General cl organization

Stuka Stunt Main Forum · 42 of 42 known posts recovered

JohnT4051 · Nov 12, 2004 01:45 PM

While I've tried not to pay too much attention to the controversy over PAMPA leadership, I gather that some of the concern is about whether PAMPA should be an organization just for serious stunt fliers or should become more of a general CL organization. I won't express an opinion on that, but the discussion does rekindle an idealistic notion of mine ...
I've always thought that what the CL world needs is a *general* CL organization, which would encompass all categories.
I believe that CL is too small an activity to be fragmented into little groups (yes, even PAMPA is a little group in the grand scheme of things). I wish we could think of ourselves as "CL fliers," not "stunt fliers" or "combat fliers." We all need one another's help and support for the general hobby to survive.
I envision a national CL organzation that would *include* PAMPA, MACA, NCS, NASS and NCLRA as divisions, and possibly regional coverage as well. There would be one nice fat newsletter or magazine, one dues payment, and one voice with which to speak to AMA, to run Nats, etc., etc. This is somewhat like what we've done in the Northwest region with the Flying Lines newsletter.
Right now I pay dues to PAMPA, MACA NASS and NCLRA, not to mention AMA and my local club -- paying just to one CL org instead of to four would be nice! If I want to submit a contest report, I have to send it to six different newsletters; I would love to send it to just one place.
The bigger benefit I see would be that fliers in one type of competition would be aware of the issues, problems, developments, trials, tribulations and joys of the others. It could help promote mutal understanding and support. In unity there is strength.
Something like this was tried in the early '80s, but the focus was too narrow, aiming mainly at FAI competition, and it didn't catch on.
What I think would be just grand would be if the leaders of PAMPA, MACA, NCS, NASS and NCLRA would hold a summit meeting and look into something like this. I'd be the first to sign up.
--jt

John Thompson

http://members.aol.com/johnt4051/northwestcl.html

grzly23 · Nov 12, 2004 01:55 PM

#1 source

The name of your postulated organization is the "Academy of Model Aeronautics!" It already does all that you suggest.

Tom McClain

tomB · Nov 12, 2004 02:29 PM

#3 source

>The name of your postulated organization is the "Academy of
>Model Aeronautics!" It already does all that you suggest.

I have to disagree with you on that one - the AMA works for the herds of RC flyers, which represent the overwhelming majority of members. The AMA "preserves" CL competition, but they do not promote the CL hobby.

I suggested something of a similar nature (PAMPA as a general CL group) to explain the strategy being accused of John Brodak. I posted it on the big furball thread, but then deleted it. From the sound of it, the horse left the barn long ago with PAMPA membership - active competitors are a very small portion.

PAMPA is the most natural entry point for the general CL hobby. It may have evolved to that point anyway. Anyone who starts out in Control Line flying learns to maneuver. That profile job or trainer, once takeoff and landing is mastered, is used to first learn wingovers, loops, then lazy eights and even inverted flight. Specialization into Speed, Combat, Scale, Racing, or Carrier comes later. (There are always exceptions.)

It may be that John Brodak is simply trying to serve the majority of the membership and control line in general, rather than a small club group of hard-core competitors. Both are important, and may not be mutually exclusive. But it may be impossible to preserve today the same PAMPA that was created many years ago.

Tom B

grzly23 · Nov 12, 2004 03:32 PM

#4 source

Tom,

To change PAMPA you must go through the EC and Trustees to bring anything to the general membership. That is a hard fact and tough for some to digest. PAMPA is a representative democracy and the general membership can only vote on those things approved by the EC. Any effort to end run the EC will result in failure. If PAMPA is to to change, it will be a long involved process. The EC is pretty much oriented in maintaining the present charter of PAMPA and not changing. A bylaws change requires 2/3rds of the EC to agree and that is probably far from being a fact on changing the nature of PAMPA as a precision stunt advocacy organization.

Tom McClain

Jeff W · Nov 13, 2004 07:53 PM

#14 source

Yes and there are those at AMA who do try, but in the real world both Control line and Free flight most often FEEL like Little Red Riding Hood at Grandmothers house.

Jeff

mkedave · Nov 12, 2004 01:55 PM

#2 source

LAST EDITED ON Nov-12-04 AT 03:07 PM (CST)

Great idea, but keeping everyone happy might be a problem (too much PAMPA, not enough Speed, combat fliers fighting with everyone. blah blah)

Still a great idea.
Where do I sign up? I'm just a sport flier.

Dave

Just a sport flier

Jim T. · Nov 12, 2004 03:48 PM

#5 source

If we are so unified, how come there are five CL Contest Boards? Does anyone remember the general CL organization that lasted a few months back in the late 70's, maybe early 80's? I was a member.

Jim

Jim T.

JohnT4051 · Nov 12, 2004 04:25 PM

#8 source

LAST EDITED ON Nov-12-04 AT 04:26 PM (CST)

We are not unified, that's my point -- we should be.
We have five contest boards because members of one group convinced the AMA Executive committee that the unified Control-Line Contest Board was not knowledgable enough to make rules for their discipline (there was, as there often is, a lot more to the story which I won't go into here). I think the unified CLCB performed just fine, and the cross-pollination it provided was sometimes a benefit to all CL modelers. Nevertheless, that's gone, and it's symptomatic of what I'm saying about fragmentation. The split contest boards only aggravate the problems caused by our separation into distinct units. The quality of the various special interest groups varies wildly from very competent to pretty hit-or-miss, depending on the leadership and the number of people who support the group.
Regarding the general CL organization in the late 70s or early 80s, that's the group that I was referring to in my initial post. I was a member, too. It was fine for what it was but its focus was very narrow: Mostly FAI events. It needed broader leadership and a more general outlook. Still, I applauded the effort. I just think it could be done better if the leaders of the special interest groups would work together.
--jt

>If we are so unified, how come there are five CL Contest
>Boards? Does anyone remember the general CL organization
>that lasted a few months back in the late 70's, maybe early
>80's? I was a member.
>
>Jim

John Thompson

http://members.aol.com/johnt4051/northwestcl.html

ty marcucci · Nov 12, 2004 10:36 PM

#11 source

Hey Jim. I remember that organizaton. Too many interests and nobody wanted to do anything except fly. Did it actually last that long? Seems like it was around for three issues. SIG tried a magazine tuned to the beginner, sport flyer, general flyer, all events and got "shot" by his advertisers!

