I RECEIVED A request from John Konneker, asking me to let the
general AMA membership know that he was in the process of putting
together a rules-cycle proposal survey for the AMA RC Aerobatics
(Pattern) competition classes 401-404. Before I get into the details of
John’s request, let’s look at why the rules for Aerobatics change at all
and why we really need to keep up with the times in this sport.
There is an old engineering phrase that “form follows function,”
meaning that the physical shape of a design usually follows on after the
mechanics have been completed, to achieve the desired technical
result. In the world of competition, there is another, not so welldefined,
phrase: “design changes follow rule changes.”
You can see this clearly in Formula 1 car racing. Look at the
Formula 1 rules 10 years ago and look at the cars of that era. Then
compare them with the cars of today.
Without going into detail, you can observe unmistakable external
changes that keep the cars competitive and aerodynamically efficient.
Today’s cars hug the track, but they can go fast, if not faster, with less
available engine. All of these changes came about because the FAI
world motor-racing body made changes to the FAI motor-racing
sporting handbook/rules.
It may surprise you to know that the international world of
precision Aerobatics also falls under the auspices of the FAI. Rules
changes that are made at the international level usually have a marked
effect on what and how we eventually fly in the AMA classes.
The FAI rules-change process operates on a two-year
cycle. The AMA rules-change cycle for Pattern adopted the
same cycle a couple of years ago, but it is one year out of
sync.
In the AMA process, it takes two years to gather change
requests and ideas, turn them into a survey for interested
AMA members, publish that survey, and then gather all the
replies, tally the polls, etc. Based on a majority, the answers
are then turned into proposals that are submitted to the
AMA.
The AMA event director submits those proposals to the
RC Aerobatics Contest Board members for their votes.
There are 11 people on that board—one member from each
AMA district—and a chairperson. (You can find this
information in the “Focus on Competition” section in MA
and on the AMA Web site under competition news.)
The AMA does not typically administer the survey and
100 MODEL AVIATION
But what about the pilots who are
climbing the skills ladder and those who
have, either by achievement or results, stayed
at the national level? Their schedules and
rules have changed in the last 20 years,
almost every three years and now two years.
Sometimes it is only a rules modification,
with the schedules staying the same, or both
might be altered at the same time.
One rules change was the adoption of the
maximum engine size of 1.20 for fourstrokes
when the limit was .61 for twostrokes.
This allowed the developing US
pilots to be competitive with four-stroke
engines. The FAI pilots were already there,
but those coming up behind them in the
AMA classes could benefit from the larger
engines permitted.
(The engine-size limit was eventually
lifted, and the maximum airframe size of 2
meters [78.625 inches] and weight limit of 5
kilograms [11 pounds] more effectively
controlled what was in the airplane. The FAI
sound limits also began to make their way
into AMA RC Aerobatics rules.)
It is important to point out that there was
no trickle-down effect from the FAI rules to
the AMA rules. It
took a lot of
concerted effort and
the application of
The Partner by Quique Somenzini embodies much current design
thinking for more constant speed and easy rolling and great
vertical performance.
These two turnaround designs followed on closely to each other.
The Hydeaway has easier rolling-circle performance than the
Hydeout.
The Impact (foreground) looks similar to
the Vision (behind it), yet only the Impact
complies with the Pattern rules.
poll. It is done by the SIGs for their
respective competition classes. Not all SIGs
poll their memberships as described in the
preceding. Some tend to use their own
elected governing bodies.
For the International Miniature Aerobatic
Club (IMAC), there is an external force
called the International Aerobatics
Committee (IAC) that governs full-scale
aerobatics. The IAC changes its aerobatic
schedules every year, and the IMAC
schedules are usually modified to reflect
these changes wherever practicable.
The FAI international rules changes for
Pattern exert an external pressure, but it is
different from that of the full-scale aerobatics
world. When the FAI changes a rule or an
aerobatic schedule, there is no requirement
for AMA classes 401-404 to change.
