PA Rules Re-Write

From all the posts I've seen over the last while, it sounds like it is time for a complete rewrite of the rules to eliminate the ambiguities and make them compatible with the event as it is run.

An event definition- all the rules should all be in alignment with the definition. Less ambiguity.
Judging Procedures- one or more acceptable ways to come up with a score
Judging Guide-description and definitions of the maneuvers from the judges point of view, and how to score them.
New Cloverleaf definition
Revamp all the maneuver definitions to eliminate ambiguities(variances, what exactly is included- is wind direction part of a maneuver?, etc.)
Builder of the Model
Division of classes- age or skill? or both.
Contest Procedures- how to run the circle(s), how to assign flyers, and judges, time considerations, etc. This would include acceptable alternate procedures such as used at the NATS or other large contests.

When AMA and MACA did this with the combat rules back in the '70's about 90% of the protests disappeared. Now I know PA flyers aren't as "combative" as combat flyers and generally don't protest, but having a clear, unambiguous set of rules would eliminate a lot of back-of-the-circle griping and maybe make competitions more enjoyable and perhaps attractive to more flyers.

Phil:

That's a lovely thought, like World Peace and Brotherly Love. Both are very desirable goals. After watching the various exchanges here the last few days I'm afraid they'd both be easier to attain than agreement on a rules re-write or even the need for one.

NOTE: I did not say that it wasn't a thought worth examining

LAST EDITED ON Nov-14-04 AT 06:50 PM (CST)
 
>
>Phil:
>
>That's a lovely thought, like World Peace and Brotherly
>Love. Both are very desirable goals. After watching the
>various exchanges here the last few days I'm afraid they'd
>both be easier to attain than agreement on a rules re-write
>or even the need for one.
>
>NOTE: I did not say that it wasn't a thought worth examining
>
>Jeff

The most important question would be as to whether the current procedures would stand up to a *real* rules change proposal.

My guess would be a big fat "NO".

For example, I would love to see a seeding procedure write up for the current procedure. I noticed it is ommitted from the Nats Procedures document available from PAMPA.

Judge selection is also not present. In fact, there appears to be almost nothing on selecting judges.

Maybe we could become clear in what we mean by 'altitude', 'height' and 'elevation' in the rules. The fact is that just going through and editing the rules to clear up ambiguous language would be a considerable task. Much less clearing up the language that is clear to me but ambiguous to others.

Jim

5 foot radius corners. Cough cough..

>
>For example, I would love to see a seeding procedure write
>up for the current procedure. I noticed it is ommitted from
>the Nats Procedures document available from PAMPA.
>
>Judge selection is also not present. In fact, there appears
>to be almost nothing on selecting judges.

Brad,

See my comments regarding putting any details regarding seeding or "Judge Managment" in the rulebook in post #37 in the "Contest Procedures Question" thread

Reading Topic #11263, reply 37

Hi Jeff, good to see your posts. I agree, world peace would be a lot easier to get agreement on.

I just have a very hard time with an event where there are numerous well-known, documented problems with the rules and many in the organization DEDICATED to "improving the event" can't even discuss the problems rationally.

>I just have a very hard time with an event where there are
>numerous well-known, documented problems with the rules and
>many in the organization DEDICATED to "improving the event"
>can't even discuss the problems rationally.

Sure, Phil, whatever you say.

I might note that while 90% of protests in combat may have disappeared, 95+% of the partipants have disappeared. While stunt has soared. I have heard of exactly 2 protest in stunt in the last 20 years (Fancher "maneuverlike deviation" and Brian Keiffer). That hardly speaks to widespread problems. But don't let a little thing like reality get in the way of a good rant.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-17-04 AT 06:31 PM (CST)
 
>
>>I just have a very hard time with an event where there are
>>numerous well-known, documented problems with the rules and
>>many in the organization DEDICATED to "improving the event"
>>can't even discuss the problems rationally.
>
> Sure, Phil, whatever you say.
>
> I might note that while 90% of protests in combat may
>have disappeared, 95+% of the partipants have disappeared.
>While stunt has soared.

I think that is a demographic issue that has to do with flier age and availibility and visibilty of equipment in the marketplace. Stunt flying and equipment (kits, engines, ARF's, etc) are much easier to market to hobby shops, this is a simple fact, especially in recent times. I do not know of one company that markets combat kits to the hobby shops. I believe this is the largest contributing factor to combat declining, not how the event is held (which is implied).

Simple economics.

As you may know, some of our best fliers are ex-combat fliers. Most site age for their move to PA.