Dr Spark · Nov 12, 2004 03:49 PM

#6 source

We recently had an election for the PAMPA leadership. It was discouraging to me to learn of the sparse voter turnout. Anyway, we have elected new PAMPA officers, take it or leave it,

I think it was Brett who observed that he was surprised that anybody would actually want to run for office. The history of elected officials (PAMPA, AMA, and all other SIGs) has been that the person in office takes a bunch of flak from just about everyone with an axe to grind. I know that some of our elected officials have called it quits from the "slings and arrows", rather than stay in office.

We should realize that our elected people, for the most part, do their best. Arguments always come up, but these things should be settled at a local level, rather than blaming the people at the top, who really have no power to immediately make all things right for those who want quick changes.

Floyd

dirtydan · Nov 12, 2004 04:25 PM

#7 source

>We recently had an election for the PAMPA leadership. It
>was discouraging to me to learn of the sparse voter turnout.
> Anyway, we have elected new PAMPA officers, take it or
>leave it,
>
>Floyd

I don't remember actual numbers, but when seeing them do not remember "sparse" as being applicable.

District 11, I believe, had 34 voting, something less than 1/3 of the members. But we didn't have a District Director running for office.

I look around at those who are actually active in CL Stunt, either for sport or for competition, and 34 taking the time to vote seems representative, even if I would like to see a higher percentage checking in with an opinion
.

Dan

ferocious · Nov 12, 2004 08:32 PM

#9 source

I think this is a great idea John, if we can somehow get people to pull together instead of pull apart. I like all kinds of model flying, but CL has a permanent draw for me because of the hands on feedback. Keep thinking about ways it might be gotten to work.

Phil C

DMoon · Nov 12, 2004 09:12 PM

#10 source

This would never work. Speed guys would never want me to make a ruling on a rule for them and I would never want to do that too them. Nor would I want them making rulings for CLPA.

Instead of changing PAMPA. Why dont you start a Gen CL and structure it and figure it all out and then ask the other disciplines to join in the fun and go from there. This would be much more logical. Instead of changing a pretty good thing with no History of what could happen make a trial and work out the bigs and get it straight.

John B has proven that with SIMPLE TALK OF THE ADDITION of a few words he could cause the WHOLE membership to have convulsions and cardiac arrest at a moments notice.

Now tell me what will happen when you try to sell them on Non CLPA guys making rulings. Could be spilled blood from what I read. I think that is why the AMA went to SIGs in the first place. That way they dont have to "Deal" with all the crying. Just get the results post them and move on.

Doug Moon

JohnT4051 · Nov 13, 2004 02:04 AM

#12 source

A few minor corrections and additions ...
-- I never proposed anything to do with rules. I suggested that a general CL support and promotion organization (functioning the same way the SIGS do now but as a unified group), would benefit all CL modelers. I assume rules would continue to be made by AMA.
-- AMA's CL Contest Board, until a couple of years ago, made rules for all the different types, with very few problems. There were "generalists" on the board along with some specialists. There were advisory committees. There was an interchange of ideas prior to voting. The members consulted with experts in their districts asking for help on any questions that were out of their areas of specialty. Ultimately, the people who flew the affected events had the most influence over the rules. I think we had good rules as a result, by and large. But that's not the current structure; rules are now made entirely by specialists in the field, so there would not be an issue of someone other than CLPA fliers making CLPA rules.
-- AMA did not "go to SIGS" in their rules making process. The AMA has contest boards for each discipline; the SIGS are independent and advisory.
-- I did not suggest changing PAMPA. I suggested a confederation of all SIGS into one organization, with the current SIGs as divisions, sharing a newsletter, resources, and mutual support.
--jt

>This would never work. Speed guys would never want me to
>make a ruling on a rule for them and I would never want to
>do that too them. Nor would I want them making rulings for
>CLPA.
>
>Instead of changing PAMPA. Why dont you start a Gen CL and
>structure it and figure it all out and then ask the other
>disciplines to join in the fun and go from there. This
>would be much more logical. Instead of changing a pretty
>good thing with no History of what could happen make a trial
>and work out the bigs and get it straight.
>
>John B has proven that with SIMPLE TALK OF THE ADDITION of a
>few words he could cause the WHOLE membership to have
>convulsions and cardiac arrest at a moments notice.
>
>Now tell me what will happen when you try to sell them on
>Non CLPA guys making rulings. Could be spilled blood from
>what I read. I think that is why the AMA went to SIGs in
>the first place. That way they dont have to "Deal" with all
>the crying. Just get the results post them and move on.

John Thompson

http://members.aol.com/joh
nt4051/northwestcl.html

BillLee20018 · Nov 13, 2004 08:32 PM

#15 source

>A few minor corrections and additions ...
> -- I never proposed anything to do with rules. I suggested
>that a general CL support and promotion organization
>(functioning the same way the SIGS do now but as a unified
>group), would benefit all CL modelers. I assume rules would
>continue to be made by AMA.
> -- AMA's CL Contest Board, until a couple of years ago,
>made rules for all the different types, with very few
>problems. There were "generalists" on the board along with
>some specialists. There were advisory committees. There was
>an interchange of ideas prior to voting. The members
>consulted with experts in their districts asking for help on
>any questions that were out of their areas of specialty.
>Ultimately, the people who flew the affected events had the
>most influence over the rules. I think we had good rules as
>a result, by and large. But that's not the current
>structure; rules are now made entirely by specialists in the
>field, so there would not be an issue of someone other than
>CLPA fliers making CLPA rules.
> -- AMA did not "go to SIGS" in their rules making process.
> The AMA has contest boards for each discipline; the SIGS
>are independent and advisory.
> -- I did not suggest changing PAMPA. I suggested a
>confederation of all SIGS into one organization, with the
>current SIGs as divisions, sharing a newsletter, resources,
>and mutual support.
> --jt
>

I have read John's comments and general negative slant towards the restructured contest boards and I cannot let his comments go unchallenged.