The AMA class for competitive FAI
flying is 406. This schedule of aerobatic
maneuvers updates automatically to adopt
the current FAI schedule. This keeps our FAI
pilots in lockstep with the rest of the world
and allows AMA “local” contests to facilitate
the flying of international schedules.
So far, we have looked at why, how, and
what causes the international class (406) to
change. However, in the US there is a large
body of Pattern pilots who never fly FAI
schedules. Their classes are Sportsman (401),
Intermediate (402), Advanced (403), and
Masters (404).
These categories’ original design intent
was to create a ladder that pilots could climb
as their skills progressed. A goal of this
ladder system was to produce world-class
pilots to represent and win for the US. This
has been a successful program in many
ways.
In the last couple of decades, the US has
usually been in the top three finishers in the
team competition and individual World
Championships standings. In many cases we
have won one or both.
collective wisdom to change what people
had become used to.
In the 1980s, Pattern pilots were happy
with what they were flying. The schedules
allowed you to make long, high-speed
approaches into an aerobatic area, where you
were judged. You then left the “scene of the
crime” to set up for the next maneuver. An
axial roll at roughly 170 mph looked like it
was on a wire and took up a big piece of sky.
All was well with the world until the FAI
came along and adopted turnaround
schedules. Pandemonium broke out in the
establishment. The FAI pilots adapted, as
they always do, but the AMA classes were in
trouble.
The older-design models did not like
staying inside a 60° flying area, or “box” as
it became known. It was evident that the
existing designs needed much more rudder
and elevator help when flying slower. These
inputs had not been needed at the higher
speeds.
New designs soon emerged that would
provide better vertical performance for the
turnaround maneuvers. They also rolled well
at the slower speeds and required fewer
corrective inputs. The new models flew at a
more constant speed in level flight, as well as
up and down the aerobatic lines.
Pattern airplanes such as the A-6 Intruder
03sig4.QXD 1/26/09 10:15 AM Page 100
could no longer be competitive in the
turnaround box. Fortunately, the SPA (Senior
Pattern Association) has resurrected these
beautiful designs and is basically flying the
old schedules for the Pattern veterans.
This pulls us back to the question of what
made the design changes in the last 20 years.
It is simple really; modify the rules, and the
designs of Pattern models change. It was not
just change for the sake of change. FAI
turnaround schedules created a real paradigm
shift in Pattern aircraft design.
There were many designs that sought to
take advantage of the shift. But more
significant is that the AMA rules had to
change to make this happen. There was
massive resistance to these alterations. Pattern
pilots liked the old nonturnaround routines
that did not vary much.
That is probably because a major
differentiator for Pattern flying is that the
schedules are practiced a lot—for years, in
some cases. Practicing a routine hundreds of
times gives you “muscle memory,” especially
to that mental muscle between your ears.
Flying the same schedule in both
directions and in many varying flying
environments teaches you to correct for things
such as different wind directions. Turnaround
schedules require a different flying style and
constant planning and positioning for the next
maneuver.
Add to the challenge of turnaround that
the schedules are updated every two or three
years, and you can see that Pattern flying
became much harder. Not only did that
happen, but model designs and engines, up to
the current use of incredibly powerful electric
motors, changed more often than the
schedules.
These changes did not happen slowly and,
in hindsight, more attention could have been
paid to the US Pattern-pilot contingent. This
makes the case that you should take extra
time to look at what changes are being
proposed and what you think should be done.
By now you should have realized that
AMA rules changes are not an osmotic
process that is caused by FAI rules changes.
This brings us back to the request for AMA
membership involvement in the next/current
rules-change cycle.
I am including part of the note that John
Konneker sent me. If you are interested in
contributing your ideas or voting on the
Pattern survey, he will tell you how to get
involved. Precision Aerobatics considers that
all interested AMA members should have a
chance to join in the process of determining
the future of the sport of Pattern.