>I have heard of exactly 2 protest
>in stunt in the last 20 years (Fancher "maneuverlike
>deviation" and Brian Keiffer). That hardly speaks to
>widespread problems. But don't let a little thing like
>reality get in the way of a good rant.

I can think of at least four other instances that SHOULD have been protested, but no one did. Two would have affected individual fliers, the other two would have been directed toward the Nats admin. In the all cases, no one was willing to elevate the issues, or were ignorant of the fact that they should, or how to go about doing it. It is not the responsibility of the fliers to police the rules, it is the job of the CD. Letting things deviate from the rulebook, and waiting for a pilot protest is not a viable method for enforcing the rules.

>
>I can think of at least four other instances that SHOULD
>have been protested, but no one did. Two would have
>affected individual fliers, the other two would have been
>directed toward the Nats admin. In the all cases, no one
>was willing to elevate the issues, or were ignorant of the
>fact that they should, or how to go about doing it. It is
>not the responsibility of the fliers to police the rules, it
>is the job of the CD. Letting things deviate from the
>rulebook, and waiting for a pilot protest is not a viable
>method for enforcing the rules.

Get busy and rewrite this stuff so we can do it right, Brad. I am pretty tired of you bitching about all this stuff. I want some one to get together and do it. You and Cartier can nail it flat, by the sound of it.

> I might note that while 90% of protests in combat may
>have disappeared, 95+% of the partipants have disappeared.
>While stunt has soared.

Out of curiosity - what was stunt participation at the Nats like back when Combat was getting 90+ entries at the Nats? Was it greater than we see now, less than we see now, or the same? Is this soaring relative to the 1960s, or is it in comparison to the 1980s?

Brett, I listed 9 or 10 problems with the rules that are not being addressed. Every meet I go to some or all of these come up amongst the pilots standing around talking and watching. You can choose to ignore them and motor on in blissfull complacence.

Combat is a lot more difficult than stunt, so I am not surprised there are fewer entries. Save your "barbs" for really important jibes. They don't do anything to further reasonable discussion.

>Brett, I listed 9 or 10 problems with the rules that are not
>being addressed. Every meet I go to some or all of these
>come up amongst the pilots standing around talking and
>watching. You can choose to ignore them and motor on in
>blissfull complacence.

OK, will do.

>Combat is a lot more difficult than stunt, so I am not
>surprised there are fewer entries. Save your "barbs" for
>really important jibes.

Fact != barbs. Sorry.

And I don't mean to disparage anyone, but until you are competitive in stunt, too, you don't have any basis to judge how "difficult" it might be. If you think otherwise, the NATs is July 12...

>Brett, I listed 9 or 10 problems with the rules that are not
>being addressed. Every meet I go to some or all of these
>come up amongst the pilots standing around talking and
>watching. You can choose to ignore them and motor on in
>blissfull complacence.
>
>Combat is a lot more difficult than stunt, so I am not
>surprised there are fewer entries. Save your "barbs" for
>really important jibes. They don't do anything to further
>reasonable discussion.

Phil,
Get together with Brad and rewrite this event. Make it better. Then we can all enjoy it properly. Until you put this stuff on paper it doesn't mean anything. Wynn Paul, Bill Netzeband, Keith Trostle and Bob Baron all wrote their due, you get in there and show 'em how it's done.

Combat is more difficult than stunt? Talk about saving barbs. Practice what you preach. Get one on the front row and then qualify at the Nats, then well talk.
Chris...

>Combat is more difficult than stunt? Talk about saving
>barbs. Practice what you preach. Get one on the front row
>and then qualify at the Nats, then well talk.

Phil does have a point. Getting into the top echelons of either even is extremely difficult, but getting STARTED in Combat is harder than getting started in Stunt, to the casual sport flier. This may be a matter of perception - even Speed Limit Combat, from outside the circle, looks pretty crazy and beyond most people when it really isn't, but all you need to do to begin flying stunt is learn to fly inverted and be able to complete some maneuvers without crashing.

Surely you're not suggesting that only those in the front row and qualified at the Nats have a right to discuss the rules.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-04 AT 02:02 AM (CST)
 
>>Combat is more difficult than stunt? Talk about saving
>>barbs. Practice what you preach. Get one on the front row
>>and then qualify at the Nats, then well talk.
>
>
>
>Surely you're not suggesting that only those in the front
>row and qualified at the Nats have a right to discuss the
>rules.

No, I am challenging him to do, rather than talk.

He really doesn't know how hard stunt is until he has successfully competed in Open at the Nats and qualified with a front row model. Thats what "hard" stunt is.

I can just imagine a combat fliers response to such crap towards their event.