The bottom line that John will not accept is that the "generalist" CL contest board did NOT work. Did not work AT ALL! I can cite many instances where the wishes of the SIG (specifically the CL Racing SIG) were simply dismissed by the "generalists", I guess because they knew better or something. There were no such thing as "advisory committees" once the SIGs begain serving in that role and the need for an official advisory committee evaporated. And that was proper, although unfortunately the SIGs were not given some of the powers that were accorded to an official advisory committee.

The separation of the CL Contest Board into something that TRULY represents those who fly the events was not something that came about recently. Oh, yes, it was FINALLY accomplished a couple of years ago, but I can attest that the suggestion that separate Contest Boards were needed can be found in Bill Boss' CL column in the old American Aircraft Modeler as far back as 1971. (I know it's there, I found it while visiting the library at AMA HQs.) I know I pushed for the same restructuring many times in the ensuing years, and we finally were successful.

The rationale for the change is quite simple: those who FLY the event make the RULES for the event. And I am sorry that John feels that a stunt flyer should make the racing rules or that I as a racing flyer should set the rules for the stunt community. Because that's EXACTLY what we had before! Now the Contest Boards are truly representative of the discipline they serve.

If a "generalist" is the right answer, why not a SINGLE contest board for FF and CL and RC.... Why have them separated into separate boards across discipline? Why have separate boards for the various RC flight categories?

No, the "generalist" approach is just wrong and fortunately we now no longer have to fight it in Control Line.

Regards,

Bill Lee

JohnT4051 · Nov 14, 2004 02:03 AM

#19 source

Whoops, I intentionally tried (unsuccessfully) to steer away from any argument about the CLCB issue because that wasn't the point I was making. I was just trying to correct the impression that there has always been the current separation. We have the separated boards now, and there's no problem that I know of, except that it further divides us all into isolated groups. Which is why I suggested a unified CL organization to attempt to gain some unity and strength in numbers. The CLCB issue is long overwith and not worth rehashing. I argued, somewhat weakly, against a change at the time because I thought that it was being done for the wrong reasons and was unnecessary, but I never was really that opposed to separate boards. It seems now that the current system works fine.
(I've deleted a lengthy historical rambling that nobody but me and Bill care about.)
I do think a unified CL organization is a good idea, and best if it could be formed by the leaders of the existing SIGS as a cooperative endeavor. We don't need just another organization to pay dues to.
--jt

>>A few minor corrections and additions ...
>> -- I never proposed anything to do with rules. I suggested
>>that a general CL support and promotion organization
>>(functioning the same way the SIGS do now but as a unified
>>group), would benefit all CL modelers. I assume rules would
>>continue to be made by AMA.
>> -- AMA's CL Contest Board, until a couple of years ago,
>>made rules for all the different types, with very few
>>problems. There were "generalists" on the board along with
>>some specialists. There were advisory committees. There was
>>an interchange of ideas prior to voting. The members
>>consulted with experts in their districts asking for help on
>>any questions that were out of their areas of specialty.
>>Ultimately, the people who flew the affected events had the
>>most influence over the rules. I think we had good rules as
>>a result, by and large. But that's not the current
>>structure; rules are now made entirely by specialists in the
>>field, so there would not be an issue of someone other than
>>CLPA fliers making CLPA rules.
>> -- AMA did not "go to SIGS" in their rules making process.
>> The AMA has contest boards for each discipline; the SIGS
>>are independent and advisory.
>> -- I did not suggest changing PAMPA. I suggested a
>>confederation of all SIGS into one organization, with the
>>current SIGs as divisions, sharing a newsletter, resources,
>>and mutual support.
>> --jt
>>
>
>I have read John's comments and general negative slant
>towards the restructured contest boards and I cannot let his
>comments go unchallenged.
>
>The bottom line that John will not accept is that the
>"generalist" CL contest board did NOT work. Did not work AT
>ALL! I can cite many instances where the wishes of the SIG
>(specifically the CL Racing SIG) were simply dismissed by
>the "generalists", I guess because they knew better or
>something. There were no such thing as "advisory committees"
>once the SIGs begain serving in that role and the need for
>an official advisory committee evaporated. And that was
>proper, although unfortunately the SIGs were not given some
>of the powers that were accorded to an official advisory
>committee.
>
>The separation of the CL Contest Board into something that
>TRULY represents those who fly the events was not something
>that came about recently. Oh, yes, it was FINALLY
>accomplished a couple of years ago, but I can attest that
>the suggestion that separate Contest Boards were needed can
>be found in Bill Boss' CL column in the old American
>Aircraft Modeler as far back as 1971. (I know it's there, I
>found it while visiting the library at AMA HQs.) I know I
>pushed for the same restructuring many times in the ensuing
>years, and we finally were successful.
>
>The rationale for the change is quite simple: those who FLY
>the event make the RULES for the event. And I am sorry that
>John feels that a stunt flyer should make the racing rules
>or that I as a racing flyer should set the rules for the
>stunt community. Because that's EXACTLY what we had before!
>Now the Contest Boards are truly representative of the
>discipline they serve.
>
>If a "generalist" is the right answer, why not a SINGLE
>contest board for FF and CL and RC.... Why have them
>separated into separate boards across discipline? Why have
>separate boards for the various RC flight categories?
>
>No, the "generalist" approach is just wrong and fortunately
>we now no longer have to fight it in Control Line.
>
>Regards,
>
>Bill Lee

John Thompson

http://members.aol.com/joh
nt4051/northwestcl.html

Lou_Crane · Nov 13, 2004 02:32 PM

#13 source

LAST EDITED ON Nov-13-04 AT 02:32 PM (CST)

John and all...

