On 23.10.2012 4:21, f1diddler wrote:
> --- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "John Barker"
> <john.barker783_at_...> wrote:
>
>
>> truth to tell, I had forgotten that English Indoor flyers had had
>> another go at writing a BOM rule, which now reads as follows:
>> *The entrant must be the constructor of the model. The constructor may
>> employ generally available building aids or small components in the
>> production of their model but the airframe must be the competitor's own
>> work.
>>
>> All the Indoor flyers I have met I regard as my friends so I hope
>> none will be offended when I say that I think this 'new rule' only
>> supports my contention that NOBODY COULD WRITE A SENSIBLE BOM RULE. >>
>
> I fail to understand how a rule that is incomplete and/or fails to
> anticipate prickly problems as they arise is therefore NOT SENSIBLE, and
> therefore discarded in favor of something that instates the opposite
> intention of the erstwhile rule--BAM (Buy A Model.)
>
I must agree with John, that writing a sensible BOM rule is, if not
impossible, at least very hard. If you say that you must build the
airframe yourself, what does it mean? Can you buy a finished wing? No.
Uncovered wing? No. ready-cut spars and ribs? Er, no? Ready cut balsa
sheet to cut spars from? Yes! And so on... in practice you would need to
name every part or partial part that can be purchased, and this could
not take into account any novel parts in the construction...
So for outdoor, where I do not consider building of the model a crusial
part of the hobby, I feel that it was a wise decision to lift the BOM
rule altogether. For indoor the case is different, and as much as I hate
to admit this, I feel we need to apply the "spirit" of the rules instead
of trying to produce precise wording. But then, this leads to problems
of interpretation. For instance, if the VP hub part of the airframe or
just a small part? In my view it is an essential part and should be
constructed by the flier, but rules are ambiguous about that, and again
you should name each part that needs to be built by the fliers to make a
clear rule....
I'm not saying that lifting the rule altogether was a solution, but I am
afraid that it would be the only way to get rid of the problem of
interpretation issues.
-Tapio-
Received on Mon Oct 22 2012 - 22:07:43 CEST
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:47 CET