Well, somebody has to start the talk when there is a problem. I fly stunt for my personal enjoyment. Flying it at the NATS does not appear to be my idea of fun!! I'll take a pass.

I'll talk to Brad. We can probably come up with a reasonable rules re-write this winter.

Remember your rules rewrite has to go to AMA during the rules cycle, which I believe starts next year, for their review and possible approval. This is not the purview of PAMPA, even though PAMPA may have the oppurtunity to advise and dissent, it is strictly the purview of AMA.

>Well, somebody has to start the talk when there is a
>problem. I fly stunt for my personal enjoyment. Flying it
>at the NATS does not appear to be my idea of fun!! I'll
>take a pass.
>
>I'll talk to Brad. We can probably come up with a
>reasonable rules re-write this winter.

> I might note that while 90% of protests in combat may
>have disappeared, 95+% of the partipants have disappeared.
>While stunt has soared. I have heard of exactly 2 protest
>in stunt in the last 20 years (Fancher "maneuverlike
>deviation" and Brian Keiffer). That hardly speaks to
>widespread problems. But don't let a little thing like
>reality get in the way of a good rant.
>
> Brett

Hi Brett,

The numbers you speak of may be true, but neither Combat, Racing, Speed, or Stnt has very many young people involved today.

So maybe the increase in Stunt is a result of "OLD" Combat, Racing, etc. flyers moving over to Stunt because it is an evet that does not require anywhere near as much physical energy as the events they used to fly. I certainly enjoy Stunt, but would much rather race or fly combat if I were still up to it.

As I get more into Stunt I do see some rules that could use a little re-write or at least clarification. One in particular is the rule that defines the center circle but there is no mention of staying in the center circle. (3.1. A pilots circle shall be clearly marked. That circle shall have a minimum radus of three (3) feet but not larger than five (5) feet in radius.

Doesn't seem very important, but I see people all the time backing up and leaving the pilots circle when flying consecutive maneuvers so they don't fly thru their prop wash. This could be a safety problem and it also certainly doesn't put all the maneuvers in the same place as the rules call for. I don't think any judges count off for moving back like that, but accordint to the rules, they should.

Anyway, I think that is one area of reality that the rules could use a little help with. I'm sure there are others. I guess come Jan 1, and the time for new AMA Rules Proposals starts again we can begin to discuss some of the things.

Wayne Foster
AMA 959
Winston-Salem, NC

I forgot this one. While stunt usually doesn't have many safety problems, it could cause trouble on a cramped site like Brodak's(ooh, that dirty word!). But it hits my point- if rules are being ignored or interpreted differently than the wording in the book, they should either be changed or dropped. You shouldn't have to depend on stunt lore to learn which rules are real and which ones aren't.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-17-04 AT 11:42 AM (CST)
 
Part of the "problem" with the present set of rules is that they were written in a different era. Today most people no longer speak English as we did in the 50's. Many words have subltly changed their meanings. TV has a lot to do with this and the movies. When many meanings were local or regional, they are now almost international and as such words have different meanings in the same context. One example is "you all" and Ya'll. Both mostly southern, but not said in the same way, but the same meaning. My three kids (children, off spring, fruit of my loins, whatever) were all born in Rhode Is., raised in Idaho and southern California. Later they were in Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana and now are in Mississppi, Texas and Montana. None talk the way they were taught. My daughter has a southern accent she never had up to 16, my son talks like a Texan, yet I can understand him, "W" and the Moon bros. I know that they are trying to say. Only my youngest still speaks "American" to my ears. As to altitude, height above the ground or sea level? This is confusing to a new pilot in real airplanes too (also). Thus it is followed by AGL or ASL to indicate which altitude and then there is density altitude. So, yes the rules can be ambigious to some, especially the younger ones amongst us, that learned a different English from mine, circa 1940-59. Then I joined the Navy and learned a new language, nautical, plus many foreign terms I still tend to use, not counting all the foul language I picked up along the way. "cool", hot, bad, baddd, etc. mean differnt things in different times. Yaknowwhatimean Vern? Yes it is past time to write the rules with an agreed terminology. edit due to misspelled woid.

I'm fuzzy on details, but sometime back I saw entry of @ 120 in stunt at the Nats in the early 70's. I counted up the individual entrants in all classes of stunt at the 2002 Nats. As I recall, it was 126. Some entered more than one event so the total entries was higher, of course. The bottom line is that stunt at the Nats is being maintained at early 70's level by skill class competition. Classic and Old Time did not add many individuals in 2002. It is interesting to look at actual numbers. One if these days I'm going to go through the last 5 years of Stunt News, look at the contest reports, and count up how many competition stunt fliers there are in the country.