Laird 'Doc' Jackson is the guy who tried to start a national CL organization. You've heard of Doc Jackson -- for so many years one of those few who did so much grunt work for our CL World's teams. Frequent team manager, working seemingly endlessly to get our teams and equipment 'there and back.' ...and so much else... wonder why his (nicely done!) newsletter - "The GAZ" emphasized FAI CL???

A national CL organization didn't work out. The underlying problem may still apply. Today, we're more specialized. Fewer fly multi-category CL events at meets than in the 'old days.'

The near disappearance of model aviation, CL included (AMA Total membership under 15,000 around 1968-70), inspired dedicated CL fliers in each category to organize to preserve and promote their events.

Success led to growth. Each group focused on its own events. For the few founders: totally consuming work, leaving little energy, interest, or altruism to spare for other groups who did little for them when need was great. (The other groups which had been likewise fully committed to their own events...) We all gained, but there may have been a cost.

Many of us aren't young and frisky enough anymore to run all over the field to get in a match, a heat or a pattern in the same day. ...the way we used to... Specialization has advanced results, skills, equipment, and the general ability level in each sector. Still, thinking one's own event to be supreme can complicate discussions among fliers in different categories... Not the best way to unite us all.

A question: Just what IS a CL 'sport flier?'

Or, what aren't they? Are 'competition' fliers the ones most intense about their skills or performance? Most - not all - of these guys do the dirty jobs to keep authorities happy with us, etc., etc. Loss of a field, or freedom to fly within a city, or a ban on noisy engines, means more to them. Nah, that's too crude a distinction...

Is a CL 'sport' flier just a guy who sorta flies (nowadays we presume _STUNT_) but doesn't compete? But, many self-proclaimed sport fliers DO compete now and then. Consider, does anyone fly sport (non-competing) Combat? Racing? Carrier? Speed?

Flying CL, flat until the noise stops? Unchallenging and very boring. Competition event rules to the rescue! They define technical, safety and performance challenges and standards which keep flying stimulating for those interested. The rules define goals to work toward, even for those who don't choose to compete... today...

\BEST\LOU

tomB · Nov 13, 2004 11:16 PM

#16 source

LAST EDITED ON Nov-13-04 AT 11:40 PM (CST)

>
>A question: Just what IS a CL 'sport flier?'
>
>Or, what aren't they? Are 'competition' fliers the ones most
>intense about their skills or performance? Most - not all -
>of these guys do the dirty jobs to keep authorities happy
>with us, etc., etc. Loss of a field, or freedom to fly
>within a city, or a ban on noisy engines, means more to
>them. Nah, that's too crude a distinction...
>
>Is a CL 'sport' flier just a guy who sorta flies (nowadays
>we presume _STUNT_) but doesn't compete? But, many
>self-proclaimed sport fliers DO compete now and then.
>Consider, does anyone fly sport (non-competing) Combat?
>Racing? Carrier? Speed?
>
>Flying CL, flat until the noise stops? Unchallenging and
>very boring. Competition event rules to the rescue! They
>define technical, safety and performance challenges and
>standards which keep flying stimulating for those
>interested. The rules define goals to work toward, even for
>those who don't choose to compete... today...

No offense, but you should try flying a combat, carrier, or speed plane someday. It's a little more thrilling than "Unchallenging and very boring." Combat, in particular, incorporates all of the maneuverability of a stunt plane, but adds tremendous speed.

As a matter of fact, sport combat was a whole lot more popular than stunt ever was. Why do you think the Voodoo held the record for the most control line kits ever sold? It wasn't because all of those kits were destroyed in combat matches.

Even a scale plane is wonderfully thrilling because of the achievement. Some people simply don't want to subject themselves to the Howard Stern Body Reviews that competition forces.

The difference is not whether you can have an organization that will govern competition of a single category or multiple categories. Instead, the question is whether you have an organization that focuses on competition, or focuses on furthering the hobby.

It almost sounds like the highly paid ballplayer who doesn't understand he owes all of his fame to his fans. Competing in an event without an interested "sport" following is what's "Unchallenging and very boring."

It's quite fascinating (and telling) that one would equate the value of flying a particular style plane with whether you compete with it. Meanwhile, you may have just diss'ed the majority of the control line hobby.

Tom B

SRiese5283 · Nov 14, 2004 12:30 AM

#17 source

SNIP>>>Voodoo held the record for the most control line kits ever sold

Gee I didn't know that. I though it was the Ringmaster.

Scott(see I can lern nu things)Riese

Scott Riese

SoHawaii · Nov 14, 2004 01:40 AM

#18 source

I think PAMPA is fine the way it is. When I joined, it was with competition in mind. When I visited SSW for the first time I noticed that there were a lot of competition flyers/builders that frequented this site. If I were interested in combat I would go to those sites and organizations for that interest. SSW is a place where you can meet all types of flyers, I see no reason to change PAMPA if sites like SSW exist. Just my thoughts. I am still new to the organization and I am still learning.

Mathew L. Suddath
AMA 818198

tomB · Nov 14, 2004 07:02 AM

#20 source

LAST EDITED ON Nov-14-04 AT 07:46 AM (CST)

The Ringmaster may have sold more when you consider the many different versions. I have seen the Voodoo statistic stated just relative to Carl Goldberg's sales, or for the overall hobby. Adding to the complication was that Goldberg sold many "double kits." We may never really know.

Regardless, it's more than enough to prove false the claim that sport flying of any style is due to the desire for competition.