John wrote:
“On January 1, 2009 the two year process
of making changes begins. That’s right! A
proposal that is submitted and makes its way
through the process to become a rule won’t
take effect until January 1, 2011. If we don’t
take advantage of this cycle the next cycle’s
rule changes become effective January 1,
2013.
“I have volunteered to collect all the
proposals that folks wish to submit, group
them in to a survey so that all AMA members
may be polled, then convert them in to official
rules proposals that will be submitted to the
AMA Aerobatics Contest Board for
consideration.
“You can read about the procedure on
page four of the AMA General Rules. [See
the Sources list.] You can see your contest
board members under “Aerobatics.”
“Now is your chance to help make pattern
better. No matter what class you fly or what
organization you belong to, you can help.
Please send your proposals to John L.
Konneker via e-mail. [His contact information
is in the “Sources” list.]
“Please note that individual AMA
members have the right to submit their
proposals independent of the SIG survey
process, but they are always invited to have
their suggestions included in the survey.”
Time to land. MA
Sources:
John L. Konneker
[email protected]
AMA competition rules general information:
www.modelaircraft.org/files/events/rulebooks
/0708general.pdf
Contest Board members listing:
www.modelaircraft.org/events/cbmembers
.aspx
Edition: Model Aviation - 2009/03
Page Numbers: 99,100,101
Edition: Model Aviation - 2009/03
Page Numbers: 99,100,101
I RECEIVED A request from John Konneker, asking me to let the
general AMA membership know that he was in the process of putting
together a rules-cycle proposal survey for the AMA RC Aerobatics
(Pattern) competition classes 401-404. Before I get into the details of
John’s request, let’s look at why the rules for Aerobatics change at all
and why we really need to keep up with the times in this sport.
There is an old engineering phrase that “form follows function,”
meaning that the physical shape of a design usually follows on after the
mechanics have been completed, to achieve the desired technical
result. In the world of competition, there is another, not so welldefined,
phrase: “design changes follow rule changes.”
You can see this clearly in Formula 1 car racing. Look at the
Formula 1 rules 10 years ago and look at the cars of that era. Then
compare them with the cars of today.
Without going into detail, you can observe unmistakable external
changes that keep the cars competitive and aerodynamically efficient.
Today’s cars hug the track, but they can go fast, if not faster, with less
available engine. All of these changes came about because the FAI
world motor-racing body made changes to the FAI motor-racing
sporting handbook/rules.
It may surprise you to know that the international world of
precision Aerobatics also falls under the auspices of the FAI. Rules
changes that are made at the international level usually have a marked
effect on what and how we eventually fly in the AMA classes.
The FAI rules-change process operates on a two-year
cycle. The AMA rules-change cycle for Pattern adopted the
same cycle a couple of years ago, but it is one year out of
sync.
In the AMA process, it takes two years to gather change
requests and ideas, turn them into a survey for interested
AMA members, publish that survey, and then gather all the
replies, tally the polls, etc. Based on a majority, the answers
are then turned into proposals that are submitted to the
AMA.
The AMA event director submits those proposals to the
RC Aerobatics Contest Board members for their votes.
There are 11 people on that board—one member from each
AMA district—and a chairperson. (You can find this
information in the “Focus on Competition” section in MA
and on the AMA Web site under competition news.)
The AMA does not typically administer the survey and
100 MODEL AVIATION
But what about the pilots who are
climbing the skills ladder and those who
have, either by achievement or results, stayed
at the national level? Their schedules and
rules have changed in the last 20 years,
almost every three years and now two years.
Sometimes it is only a rules modification,
with the schedules staying the same, or both
might be altered at the same time.
One rules change was the adoption of the
maximum engine size of 1.20 for fourstrokes
when the limit was .61 for twostrokes.
This allowed the developing US
pilots to be competitive with four-stroke
engines. The FAI pilots were already there,
but those coming up behind them in the
AMA classes could benefit from the larger
engines permitted.
