Re: Re: Input needed - Indoor AMA FF Rule Changes

From: Ron Williams <groncan_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 23:40:00 -0400

It seems the answer to the BOM question might not lie in resolving it but
in giving each side a place. Two events. One, BOM only, the other supported
by paid makers. Which would be an FAI event? Vacillate, try one, then the
other. There's no hurry. Make it interesting. Opinions never . . . well, .
. .

As far as attracting more builders and an approach to high tech, make an
event for the old non-carbon, non-boron, balsa and tungsten F1D. It's
interesting to note that golf's Masters tournament had less that 100
qualify for this year's event. How many, from how many countries made it to
French Lick?

Ron

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Don DeLoach ddeloach_at_comcast.net
[Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> Dear Leo,
>
> Do the Imperial stormtroopers build the weapons they use to fight the
> rebels? More importantly, do the Jedi care? No, because the Jedi have The
> Force.
>
> DD
>
> On Apr 9, 2018, at 5:29 PM, leop_at_lyradev.com [Indoor_Construction] <
> Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Don,
>
> I usually have exchanges like this privately rather than on a public
> forum. However, the BOM issue is much too important not do have everything
> said and done publicly and in the most transparent way possible. I had
> hoped that after nearly a week of reflection you might come you understand
> that dismissive and incendiary replies or posts add nothing to your
> publicly stated desire "to thoughtfully consider the Builder of the Model
> Rule."
>
> In a previous reply, I brought up the concern that your assertions about
> how free flighters (I hope you were referring to indoor models rather than
> all modelers) would rather fly than build and how indoor Free flight was
> shrinking relative to other model aircraft flying were not accompanied by
> supporting data. In this reply, I would like to discuss directly the
> proposed BOM rule elimination.
>
> There are actually two different discussions of the BOM rules taking place
> at this time. One, brought about by the use of purchased vp hubs at the
> recent Indoor World Championships, is concerned with the where and how to
> draw the line between model parts and components that can be purchased and
> used in the construction of a model and those which must be made by the
> modeler. I suspect that it will be very difficult to find more than just a
> few indoor modelers who want to completely do away with the BOM rule for
> indoor rubber powered models. Even with the AMA's more exact BOM wording,
> the line is not clear at all, especially for FAI class models.
>
> However, your proposed AMA rule change goes all the way in eliminating the
> BOM rule for the recently enacted P18 class. We have not even gone one
> rules cycle without your proposing a major change to that class that has
> not yet had time to its growth potential. And, the reasons given for not
> having the BOM rule for this class are already being used for indoor
> contests during the last decade.
>
> Since 2010 or so, the Indoor Nats has had available the LPP Pro-Am event
> where LPP's are loaned out (and sometime given away) to beginning fliers to
> fly. At the last two Nats, P18 kits were given away, a building program
> was held, and the models were flown by junior age fliers. Furthermore,
> ever since I started flying AMA contest in April of 2010, models and parts
> have always been loaned to for other to try and fly. As you well know,
> Kang and I loaned out our SO models during our very first AMa contest at
> Tustin to junior (and some older) who wanted to try indoor flying. In
> fact, at all nearly all AMA contests I have attended, people were allowed
> and even encouraged to fly with models or parts they had not built
> themselves. The BOM rule did not keep people (who did not build for
> whatever reason) from flying. The only restriction was that such flight
> times did not count in the scores or for records. So, it is not at all
> obvious that the BOM rule is keeping people out of indoor flying as anyone
> and everyone can still actually fly indoor models.
>
> I also think it unwise to take what is called, by the proposers of the P18
> class, a beginners' class, any reward for building the model on one's own.
> The question we should all be asking is if we want to keep craftsmanship as
> a necessary part of our indoor programs. Some think that this is part of
> what makes the sport of indoor flying something special. Going back to the
> first discussion of the line to be drawn by the BOM rule, that is a
> question of what level of craftsmanship and building is sufficient to
> preserve that part of our sport. I like to compare this to the Jedi
> training in the Star Wars movie sagas. A vp hub is thought by some to be a
> rite-of-passage for competing (notice that I say competing, not flying) in
> three of the four FAI rubber powered classes. This is similar to one of
> the final tests before a trainee becomes a Jedi Knight. One of the final
> trials, was for the trainee to build his own light saber. Some in our
> indoor sport feel this way about vp hubs. Some do not. But few, if any,
> think that personal craftsmanship should not be a component of the sport.
>
> LeoP
>
>
>
Received on Tue Apr 10 2018 - 03:40:06 CEST