Tom B

jehold66203 · Nov 14, 2004 08:13 AM

#23 source

>>
>>A question: Just what IS a CL 'sport flier?'
>>
>>Or, what aren't they? Are 'competition' fliers the ones most
>>intense about their skills or performance? Most - not all -
>>of these guys do the dirty jobs to keep authorities happy
>>with us, etc., etc. Loss of a field, or freedom to fly
>>within a city, or a ban on noisy engines, means more to
>>them. Nah, that's too crude a distinction...
>>
>>Is a CL 'sport' flier just a guy who sorta flies (nowadays
>>we presume _STUNT_) but doesn't compete? But, many
>>self-proclaimed sport fliers DO compete now and then.
>>Consider, does anyone fly sport (non-competing) Combat?
>>Racing? Carrier? Speed?
>>
>>Flying CL, flat until the noise stops? Unchallenging and
>>very boring. Competition event rules to the rescue! They
>>define technical, safety and performance challenges and
>>standards which keep flying stimulating for those
>>interested. The rules define goals to work toward, even for
>>those who don't choose to compete... today...
>
>No offense, but you should try flying a combat, carrier, or
>speed plane someday. It's a little more thrilling than
>"Unchallenging and very boring." Combat, in particular,
>incorporates all of the maneuverability of a stunt plane,
>but adds tremendous speed.
>
>As a matter of fact, sport combat was a whole lot more
>popular than stunt ever was. Why do you think the Voodoo
>held the record for the most control line kits ever sold?
>It wasn't because all of those kits were destroyed in combat
>matches.
>
>Even a scale plane is wonderfully thrilling because of the
>achievement. Some people simply don't want to subject
>themselves to the Howard Stern Body Reviews that competition
>forces.
>
>The difference is not whether you can have an organization
>that will govern competition of a single category or
>multiple categories. Instead, the question is whether you
>have an organization that focuses on competition, or focuses
>on furthering the hobby.
>
>It almost sounds like the highly paid ballplayer who doesn't
>understand he owes all of his fame to his fans. Competing
>in an event without an interested "sport" following is
>what's "Unchallenging and very boring."
>
>It's quite fascinating (and telling) that one would equate
>the value of flying a particular style plane with whether
>you compete with it. Meanwhile, you may have just diss'ed
>the majority of the control line hobby.

Tom; If you had been around long enough you would not question Lou Crane's qualifications. He's been around as long as I can remember. I finally got to meet him at VSC. DOC:)

tomB · Nov 14, 2004 02:54 PM

#26 source

>
>Tom; If you had been around long enough you would not
>question Lou Crane's qualifications. He's been around as
>long as I can remember. I finally got to meet him at VSC.
>DOC:)

No one questioned his qualifications. I did question his judgment at making snobbish remarks about the sport flying public.

I've "been around" flying model airplanes since the mid-60's, but not in many contests. Apparently, I didn't know what I was missing. (Not!)

Tom B

mkedave · Nov 14, 2004 07:39 AM

#21 source

LAST EDITED ON Nov-14-04 AT 07:40 AM (CST)

>A question: Just what IS a CL 'sport flier?'
>
>Or, what aren't they? Are 'competition' fliers the ones most
>intense about their skills or performance? Most - not all -
>of these guys do the dirty jobs to keep authorities happy
>with us, etc., etc. Loss of a field, or freedom to fly
>within a city, or a ban on noisy engines, means more to
>them. Nah, that's too crude a distinction...
>
>Is a CL 'sport' flier just a guy who sorta flies (nowadays
>we presume _STUNT_) but doesn't compete? But, many
>self-proclaimed sport fliers DO compete now and then.
>Consider, does anyone fly sport (non-competing) Combat?
>Racing? Carrier? Speed?

Man buy a clue.

I am a sport flier. PAMP doesn't meet my needs, but that's OK.

I fly lots of kinds of airplanes, including RC, FF and Rockets. There are combat, profile scale, stunt and some things that don't fit in to a category in my shop. I also work with the city to use the space I use. Club politics are a bore. I also spend a lot of time working with kids. I have done only 2 contests in my life, I may do more, but if my kid has a basketball game that day, I'll watch him play.

I won't miss a family activity for a contest or flying.

I'm not some hack with a noisy airplane. Some of the stunt fliers have big time attitudes when they fly. I fly and build because its' fun not to impress the judges or some other person with hot equipment or 52 coats of paint.

I hope there are others like me out there under the radar, having fun and not worring about what people think.

Sorry man you just don't get it.

Just a sport flier

jehold66203 · Nov 14, 2004 08:10 AM

#22 source

After reading the latest posts, it got me stirred up again. The magazine for the general flying, be it RC, FF or CL is Model Aviation. The reason control line is dying in the magazine is our fault for not supporting the authors of the various articles. Being a lone flyer at that time from Shawnee Mission, Kansas I did not input stuff for them. I think they still ask for input from us modelers. If people would wake up, the sport flyers across the board would have competition done away with. Especially the RC flyers. They don't think that a FUN FLY or FLY IN is not competition. If it isn't, why all the awards that are given out? I for one think PAMPA should stay as is, as well as, Stunt News. Also I wish AMA on the renewal form would just say check one - Control Line - Free Flight - Radio Control. Enough, DOC:(

ed n · Nov 14, 2004 08:57 PM

#32 source

LAST EDITED ON Nov-16-04 AT 12:51 PM (CST)

>Club politics are a bore...
>I fly and build because its' fun not to impress the judges or some
>other person with hot equipment or 52 coats of paint.
>I hope there are others like me out there under the radar, having
>fun and not worring about what people think.

Don't say that here someone will have
a heart attack.

But I agree 100%.

F4FGuy · Nov 14, 2004 12:31 PM

#24 source

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Why is it sooo difficult for people to understand the principle of representative government?

The AMA is the government(in this case).The SIGs represent the various SPECIAL interests to the AMA. General CL is just that, general, it is not a special interest. By your own example,combat is Special, racing is Special, scale is Special, as are any other CL disciplines,in and of themselves. Love/hate of,or total indifference to competition doesn't alter the fact that it's the primary reason SIGs exist in AMA.AMA was looking for a way to get better input from the participants in each SPECIAL interest, primarily for rules improvement in each event.