(The engine-size limit was eventually
lifted, and the maximum airframe size of 2
meters [78.625 inches] and weight limit of 5
kilograms [11 pounds] more effectively
controlled what was in the airplane. The FAI
sound limits also began to make their way
into AMA RC Aerobatics rules.)
It is important to point out that there was
no trickle-down effect from the FAI rules to
the AMA rules. It
took a lot of
concerted effort and
the application of
The Partner by Quique Somenzini embodies much current design
thinking for more constant speed and easy rolling and great
vertical performance.
These two turnaround designs followed on closely to each other.
The Hydeaway has easier rolling-circle performance than the
Hydeout.
The Impact (foreground) looks similar to
the Vision (behind it), yet only the Impact
complies with the Pattern rules.
poll. It is done by the SIGs for their
respective competition classes. Not all SIGs
poll their memberships as described in the
preceding. Some tend to use their own
elected governing bodies.
For the International Miniature Aerobatic
Club (IMAC), there is an external force
called the International Aerobatics
Committee (IAC) that governs full-scale
aerobatics. The IAC changes its aerobatic
schedules every year, and the IMAC
schedules are usually modified to reflect
these changes wherever practicable.
The FAI international rules changes for
Pattern exert an external pressure, but it is
different from that of the full-scale aerobatics
world. When the FAI changes a rule or an
aerobatic schedule, there is no requirement
for AMA classes 401-404 to change.
The AMA class for competitive FAI
flying is 406. This schedule of aerobatic
maneuvers updates automatically to adopt
the current FAI schedule. This keeps our FAI
pilots in lockstep with the rest of the world
and allows AMA “local” contests to facilitate
the flying of international schedules.
So far, we have looked at why, how, and
what causes the international class (406) to
change. However, in the US there is a large
body of Pattern pilots who never fly FAI
schedules. Their classes are Sportsman (401),
Intermediate (402), Advanced (403), and
Masters (404).
These categories’ original design intent
was to create a ladder that pilots could climb
as their skills progressed. A goal of this
ladder system was to produce world-class
pilots to represent and win for the US. This
has been a successful program in many
ways.
In the last couple of decades, the US has
usually been in the top three finishers in the
team competition and individual World
Championships standings. In many cases we
have won one or both.
collective wisdom to change what people
had become used to.
In the 1980s, Pattern pilots were happy
with what they were flying. The schedules
allowed you to make long, high-speed
approaches into an aerobatic area, where you
were judged. You then left the “scene of the
crime” to set up for the next maneuver. An
axial roll at roughly 170 mph looked like it
was on a wire and took up a big piece of sky.
All was well with the world until the FAI
came along and adopted turnaround
schedules. Pandemonium broke out in the
establishment. The FAI pilots adapted, as
they always do, but the AMA classes were in
trouble.
The older-design models did not like
staying inside a 60° flying area, or “box” as
it became known. It was evident that the
existing designs needed much more rudder
and elevator help when flying slower. These
inputs had not been needed at the higher
speeds.
New designs soon emerged that would
provide better vertical performance for the
turnaround maneuvers. They also rolled well
at the slower speeds and required fewer
corrective inputs. The new models flew at a
more constant speed in level flight, as well as
up and down the aerobatic lines.
Pattern airplanes such as the A-6 Intruder
03sig4.QXD 1/26/09 10:15 AM Page 100
could no longer be competitive in the
turnaround box. Fortunately, the SPA (Senior
Pattern Association) has resurrected these
beautiful designs and is basically flying the
old schedules for the Pattern veterans.
This pulls us back to the question of what
made the design changes in the last 20 years.
It is simple really; modify the rules, and the
designs of Pattern models change. It was not
just change for the sake of change. FAI
turnaround schedules created a real paradigm
shift in Pattern aircraft design.
There were many designs that sought to
take advantage of the shift. But more
significant is that the AMA rules had to
change to make this happen. There was
massive resistance to these alterations. Pattern
pilots liked the old nonturnaround routines
that did not vary much.