Jim

>I'm fuzzy on details, but sometime back I saw entry of @ 120
>in stunt at the Nats in the early 70's. I counted up the
>individual entrants in all classes of stunt at the 2002
>Nats. As I recall, it was 126. Some entered more than one
>event so the total entries was higher, of course. The
>bottom line is that stunt at the Nats is being maintained at
>early 70's level by skill class competition. Classic and
>Old Time did not add many individuals in 2002.

I might also note that the lowest turnout I think we have had since I've been going was in 94, where I think we had something like 28 in Open, and I can't recall how many in advanced. Excluding 2004 which is clearly an exception, we have been getting about 80 (more or less 50/50 Advanced/Open) people in the two official events, and maybe 40 in the other two events. Classic and OTS are usually mostly double-ups.

During this time, entries in all other C/L events had *plummeted* precipitously. For example, the saddest example was Slow Combat in I think 2001 or 2002 - when there were *3* entrants. Fast was something like 7-8. I'm sure that Phil will correct those quickly if wrong. Walking around looking at other events is kind of depressing in a way, stunt it pretty much it at this time.

It suggests all those "elitists" are doing something right, but also that the other events may well be doing something *wrong*. Stunt is in GREAT SHAPE - claims of widespread problems and how screwed up it is are belied by the facts.

In 2004, of course, we had something in the high 70s in Open alone, and 40-50 in Advanced. I would guess the extras were about evenly split between foreign competitors who stayed over, and Americans who came to watch the W/C and stayed over. It was CLEARLY a strain on the system that would have to be addressed if it turned out that way every time. There's no way we could handle this on a regular basis with the current facilities and current volunteer corps.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-18-04 AT 03:12 PM (CST)
 
> It suggests all those "elitists" are doing something
>right, but also that the other events may well be doing
>something *wrong*. Stunt is in GREAT SHAPE - claims of
>widespread problems and how screwed up it is are belied by
>the facts.

To claim the *elitists* had anything to do with stunt and its rising and falling ranks is like Clinton claiming he fixed the economy.

Stunt had its first re-vitalization due exclusively to Old Time and Classic, and to a large part Classic. The PAMPA ranks had dropped off to nearly nothing before VSC. I keep hearing the PAMPA guys taking some credit for VSC too. This was a grass roots movement among the retread Baby Boomers that had little, if nothing to do with PAMPA. PAMPA supported the resurgance, but did not create it.

The second resurgence is probably going to be due to Top Flite and Brodak products (mostly ARF's that no one said would ever exist) being available in the LHS. The availability of products, most having nothing to due with PAMPA influence, is why stunt continues to "maintain" while the other events drop off. There is simply no money to drive economic competition for combat products.

(mostly ARF's that no one said
>would ever exist)

Yes I remeber this well. I think it was two years ago when many many posters on the board told us (me and you) that ARFs would never work in stunt, and we were crazy for thinking it would. And no one would buy them because we have a builder of the model rule. Something about how they would be too expensive and never be built good enough to perform worth a darn. Second they come out what happens? They all get bought up and we create contests for them. Talk about acceptence!

Who's Crystal Ball was right this time?

Not only are they here. They are very well built, better than many planes at the fields today. They are plenty light. And they fly great. Not to mention they are cheap as heck too.

Remember, anything is possible. Especially THAT which you think isnt!

>(mostly ARF's that no one said
>>would ever exist)
>
>Yes I remeber this well. I think it was two years ago when
>many many posters on the board told us (me and you) that
>ARFs would never work in stunt, and we were crazy for
>thinking it would. >
>

You two weren't the only ones that saw the possibilites for ARF's
It is very interesting to read and see just how wrong the experts were on this.

<http://clstunt.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=1774&forum=DCForumID1>

Doug, I remember that thread. I stated that I had looked into building some ARFs, by buying ready kits, (a profile) building them fully assembled, no engines, no tanks, all else there, ready for paint. My cost was about 125.00 each not counting labor or shipping. So that died right then for me. I never thought about going to China and having them built for 5.00 each. I, like many others also stated that ARFS in cl had been around for a long time, just not in the full stunt of larger versions like now. Without the cheap chinese labor, they would not be viable. How much for an ARF of say the UHP kit of the Imitation? Made in Texas?

LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-04 AT 00:34 AM (CST)
 
>> It suggests all those "elitists" are doing something
>>right, but also that the other events may well be doing
>>something *wrong*. Stunt is in GREAT SHAPE - claims of
>>widespread problems and how screwed up it is are belied by
>>the facts.
>
>To claim the *elitists* had anything to do with stunt and
>its rising and falling ranks is like Clinton claiming he
>fixed the economy.