With the possible exception of flying site assistance(yeah! good luck on that one!),AMA has no interest in "general" anything, RC, FF, or CL. Their function is regulation of competition and, nowadays, insurance.

Once you go beyond comraderie and "hints and tips"(admittedly at a very high level),what function would a "General CL SIG" have,other than to dilute the voice of each true Special Interest,in the regulating and rule making process?

Ron B.

N42222 · Nov 14, 2004 01:31 PM

#25 source

It takes a little time, but if one reads Bill Lee's (tireless worker of C/L at the AMA level) thread #15, Baron's threads #60 and #62 on the "Presisents Message" post and Ron Burn's thread #105 on the "President's Message" post, one can begin to understand just how this thing called PAMPA is designed to work. One can learn what a SIG does and doesn't do. What AMA does and doesn't do. It isn't broke, no flyer in any area has been short-changed in any way by it, therefore it doesn't need fixin'. Just like DOC, I'm going to tell Lew Woolard to keep it the way it is. Oops, that won't do any good, I've got to tell MY District rep my take on it. Like I say, it takes a little time. Best regards, dale gleason

Bigiron13 · Nov 14, 2004 03:22 PM

#27 source

That's ok Dale I'll tell lew . Probably the same thimg. I haven't heard a word from him in over two months now, so I guess he is still alive and kicking.

Bigiron

Bigiron13

N42222 · Nov 14, 2004 03:38 PM

#29 source

Marvin, thanks for making the trip to the "FishFly". If Lew had come with you, you would have had help singin' "Mountain Dew"! He is a Bluegrass vocalist with a Martin D-18 to boot. But you've got to sing with him, 'cause he can't hear you- too many Silver Foxes in his ears! ooos and xxxs to Rhea, dale g

JohnT4051 · Nov 14, 2004 03:33 PM

#28 source

LAST EDITED ON Nov-14-04 AT 03:33 PM (CST)

Just to clarify, since it seems that I didn't express my idea well enough to be fully understood.
What I was suggesting was a confederation of sorts, in which all SIGS would be "states," so to speak in a "CL Nation" represented by one organization. The general, or umbrella, organization would be a way to accomplish two goals:
1. To take advantage of economies of scale by publishing one magazine (with sections for each SIG's news), having one dues administration, etc. If you joined MACA, you would automatically be a part of the big organization, get the newsletter, etc. On occasion, such group could speak with one voice to AMA, if there were a topic of interest to all CL fliers.
2. To unite CL fliers with a common understanding. With a unfied organization and magazine, the combat fliers would receive information about stunt, the racing guys would find out about combat, etc. I believe such sharing of information would benefit all.
I would not suggest changing the operations of the individual SIGS -- I'm just suggesting that they work together in the above two ways.
--jt

>Ron B.
>F4Fguy
>
>Why is it sooo difficult for people to understand the
>principle of representative government?
>
>The AMA is the government(in this case).The SIGs
>represent the various SPECIAL interests to the AMA.
>General CL is just that, general, it is not a special
>interest. By your own example,combat is Special, racing is
>Special, scale is Special, as are any other CL
>disciplines,in and of themselves. Love/hate of,or total
>indifference to competition doesn't alter the fact that it's
>the primary reason SIGs exist in AMA.AMA was looking for a
>way to get better input from the participants in each
>SPECIAL interest, primarily for rules improvement in each
>event.
>
> With the possible exception of flying site assistance(yeah!
>good luck on that one!),AMA has no interest in "general"
>anything, RC, FF, or CL. Their function is regulation of
>competition and, nowadays, insurance.
>
>Once you go beyond comraderie and "hints and
>tips"(admittedly at a very high level),what function would a
>"General CL SIG" have,other than to dilute the voice of each
>true Special Interest,in the regulating and rule making
>process?
>
>Ron B.

John Thompson

http://members.aol.com/johnt4051/northwestcl.html

LNeumann · Nov 14, 2004 04:44 PM

#31 source

>Just to clarify, since it seems that I didn't express my
>idea well enough to be fully understood.
> What I was suggesting was a confederation of sorts, in
>which all SIGS would be "states," so to speak in a "CL
>Nation" represented by one organization. The general, or
>umbrella, organization would be a way to accomplish two
>goals:
> 1. To take advantage of economies of scale by publishing
>one magazine (with sections for each SIG's news), having one
>dues administration, etc. If you joined MACA, you would
>automatically be a part of the big organization, get the
>newsletter, etc. On occasion, such group could speak with
>one voice to AMA, if there were a topic of interest to all
>CL fliers.
> 2. To unite CL fliers with a common understanding. With a
>unfied organization and magazine, the combat fliers would
>receive information about stunt, the racing guys would find
>out about combat, etc. I believe such sharing of
>information would benefit all.
> I would not suggest changing the operations of the
>individual SIGS -- I'm just suggesting that they work
>together in the above two ways.
> --jt

I understand your concept, John. Perhaps some, like yourself, would like it. I wouldn't. It is not to say you can't propose the idea or that for some, like yourself, it might not be good. It is just to say I wouldn't like it. Why?

I am interested in precision aerobatics. I am not interested in scale, racing, speed, carrier, combat, etc. Nothing wrong with any of them. There are people who do like them and don't like precison aerobatics. We call that choice. No one can excell in all of the disciplines. So we all make a choice.

Now, why wouldn't I like a combined organization putting out one combined newsletter (larger magazine)? Because I am not interested in the other columns. I end up paying for sections that I am not interested in. And then we start fighting (again). The carrier guy says, "I am paying just as much for the magazine as you are. I should have just as much content." OK, so we say you get a portion in proportion to how many dues paying members you have. The scale guy gets gyped. He pays a lot for Precision aerobatics content (going to be the largest) that he is not interested in. So do a lot of others. People are still unhappy.