That is probably because a major
differentiator for Pattern flying is that the
schedules are practiced a lot—for years, in
some cases. Practicing a routine hundreds of
times gives you “muscle memory,” especially
to that mental muscle between your ears.
Flying the same schedule in both
directions and in many varying flying
environments teaches you to correct for things
such as different wind directions. Turnaround
schedules require a different flying style and
constant planning and positioning for the next
maneuver.
Add to the challenge of turnaround that
the schedules are updated every two or three
years, and you can see that Pattern flying
became much harder. Not only did that
happen, but model designs and engines, up to
the current use of incredibly powerful electric
motors, changed more often than the
schedules.
These changes did not happen slowly and,
in hindsight, more attention could have been
paid to the US Pattern-pilot contingent. This
makes the case that you should take extra
time to look at what changes are being
proposed and what you think should be done.
By now you should have realized that
AMA rules changes are not an osmotic
process that is caused by FAI rules changes.
This brings us back to the request for AMA
membership involvement in the next/current
rules-change cycle.
I am including part of the note that John
Konneker sent me. If you are interested in
contributing your ideas or voting on the
Pattern survey, he will tell you how to get
involved. Precision Aerobatics considers that
all interested AMA members should have a
chance to join in the process of determining
the future of the sport of Pattern.
John wrote:
“On January 1, 2009 the two year process
of making changes begins. That’s right! A
proposal that is submitted and makes its way
through the process to become a rule won’t
take effect until January 1, 2011. If we don’t
take advantage of this cycle the next cycle’s
rule changes become effective January 1,
2013.
“I have volunteered to collect all the
proposals that folks wish to submit, group
them in to a survey so that all AMA members
may be polled, then convert them in to official
rules proposals that will be submitted to the
AMA Aerobatics Contest Board for
consideration.
“You can read about the procedure on
page four of the AMA General Rules. [See
the Sources list.] You can see your contest
board members under “Aerobatics.”
“Now is your chance to help make pattern
better. No matter what class you fly or what
organization you belong to, you can help.
Please send your proposals to John L.
Konneker via e-mail. [His contact information
is in the “Sources” list.]
“Please note that individual AMA
members have the right to submit their
proposals independent of the SIG survey
process, but they are always invited to have
their suggestions included in the survey.”
Time to land. MA
Sources:
John L. Konneker
[email protected]
AMA competition rules general information:
www.modelaircraft.org/files/events/rulebooks
/0708general.pdf
Contest Board members listing:
www.modelaircraft.org/events/cbmembers
.aspx
Edition: Model Aviation - 2009/03
Page Numbers: 99,100,101
I RECEIVED A request from John Konneker, asking me to let the
general AMA membership know that he was in the process of putting
together a rules-cycle proposal survey for the AMA RC Aerobatics
(Pattern) competition classes 401-404. Before I get into the details of
John’s request, let’s look at why the rules for Aerobatics change at all
and why we really need to keep up with the times in this sport.
There is an old engineering phrase that “form follows function,”
meaning that the physical shape of a design usually follows on after the
mechanics have been completed, to achieve the desired technical
result. In the world of competition, there is another, not so welldefined,
phrase: “design changes follow rule changes.”
You can see this clearly in Formula 1 car racing. Look at the
Formula 1 rules 10 years ago and look at the cars of that era. Then
compare them with the cars of today.
Without going into detail, you can observe unmistakable external
changes that keep the cars competitive and aerodynamically efficient.
Today’s cars hug the track, but they can go fast, if not faster, with less
available engine. All of these changes came about because the FAI
world motor-racing body made changes to the FAI motor-racing
sporting handbook/rules.
It may surprise you to know that the international world of
precision Aerobatics also falls under the auspices of the FAI. Rules
changes that are made at the international level usually have a marked
effect on what and how we eventually fly in the AMA classes.