Brad, you are going to say that PAMPA was not responsible for stunt doing well?
>
>Stunt had its first re-vitalization due exclusively to Old
>Time and Classic, and to a large part Classic.

Old time in GSCB 1970? And the 1989 VSC? Are these the time posts you are claiming? Exclusively? Come on, man!

The PAMPA
>ranks had dropped off to nearly nothing before VSC.

In Socal and St. Louis and New York New Jersey it was pumping Brad. I was buying stuff from Windy, drove to his house and built stuff there in the 80's, what are you talking about? (That is where I was personally in the 1987 to 1992 period, so I am speaking from what I personally saw, not a hypothisis).

I keep
>hearing the PAMPA guys taking some credit for VSC too.

Oh, you mean because it is common knowledge that the original description for Nostalgia Stunt (Classic) was written by Mike Keville, Tom Dixon, Bob Whitely, Keith Trostle, Ted Fancher and a host of other PAMPA members?

This
>was a grass roots movement among the retread Baby Boomers
>that had little, if nothing to do with PAMPA.

Mike Keville, and the lot are essentially if not technically Baby Boomers, I guess you got something right. But it proves your rant is a bust, because all of them were PAMPA members.

PAMPA
>supported the resurgance, but did not create it.

B.S. It is responsible for both, because those individuals ARE PAMPA.

>
>The second resurgence is probably going to be due to Top
>Flite and Brodak products (mostly ARF's that no one said
>would ever exist) being available in the LHS. The
>availability of products, most having nothing to due with
>PAMPA influence, is why stunt continues to "maintain" while
>the other events drop off.

PAMPA is stunt, Brad. The reason people know about stunt is PAMPA. PAMPA makes stunt happen, they are one in the same. Did you happen to notice the ARF's are stunt models, Brad? Oh yes, you did, but then said that they don't have anything to do with PAMPA influence. What are you saying? That John Brodak and Top Flight By Great Planes are responsible for the big Nats turnout and popularity of stunt since they now produce ARF stunt models? That is really not a logical thing to think.

Dude, where were you in the early nineties when Greg Zajack, Bob Whitely, Dino Martinelli and myself all came to VSC with our Olympic MkVI's. PAMPA member Bobby Hunt put a cool full color group shot in Flying Models. I would say that it was a bunch of PAMPA members that put a certain seed in a certain manufactures head to kit the airplane.

I have got to know, what is it about PAMPA that you don't like? Is it that it is successful? Well run? That it has retained a high level of influence in national and international competition?

I'll tell you why I like it Brad. It is successful and well run, and it provides a resource for a good National Championship.
(When I was first flying C/L in competition, it was a big Nats with lots of events that were all heavily contested, only stunt is still like that now). It sanctions a Team Trial for the US Team, and it helps them go to the World Championships. In the USA, it maintains the Nationals to the AMA rules set forth a long time ago, and keeps producing modelers like you and Doug, guys that build cool models and you paint them yourselves, instead of Chip Hyde look-a-likes in RC Pattern/IMAC/whatever. It also provides a slick skill class set-up to run EVERY OTHER CONTEST. (When did you last sign up for Open at a regional contest)? And provides an avenue for guys to compete with models they don't build themselves, always did, didn't need ARF's to get that rule in, it was always there. So, that is why I like PAMPA. It is not that messed up. It is not a group of elitists, it's you and me.

>>> It suggests all those "elitists" are doing something
>>>right, but also that the other events may well be doing
>>>something *wrong*. Stunt is in GREAT SHAPE - claims of
>>>widespread problems and how screwed up it is are belied by
>>>the facts.
>>
>>To claim the *elitists* had anything to do with stunt and
>>its rising and falling ranks is like Clinton claiming he
>>fixed the economy.
>
>Brad, you are going to say that PAMPA was not responsible
>for stunt doing well?

No I am saying PAMPA is not the only reason that stunt has done well and other events (like combat) have not. to claim PAMPA is the root of all the success of the hobby is an exaggeration. I believe Brett, in this case was implying there was something flawed about the combat event that has driven away people, while our event is so successful becasue people are attracted to PAMPA.

This is putting the cart before the horse. Most people don't discover PAMPA until they are pretty well entrenched in the hobby. PAMPA itself is not growing the ranks, it may well be enriching the hobby, but the marketplace is attracting the new fliers.