I used to subscribe to a number of model airplane magazines--probably all of them. They had a little cl coverage in each. Usually a stunt ship now and then. One day Model Airplane News decided to go RC. I immediately canceled my membership. As CL coverage dwindled I dropped out of others. I fear the guys with the small memberships from their organizations or skill pursuit, but equally large dues as everyone else would start dropping their membership (subscriptions?) for the same reason. Their membership drops, their coverage drops, their membership drops some more.

That's why I don't think it would work for the general public even if you allowed the individual SIGs to make their own rules.

And, let's face it, PAMPA grew with a number of purely sports flyers joining because they were interested in precision aerobatics. They, by and large, are happy getting what they are getting from PAMPA. And that's my point. They are getting what they bargained for. Some dropped out with the dues increase, but that is to be expected. However, if we dilute the magazine, none of us gets what we bargain for, but we may, indeed, end up with more dues increases because we get extraneous material that we are not interested in.

So, a general CL organization without a magazine provides nothing for most people. And if we dilute it by providing content for all disciplines, well, we have that on the newstand right now.

Leonard Neumann

tomB · Nov 14, 2004 04:14 PM

#30 source

>Ron B.
>F4Fguy
>
>Why is it sooo difficult for people to understand the
>principle of representative government?
>

Good question, but the performance of any representative government is judged by how well they represent. That's why the discussion of PAMPA/Brodak/CL is going on in the first place.

>The AMA is the government(in this case).The SIGs
>represent the various SPECIAL interests to the AMA.
>General CL is just that, general, it is not a special
>interest. By your own example,combat is Special, racing is
>Special, scale is Special, as are any other CL
>disciplines,in and of themselves. Love/hate of,or total
>indifference to competition doesn't alter the fact that it's
>the primary reason SIGs exist in AMA.AMA was looking for a
>way to get better input from the participants in each
>SPECIAL interest, primarily for rules improvement in each
>event.
>

The problem, from my perspective as an interested outsider, is that PAMPA may have gone beyond the exclusive interests of hard-core competitors, and solicited membership from all corners. Now it appears many are upset at the "Frankenstein" they've created.

> With the possible exception of flying site assistance(yeah!
>good luck on that one!),AMA has no interest in "general"
>anything, RC, FF, or CL. Their function is regulation of
>competition and, nowadays, insurance.
>

Not exactly. There was a little thing that happened as recently as 1991. It took a major effort - with Government, vendors, and membership. A modern RC club couldn't even function without those additional frequencies. And insurance? I wouldn't minimize it. There is almost nothing else that could be more important in today's litigious environment.

>Once you go beyond comraderie and "hints and
>tips"(admittedly at a very high level),what function would a
>"General CL SIG" have,other than to dilute the voice of each
>true Special Interest,in the regulating and rule making
>process?
>
>Ron B.

No offense, but a limited vision would certainly cause limited results. Obviously, the first step in trying to promote a general CL organization would be to convince everyone of the advantages. I for one, think such an organization would be a good idea. It probably wouldn't even include competition has its primary focus. As you successfully argue, the current SIGS and AMA do a good job of that. Everyone talks about the experience of 68-70. I don't think that's applicable. Anyone who was near adulthood at the time can remember all sorts of traditional activity thrown away and turned on end. The whole country was in turmoil. Model airplanes, with its roots in the military (NAVY Nats), was bound to take a hit.

I still submit that Brodak's distribution of traditional control line kits into hobby shops has had more of an effect on re-awakening control line than anything else. It's nice that there's PAMPA, and so many cottage industries, but that's specialization on the edges.

Take for example, the huge success of the ARF Nobler and Flite Streak. Great Planes didn't buy Top Flite to reproduce control line kits, but they did notice the market revival by Brodak. (Sig kept the faith, too.) The Nobler and Flite Streak were a perfect way to cash in on some of that market. The fact that it gave them another outlet to sell LA engines that were largely rejected by the RC market was icing on the cake.

Also, the Internet and e-bay may have had just as much an effect.

As a result, it appears that more people are flying control line than in many years. Did PAMPA have a direct hand in that? I don't think so. Did the AMA even have direct involvement in that? No. It's the way our country works: come up with a good product at a reasonable price, and people will buy it. But a general CL organization can do a lot to help. It can work with more vendors to convince them that a control line market exists. It can work with others to ensure that a supply market is available for fuel, lines, handles, and engines. The list could go on.

If all your interest is in supporting the needs of a select few competitors, that's fine, and no one is saying that's not needed. However, I think I agree with John T - it may be a good idea to help further the control line hobby in general.

Tom B

Jim T. · Nov 14, 2004 09:16 PM

#33 source

Unlike Leonard, I am interested in many phases of model aviation, just about everything but RC, and I may get a park flier some day. However, I do think he makes some valid points. I don't know what the ratio is between guys like me and guys like him. I do know that many of my friends have flown/do fly various kinds of airplanes.

I think PAMPA has had a bigger footpint that you think. Personally, I would not be flying stunt if it were not for PAMPA, and I suspect this is true for many in the legions of us who have benefitted from the skill classes. What we would be doing instead is anyone's guess.

Incidentally to provide a tangent for someone to tirade on , I well remember the arguments over whether skill classes should be flown at the Nationals. A couple of serious questions, because I was not active at the time, and don't know: How much gloom, doom, and indignation was heaped on those involved in developing the skill classes? Who were these heroes who put the skill classes in place?

Jim

Jim T.

tomB · Nov 14, 2004 09:39 PM

#34 source

Some very good points. I don't intend on minimizing competition interests for competition's sake, I would just like to grow the rest of it. I can travel to several RC clubs within a 1/2 hours' distance. At most of those clubs I see the same comraderie I used to see for Control Line in the 60's and 70's. Sure, it's changed - ARF's are everywhere. Yet, there are always fliers who've built their own. Most of the time there's active training going on, and young people are present more often than not - even pre-teenagers. People share props, fuel, and batteries if needed, and spectators are freely shown the means for club memberships, AMA memberships, and training is available.