The FAI rules-change process operates on a two-year
cycle. The AMA rules-change cycle for Pattern adopted the
same cycle a couple of years ago, but it is one year out of
sync.
In the AMA process, it takes two years to gather change
requests and ideas, turn them into a survey for interested
AMA members, publish that survey, and then gather all the
replies, tally the polls, etc. Based on a majority, the answers
are then turned into proposals that are submitted to the
AMA.
The AMA event director submits those proposals to the
RC Aerobatics Contest Board members for their votes.
There are 11 people on that board—one member from each
AMA district—and a chairperson. (You can find this
information in the “Focus on Competition” section in MA
and on the AMA Web site under competition news.)
The AMA does not typically administer the survey and
100 MODEL AVIATION
But what about the pilots who are
climbing the skills ladder and those who
have, either by achievement or results, stayed
at the national level? Their schedules and
rules have changed in the last 20 years,
almost every three years and now two years.
Sometimes it is only a rules modification,
with the schedules staying the same, or both
might be altered at the same time.
One rules change was the adoption of the
maximum engine size of 1.20 for fourstrokes
when the limit was .61 for twostrokes.
This allowed the developing US
pilots to be competitive with four-stroke
engines. The FAI pilots were already there,
but those coming up behind them in the
AMA classes could benefit from the larger
engines permitted.
(The engine-size limit was eventually
lifted, and the maximum airframe size of 2
meters [78.625 inches] and weight limit of 5
kilograms [11 pounds] more effectively
controlled what was in the airplane. The FAI
sound limits also began to make their way
into AMA RC Aerobatics rules.)
It is important to point out that there was
no trickle-down effect from the FAI rules to
the AMA rules. It
took a lot of
concerted effort and
the application of
The Partner by Quique Somenzini embodies much current design
thinking for more constant speed and easy rolling and great
vertical performance.
These two turnaround designs followed on closely to each other.
The Hydeaway has easier rolling-circle performance than the
Hydeout.
The Impact (foreground) looks similar to
the Vision (behind it), yet only the Impact
complies with the Pattern rules.
poll. It is done by the SIGs for their
respective competition classes. Not all SIGs
poll their memberships as described in the
preceding. Some tend to use their own
elected governing bodies.
For the International Miniature Aerobatic
Club (IMAC), there is an external force
called the International Aerobatics
Committee (IAC) that governs full-scale
aerobatics. The IAC changes its aerobatic
schedules every year, and the IMAC
schedules are usually modified to reflect
these changes wherever practicable.
The FAI international rules changes for
Pattern exert an external pressure, but it is
different from that of the full-scale aerobatics
world. When the FAI changes a rule or an
aerobatic schedule, there is no requirement
for AMA classes 401-404 to change.
The AMA class for competitive FAI
flying is 406. This schedule of aerobatic
maneuvers updates automatically to adopt
the current FAI schedule. This keeps our FAI
pilots in lockstep with the rest of the world
and allows AMA “local” contests to facilitate
the flying of international schedules.
So far, we have looked at why, how, and
what causes the international class (406) to
change. However, in the US there is a large
body of Pattern pilots who never fly FAI
schedules. Their classes are Sportsman (401),
Intermediate (402), Advanced (403), and
Masters (404).
These categories’ original design intent
was to create a ladder that pilots could climb
as their skills progressed. A goal of this
ladder system was to produce world-class
pilots to represent and win for the US. This
has been a successful program in many
ways.
In the last couple of decades, the US has
usually been in the top three finishers in the
team competition and individual World
Championships standings. In many cases we
have won one or both.
collective wisdom to change what people
had become used to.
In the 1980s, Pattern pilots were happy
with what they were flying. The schedules
allowed you to make long, high-speed
approaches into an aerobatic area, where you
were judged. You then left the “scene of the
crime” to set up for the next maneuver. An
axial roll at roughly 170 mph looked like it
was on a wire and took up a big piece of sky.
