
object or post. The official cannot simply
relieve a hand held load at the specified value
on the scale, but must communicate with the
pilot pulling the model as to when the
specified load is reached.
“It is very important that pull tests do not
exceed the specified load, so the pilot must be
told when to relieve the load. This is usually
done with hand signals. Shouting to the pilot
as much as 70 feet away is not safe as contests
are usually noisy and the command may not
be heard. Therefore the pilot must face the
scales and the official to see the hand signals
to stop the pull.
“The proper way for the pilot to perform a
pull test is to face down the lines to the
control handle and the pull test scale, hold the
airplane steady with hands and arms, place
one foot behind the other, keep the body low,
and pull with the legs and lower body. If a
part of the control system and tether breaks,
you simply keep your balance with the span
of your foot placement.
“After observing many years of pull tests
at AMA Sanctioned contests, and several line
brakes during pull tests, we have never seen
an airplane be pulled into a pilot’s chest. We
have very rarely seen a pilot fall down.
“The North American Speed Society sees
no need for a rules change proposal. Instead
we suggest oversight of pilots to insure the
pull test is performed properly and safely.
This will insure the integrity of the tether and
control system of an airplane.”
Till next time ... MA