>I have got to know, what is it about PAMPA that you don't
>like? Is it that it is successful? Well run? That it has
>retained a high level of influence in national and
>international competition?

Oh, come on!!!!

What I don't like is Brett hard charging Phil that somehow stunt is superior to combat simply due to the presence of PAMPA.

You want to know my only problem with PAMPA? That EVERY TIME I go to discuss MY event I am talking about PAMPA. Not CLPA, PAMPA. I am sick to death of worrying about PAMPA. PAMPA this and PAMPA that. If want to go to the Nats to fly in CLPA Open, I want to talk about the rules for CLPA, now I am talking PAMPA again.

Why can't I just talk about the event and you guys leave out the PAMPA part for once?

No disrespect, I think PAMPA has done a good job, but it is not "stunt". Stunt is stunt. PAMPA is PAMPA.

hey maybe they all went to brodak i saw a bunch of people in combat scale carrier raceing and stunt.

I have to mildly disagree with Brad on the importance of the skill classes. I think they have been the major force rejuvinating stunt. I know I would not have started flying stunt without the skill classes. Old Time, in particular, has contributed as well, but I think it is secondary.

What we have done in stunt is to make competition available and interesting to a lot of otherwise excluded fliers. People enter, move up to their level, and have success and enjoy the process all along the way. We have attracted people to stunt who can enjoy it at whatever level of intensity they desire. Old Time is also a contributor.

The reason the other competitive areas have not had this kind of success is organic. They have not been able to make their events more available to the sport flier. In Stunt, fliers can compete with their peers. I have thought about it a good bit and I don't see how other areas of competition can achieve this. Many things have been tried.

Jim

That's where I'm coming from, Jim. Perzackly! As you know I fly just about all the events. In Racing there is Foxberg/Goldberg to begin with. Then up to Sport Goodyear and Quickie. Those are sorta' like skill classes and not surprisingly, they are very popular, relatively speaking. Quickie has the largest number of entrants at the Nats around 25. Get into Slow Rat and it's almost dead- maybe 8 entries. In US Navy Carrier we've introduced Sportsman, Skyray and Sportsman .15 to entice new flyers, but it's slow going. In Stunt, like you have observed, the Skill Classes give us all a chance when competing. Best regards, dale gleason

History question here.

When did PAMPA come up with the skill classes?

Because in the mid to late 80s stunt was all but DEAD. I am pretty sure skill classes were in by then. I started flying in 92 and competing in 94. It was 96 before we had more than three in ADV and INT on a regular basis.

I really think the resurgence in stunt in the mid 90s to now is hard to place in the hands of any one group. PAMPA gives us the outline for skill classes but it is US who compete locally and put it on and get it up and running. Locally I dont know how much PAMPA has to do with it. But Nats all the way. I was just skimming the contests portion of the latest SN and it was amazing how large the entries are at the contests. Just amazing. PAMPA is not what got me in or anyone else I know. But once you are in it is a great tool. So many connections. But it is really a closed market. But what it does inside the market is great. I just dont know if you can really pin the growth on one thing.

Could just be that a bunch of Baby Boomers kids left for school and got married and now they need something to do. Could have nothing to do with PAMPA or LHS available materials or whatever....

Doug, I think you have raised a good question. My first stunt contest as a Beginner was in 1978, and the skill classes were beginning to be the usual thing. I recall entering only one contest where skill classes were not used. I also remember a stunt contest in the mid-80's where I was the only contestant who showed up. I probably started flying Old Time around 80 or 81. I dropped out myself from '87 to about '93, and came back to a pretty robust stunt scene. Of course the growth/decline was not uniform nationwide, but I agree we did not see a linear growth in stunt from the mid 70's to the present.

Jim

LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-04 AT 01:42 AM (CST)
 
>History question here.
>
>When did PAMPA come up with the skill classes?

Bill Netzeband, I think. We used the skill classes in SoCal in the 60's.

>Because in the mid to late 80s stunt was all but DEAD.

Depends on where you lived I guess Doug.

I am
>pretty sure skill classes were in by then. I started flying
>in 92 and competing in 94. It was 96 before we had more
>than three in ADV and INT on a regular basis.

I was flying in 80's contests in NY/NJ where there were 20 guys in Advanced (where I was flying a borrowed Windy plane, lest you think Brodak ARF's created the need)

>
>I really think the resurgence in stunt in the mid 90s to now
>is hard to place in the hands of any one group. PAMPA gives
>us the outline for skill classes but it is US who compete
>locally and put it on and get it up and running. Locally I
>dont know how much PAMPA has to do with it.