There are Control Line clubs that do that - I've seen the web sites. Trouble is, there are as many RC clubs that do that in my city, as it seems there are Control Line clubs that do that in the country. I'm sure the reasons are numerous, but Control Line is not that much worse than RC - at least, it shouldn't be.

Maybe it's a pipe dream, and things will never change, but it seems like Brodak and others are starting to disprove that. Does PAMPA or any other CL SIG give advice and instructions on how to start a club, or gain a flying site? I know the AMA has this stuff for general model aviation, but has anyone ironed out the specifics for Control Line and documented them?

About the skill classes - before we start handing out medals, which came first - skill classes for CL Stunt or RC Pattern? Maybe someone else blazed the trail first.

Tom B

N42222 · Nov 16, 2004 01:21 PM

#35 source

LAST EDITED ON Nov-16-04 AT 01:22 PM (CST)

PAMPA's originators were concerned with the decline of Stunt, mainly. They were trying to keep something alive to field teams from the USA to represent the country. To raise the quality of Stunt at the Nats. They never considered gaining flying sites or training beginners. They were addressing an immediate problem. As their solution took form and became successful, it became what it is today- namely a place -(read-Stunt News- became THE place) to go for the things you mention. Teaching Beginners= Beginners Column, "We have the technology", "The Trailing Edge" just for the sportflyer, for example. While SN became a treasure trove for newer Stunt flyers, PAMPA still maintained its purpose for being. As a SIG working all this time with the AMA, I ask anyone to find where AMA has found PAMPA to be lacking, Quite the contrary! That's why this attempt to change its thirty year old purpose is so galling to the people who founded it. I, myself, didn't help found it. But when I found it, I was really glad it was there, and hate to see people scheming to change it. But they are, and I'm 'agin it. I'm hoping that as ALL members sift through the rhetoric, they will see that PAMPA is already the sportflyers best friend, and the competition flyers. Best regards, dale gleason

N42222 · Nov 16, 2004 03:03 PM

#37 source

The DMAA shed that Dallas Parks lets us keep on the Hobby Park site has a lot of stuff in it-one thing is a solid-wing trainer sporting a Veco .19. It hangs on the wall, ready to go when a new prospect comes along. (We usually snare them in the lines of someone's plane). But in almost ten years of flying at Hobby Park, there's only been a handful of kids showing interest. They hang around a little, but they don't have much interest. One flyer who soloed in only a half dozen flights was my nephew, but I pretty well coerced him! In 1940 (I'm told) kids were held spellbound by a toy train with a headlight that illuminated. In 1955 a Ringmaster with a Fox 35 held me spellbound. (still does) My three year old grandkids can run their own tapes and DVDs on their VCRs. The old trainer on the wall just isn't appealing, I'm afraid. Marvin D- have you trained any kids other than your own lately? best regards, dale gleason

tomB · Nov 16, 2004 04:40 PM

#38 source

You may have a point about the youth. I keep mentioning an interview I read with Dave Platt - he's says we've lost them, and there's no point in trying to get them back.

Tom B

Jim T. · Nov 16, 2004 06:11 PM

#39 source

At the Stanzel Celebration of Model Aviation in Schulenberg, TX we did trainer fights for 48 Cub Scouts and a half dozen adults using a Guillows #2 with a McCoy 19. Several flew more than once. I think working with scouts, including girl scouts, is a good idea. How about contacting a home school group? If you have a county school for wards of the county, they are most attentive. How about your local EAA Chapter? Hey, look we don't want too many new ones. Don't want to have to spend all day at the flying field just to get in one flight.

Just want a few. In my opinion these are things we should be doing as individuals and local clubs to make things better for Precision Aerobatics. If we don't, someday the Nats will start with the top 10 because there are only 9 entered.

Jim

Jim T.

Randy Powell · Nov 16, 2004 01:30 PM

#36 source

>>Most of the time there's active training going on, and young people are present more often than not - even pre-teenagers. People share props, fuel, and batteries if needed, and spectators are freely shown the means for club memberships, AMA memberships, and training is available.<<

Sounds just like every contest I go to in the Northwest. Hmmm....

Lou_Crane · Nov 17, 2004 11:37 AM

#40 source

Tom,

Sorry if I sounded snobbish -- not the intention. You filled in what I hoped I had said: the 'other' ways to fly CL are all a great joy (except when there is no change of challenge for us to master).

CL itself, at its simplest -- just hanging on to the handle and turning in a circle until the fuel's gone or the ground jumps up and bites the thing -- is simple and quickly learned.

Once that's mastered, the capabilities needed (for combat, scale, speed, racing and stunt flying) add a learning challenge that keeps our interest and motivation strong. That's the difference I meant to address -- thanks for completing the thought!

Further, if we tire of one of the ways to fly, there are all the others to explore -- each one adds new challenges and development.

...and we still fly airplanes we are physically connected to...

\BEST\LOU

tomB · Nov 17, 2004 12:14 PM

#41 source

>Tom,
>
>Sorry if I sounded snobbish -- not the intention. You filled
>in what I hoped I had said: the 'other' ways to fly CL are
>all a great joy (except when there is no change of challenge
>for us to master).
>
>CL itself, at its simplest -- just hanging on to the handle
>and turning in a circle until the fuel's gone or the ground
>jumps up and bites the thing -- is simple and quickly
>learned.
>
>Once that's mastered, the capabilities needed (for combat,
>scale, speed, racing and stunt flying) add a learning
>challenge that keeps our interest and motivation strong.
>That's the difference I meant to address -- thanks for
>completing the thought!
>
>Further, if we tire of one of the ways to fly, there are all
>the others to explore -- each one adds new challenges and
>development.
>
>...and we still fly airplanes we are physically connected
>to...

Well said.

It's strange to find myself at an age where I'm arguing with the idols of my youth.

Tom B