All was well with the world until the FAI
came along and adopted turnaround
schedules. Pandemonium broke out in the
establishment. The FAI pilots adapted, as
they always do, but the AMA classes were in
trouble.
The older-design models did not like
staying inside a 60° flying area, or “box” as
it became known. It was evident that the
existing designs needed much more rudder
and elevator help when flying slower. These
inputs had not been needed at the higher
speeds.
New designs soon emerged that would
provide better vertical performance for the
turnaround maneuvers. They also rolled well
at the slower speeds and required fewer
corrective inputs. The new models flew at a
more constant speed in level flight, as well as
up and down the aerobatic lines.
Pattern airplanes such as the A-6 Intruder
03sig4.QXD 1/26/09 10:15 AM Page 100
could no longer be competitive in the
turnaround box. Fortunately, the SPA (Senior
Pattern Association) has resurrected these
beautiful designs and is basically flying the
old schedules for the Pattern veterans.
This pulls us back to the question of what
made the design changes in the last 20 years.
It is simple really; modify the rules, and the
designs of Pattern models change. It was not
just change for the sake of change. FAI
turnaround schedules created a real paradigm
shift in Pattern aircraft design.
There were many designs that sought to
take advantage of the shift. But more
significant is that the AMA rules had to
change to make this happen. There was
massive resistance to these alterations. Pattern
pilots liked the old nonturnaround routines
that did not vary much.
That is probably because a major
differentiator for Pattern flying is that the
schedules are practiced a lot—for years, in
some cases. Practicing a routine hundreds of
times gives you “muscle memory,” especially
to that mental muscle between your ears.
Flying the same schedule in both
directions and in many varying flying
environments teaches you to correct for things
such as different wind directions. Turnaround
schedules require a different flying style and
constant planning and positioning for the next
maneuver.
Add to the challenge of turnaround that
the schedules are updated every two or three
years, and you can see that Pattern flying
became much harder. Not only did that
happen, but model designs and engines, up to
the current use of incredibly powerful electric
motors, changed more often than the
schedules.
These changes did not happen slowly and,
in hindsight, more attention could have been
paid to the US Pattern-pilot contingent. This
makes the case that you should take extra
time to look at what changes are being
proposed and what you think should be done.
By now you should have realized that
AMA rules changes are not an osmotic
process that is caused by FAI rules changes.
This brings us back to the request for AMA
membership involvement in the next/current
rules-change cycle.
I am including part of the note that John
Konneker sent me. If you are interested in
contributing your ideas or voting on the
Pattern survey, he will tell you how to get
involved. Precision Aerobatics considers that
all interested AMA members should have a
chance to join in the process of determining
the future of the sport of Pattern.
John wrote:
“On January 1, 2009 the two year process
of making changes begins. That’s right! A
proposal that is submitted and makes its way
through the process to become a rule won’t
take effect until January 1, 2011. If we don’t
take advantage of this cycle the next cycle’s
rule changes become effective January 1,
2013.
“I have volunteered to collect all the
proposals that folks wish to submit, group
them in to a survey so that all AMA members
may be polled, then convert them in to official
rules proposals that will be submitted to the
AMA Aerobatics Contest Board for
consideration.
“You can read about the procedure on
page four of the AMA General Rules. [See
the Sources list.] You can see your contest
board members under “Aerobatics.”
“Now is your chance to help make pattern
better. No matter what class you fly or what
organization you belong to, you can help.
Please send your proposals to John L.
Konneker via e-mail. [His contact information
is in the “Sources” list.]
“Please note that individual AMA
members have the right to submit their
proposals independent of the SIG survey
process, but they are always invited to have
their suggestions included in the survey.”
Time to land. MA
Sources:
John L. Konneker
[email protected]
AMA competition rules general information:
www.modelaircraft.org/files/events/rulebooks
/0708general.pdf
Contest Board members listing:
www.modelaircraft.org/events/cbmembers
.aspx