Aren't you a PAMPA member? Who do you think PAMPA is, a nebulous entity with no human face. It is you.

But Nats all
>the way.

The Nats are just run by PAMPA, the AMA puts it on. We are the PAMPA volunteers.

I was just skimming the contests portion of the
>latest SN and it was amazing how large the entries are at
>the contests. Just amazing. PAMPA is not what got me in or
>anyone else I know.

Who did get you into stunt, Doug. Who helped you the most. Wasn't it a PAMPA member, or someone influenced by a PAMPA member.

But once you are in it is a great tool.
> So many connections.

I agree.

But it is really a closed market.
>But what it does inside the market is great. I just dont
>know if you can really pin the growth on one thing.

Hard to tell.
>
>Could just be that a bunch of Baby Boomers kids left for
>school and got married and now they need something to do.
>Could have nothing to do with PAMPA or LHS available
>materials or whatever....

Maybe, but you must admit that PAMPA, through the work of it's members has had a big influence on this event.

>Who did get you into stunt, Doug. Who helped you the most.
>Wasn't it a PAMPA member, or someone influenced by a PAMPA
>member.

(can't help myself Doug)

I believe that would be his Dad, and no, I do not believe he ever heard of PAMPA before his kids mentioned it.

Bob Gesieke had the the greatest influence as far as pure pattern flying. While Bob was a member of PAMPA (as was I) and mentioned it a few times when we flew every week in the early nineties, it was certainly not high on his list of stuff to talk about compared to motor runs, props, 5, 45, and 90. Bob was doing his thing long before PAMPA.

>
>>Who did get you into stunt, Doug. Who helped you the most.
>>Wasn't it a PAMPA member, or someone influenced by a PAMPA
>>member.
>
>(can't help myself Doug)
>
>I believe that would be his Dad, and no, I do not believe he
>ever heard of PAMPA before his kids mentioned it.
>
>Bob Gesieke had the the greatest influence as far as pure
>pattern flying. While Bob was a member of PAMPA (as was I)
>and mentioned it a few times when we flew every week in the
>early nineties, it was certainly not high on his list of
>stuff to talk about compared to motor runs, props, 5, 45,
>and 90. Bob was doing his thing long before PAMPA.

That's great Brad.

You got it pretty much right on. My dad flew in the early 60s at the same field I fly at today. His old Ringmaster hung on the wall in the garage for years. Then my brother took it down in 90 I think and we went to the field and it went from there. So it would be my dad and my brother. My brother flew as a kid in the early to mid 70s. You know cox plastics with friends in school yards.

I was in CL for about 4 years before I ever heard of PAMPA. It was my first contest and Rick Ashford told me "You should join PAMPA." I still had no idea what it was. Then at the 94 Nats in Lubbock Steve and I joined PAMPA.

Bob G is the pattern influence from about 96 on unitl around 2000. Then there was a nice group of fliers at the Dallas field on any given weekend or week night. They all contribute to my successes as a stunt pilot and if I ever had to thank them it would take a long time to get through that list. Hopkins' kits were AWESOME! Built many. They were so simple and fast to build. Single handedly blew up the scene here and in the surrounding areas.

PAMPA did give me a great contact source for good stuff. I didnt have any money then, just like now. Also some great articles on finishing in the 94 year. Still use the fillet method today! I have learned alot from PAMPA, or Stunt News I should say, no doubt! I look forward to SN each time.

>History question here.
>
>When did PAMPA come up with the skill classes?
>
>Because in the mid to late 80s stunt was all but DEAD. I am
>pretty sure skill classes were in by then. I started flying
>in 92 and competing in 94. It was 96 before we had more
>than three in ADV and INT on a regular basis.
>
Doug
I flew in in the 1990 Nats in advanced and placed 5th or 6th along with Todd Lee, Archie Adamison, R. Campbell, Dale Barry and quite a few more..I belive that year alone we had 15 flyers in advance..Stunt was very much alive in the East Coast in the 80'. The NJCB contest were always pumping-Same W/the NEST contest--The Mass cup alone in the late 80's drew very well...The Nationals held in Virgina did extremely well in late 80's..Maybe based on your region/local it felt or looked like it was dead, however other areas were thriving and beginning their own sort of resurgence and PAMPA w/the likes of Urtnowski/Fancher/Gieske/Whitely and many more were always the primary factors.....Thanks David

LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-04 AT 02:02 AM (CST)
 
>During this time, entries in all other C/L events had
>*plummeted* precipitously. For example, the saddest example
>was Slow Combat in I think 2001 or 2002 - when there were
>*3* entrants. Fast was something like 7-8. I'm sure that
>Phil will correct those quickly if wrong. Walking around
>looking at other events is kind of depressing in a way,
>stunt it pretty much it at this time.

True for that year (2000). I was Combat ED that year. The reason for the low turnout was that a lot of the serious fliers were at the World Champs (flying and as pitmen). So the usual large contigent from Texas decided not to make the long drive that year, and everyone else heard and decided that they weren't coming either, since there weren't going to be that many people there anyway.

BUT Fast Combat entry was back up to 23 or 24 the next year, so you can't say attendace "plummeted" in any sort of permanent way.

Slow is, of course, no longer flown, and good riddance - it had been dying a long, slow death for a long time anyway, mainly due to bad and silly rules (and there was, interestingly enough, a small contigent of die-hard defenders of said rules). Speed Limit took its place, and there were something like 25 entries in 2001, with about a third being casual fliers and beginners.

In any case, unlike Stunt, the Nats isn't Combat's major meet. There are others that draw more competitors than the Nats - Top Gun, for instance, and perhaps the Bladder Grabber, and several other large money meets. The reasons are obvious - they are closer to big concentrations of pilots, and more importantly, there is MONEY to be won!

Of course, compared to the 1970s or 1980s, yes, participation is down.

> It suggests all those "elitists" are doing something
>right, but also that the other events may well be doing
>something *wrong*. Stunt is in GREAT SHAPE - claims of
>widespread problems and how screwed up it is are belied by
>the facts.

Maybe, maybe not. We're always looking for ways to improve Combat, but it will always remain something difficult to get started in given the psychological barriers. It LOOKS too difficult.

And while I agree Stunt is doing pretty well, and is the most successful of the CL events, that doesn't mean the rules can't be improved. While the 5 foot corner rule doesn't in any way affect the outcome of competition because everyone, by fiat, has agreed to ignore it, I do find it highly amusing that people who argue incessantly over sizes of maneuvers, whether or not people really fly at 45 degrees, etc. can collectively choose to ignore something so blatantly, explicitly written in the rules.

But don't mind me - I'm just on the outside looking in. To tell the truth, I don't really care whether the 5 foot corner rule stays or goes, I'm just pointing out something that seems to me to be a huge, mental disconnect.

I feel, based on my few years flying combat, that a really good and dependable pit man is essential. Not so in stunt. Same for Rat and Good Year. If you are a loner, you can fly stunt, but combat???

"When AMA and MACA did this with the combat rules back in the '70's about 90% of the protests disappeared. Now I know PA flyers aren't as "combative" as combat flyers and generally don't protest, but having a clear, unambiguous set of rules would eliminate a lot of back-of-the-circle griping and maybe make competitions more enjoyable and perhaps attractive to more flyers."

Hi Phil,

I must say that the meets that I have gone to have been, without exception, very enjoyable over the past 10-12 years. There will always be a little bit of griping no matter what.

As far as competing in the NATS in CLPA, I believe there are several conditions that factor in. The competitors there are on a mission. Very few will go through the actual expense of at least a week in Muncie to fly in the qualifications only every year. My pockets aren't that deep.

A rules change would not affect this for many of us. Economics probably play a greater factor for us "bottom dwellers".

The event is the event. It is "there" to identify the National Champion for the year. It is not for everyone, even though everyone is welcomed. It has survived for decades and will continue to do so for several more until we all die out. At which time there will, hopefully, be more who have answered the bell.

The old man had a quote, "Ya don't fix what ain't broke".

Bill <><

Now is the time that every ought to go get another cup of coffee or a coke and cool off. When is someone going to start putting forth the proposals to clear up the rules in the AMA book. As far as procedures of running contests, I think, it depends on the contest, location and amount of entries. The Nats has been run a certain way for several years and now somebody wants to straighten out something that has been working. And the people saying their event is harder than someone elses event irks me. My flying partner gets on to me all the time about stunt being an old mans event. I hav challenged him to get in the circle and fly the full pattern. A lot different than just horsing around in the circle. I watched the combat pilots at the Worlds and Nats. It is far beyond me. My partner can hang a carrier plane on the end of the lines and take over four minutes to do seven laps. I am still trying to get to the point of hanging. I also belong to NASS( North America Speed Society), but, do not compete. I also am smart enough to not vote on the rules when they come up. Leave that to the people that know the event. Now, all we need to do is differentiate what is PAMPA, AMA and Precision Aerobatics. PAMPA can not run the Nats just the way they want to with out AMA approval. That went for the worlds also. If you don't beleive me, just, talk to Warren Tiarht about it. Enough, -DOC:-)