What’s Next?

OK so what is next?

We’ve been flogging the deceased Equus caballus to the point of exhaustion with respect to past, present and future direction of PAMPA and leadership issues . So, what’s next? We can keep posting “bitch threads”, continue hand wringing and taking shots at each other or give some intelligent thought to what might be a solution to the problems. The first step is identification and definition of the problem. If you come to the table with a problem, be prepared to offer a solution. It’s easy to complained and much more difficult to find solutions..

May I suggest that we each state our own case. Identify for the rest of us your biggest problem/concern regarding PAMPA and then state your solution. Avoid “cheap shots” at the ideas and suggested solutions of others. Consider carefully their ideas. State your own position….. do not respond to other’s posts… this isn’t a debate session. If you can clearly state the problem as you see it, you understand your own position. For me, putting things into writing helps clarify them in my mind.

I’ll start. I see that PAMPA needs to clarify its’ purpose for the PAMPA constituents. The misunderstanding of what PAMPA’s role is with the AMA seems to be a very real problem.

Article I – Name and Purpose:
The name of the corporation shall be the Precision Aerobatics Model Pilots’ Association, Inc. The corporation shall be abbreviated hereinafter as PAMPA. The Purpose of the corporation shall be to promote and improve the Control Line Precision Aerobatics event.

The purpose is narrow and to me very clear but misunderstood. My interpretation is that it’s related to the Control Line Precision Aerobatics event. I consider this to mean AMA sanctioned contests. It doesn’t talk about promoting learn to fly programs, send a kid to camp, etc. It’s focused on contest flying described as “The Event”. Promoting learn to fly programs promotes just that…. flying CLPA not contests (The Event). Flying CLPA isn’t an event, it’s an activity. A very big difference in my mind. All of this promotion of CLPA flying is nice and necessary for developing future sources for contestants but that’s not PAMPA’s stated purposes. Some sort of additional explanation for the members is required judging from the number of people who think its’ scope is far wider than it really is. Solutions might be additional or expanded definitions in the bylaws or a “Mission Statement” to help the members understand its’ goals…in their entirety. PAMPA should be focused on promoting contests and recommending rules changes to the AMA when necessary. That’s what this SIG is charged to do by the AMA. That’s all.

Ok… given that you buy into my first argument, next problem was opening the membership doors to non- event flyers (AKA sports flyers). This group is probably larger than the contest flyers group. As the bylaws are currently structured, they are allowed to vote and are the biggest voting block. Big problem! How can someone who has not participated in an AMA sanctioned CLPA contest (event) understand what’s wrong with event procedures, rules pattern geometry, etc.? I don’t think they can. Yet they paid their dues and expect the same rights and benefits as the contest flyers.

I don’t think limiting membership to contest flyers only is the answer. The additional revenue from the sport flyer provides cash to keep SN and other things funded. Hate to say it but there should be a two tier membership system. (This idea has been raised on this board before) This would apply to non contest flying members. They would have limited voting rights if any. Enjoy SN, maybe vote for their district rep. and officers but that’s about it. How to control this? Use the honor system (just like the dreaded BOM). At the time of application or renewal, check a box that indicates that you have flown in at least one AMA sanctioned CLPA contest in the last calendar year. If not, you go to limited membership status. You can’t vote on changes to the AMA CLPA rules. Your status could change each year dependent on your contest activity level. Even the founding fathers who no longer participate in the event would not be allowed to vote on rule changes. No exceptions.

This would have the effect of putting the “say so” into the hands of those effected by the changes and keeps PAMPA committed to it’s stated purpose.

Now the hot potato! Only people who are full voting members as defined above are eligible to hold office. This means that only people who have flown in a sanctioned AMA CLPA event in the year prior to the election year can be office holders. Waiver of this requirement during the length of their term would be in effect. PAMPA isn’t an organization that needs to grow in size every year for it’s survival or has a huge amount of assets requiring extraordinary management skills to steward. Its’ primary roll is to provide suggestions to the AMA for the CLPA event and this could really be done with one or two people! PAMPA doesn’t need huge membership roles to do that. So I’m inclined to think that the people best able to decide what’s right or wrong about the event are those that participate in the event and are affected by it’s rules and regulations. Hence the term SIG (Special Interest Group)

Next person… please take the podium.

I think PAMPA screwed up in not just selling subscriptions to Stunt News without membership and attached rights. That said, it appears that the "sport fliers" have pretty much declined to vote on issues regarding competition, a fine idea, IMO. I'll still bet real money that there will not be any significant PAMPA-joining by Combat, Racing, or Speed fliers. Navy Carrier and Scale fliers are such small groups, that they will not have any effect. Steve

At the time of PAMPA's creation it's sole purpose was for ensuring that the CL Precision Aerobatics Event would be perpetuated, and the USA's FAI F2B Team would continue. The need was seen to organize a SIG to ensure this through the AMA.

I see no need for this stated purpose to change. PAMPA has done it's job to an exceedingly high degree for 30 or so years.

If there is a problem, it lies with the casual flier (no insult intended) who does not know the history and purpose of PAMPA.

I feel that a subscription to SN would be appropriate, meaning a two tiered membership.

Those not involved in competition could still receive Stunt News.

Those who are competitive fliers would have the voice in deciding any necessary changes to the organization through the system as it is now in place.

Dues would reflect status of membership. Non-voting subscribers (Associate Members?) may receive a slight decrease in their dues, which would in effect become subscriptions, and voting members would have an increase in their dues as "Full Members".

Bill <><

Hi Bill, My opinion, you have it exactly right! Fowler got most of it right, missed on a couple of items. I like the idea of Associate members at a reduced rate for SN and no voting rights. If this had currently been in place, we wouldn't have the big problem we do now. Hopefully we can weather the coming storm and end up stronger for it! RJ

I had similar thoughts myself, require all district directors, pres and vp to have recent experience in the contest arena. Alas, this is not in the proposed draft.

I am the forth one to respond and I like Dicks idea and the others also. I fly in contest every year and so I vote yes to Dicks idea.
Ed

>I had similar thoughts myself, require all district
>directors, pres and vp to have recent experience in the
>contest arena. Alas, this is not in the proposed draft.
>
>Don

Where is this proposed draft Don? Have I missed something?

De-

I hope this gets posted following your query. I got a second draft of the proposed by laws after I E mailed Mr. Brodak and asked him why as District 8 rep I wasn't getting any info on the proposed rewrite of the PAMPA by laws. At this time only the district reps are (I hope) getting these. John says yet another revision is going to be sent to me in early Dec. for review and comment. Will withhold comments until I see the next cut.

>De-
>
>I hope this gets posted following your query. I got a second
>draft of the proposed by laws after I E mailed Mr. Brodak
>and asked him why as District 8 rep I wasn't getting any
>info on the proposed rewrite of the PAMPA by laws. At this
>time only the district reps are (I hope) getting these. John
>says yet another revision is going to be sent to me in early
>Dec. for review and comment. Will withhold comments until I
>see the next cut.
>
>Don

Thank you Don. With all the rhetoric going on, no one except you has mentioned that they had a copy or second copy of John Brodak's proposed changes.

For a little history on competition in AMA. Back in the 70's there was a hue and cry about "sport flyers" versus "competiton flyers" in the AMA and all the competition coverage in Model Aviation. About this time several SIGS were formed, MACA, PAMPA, etc, but pure coincidence. AMA had a newspletter called the Competition News for those that stated, on a form, that they were "competiton flyers" and wanted the Competition News. The non cpmpetitive types didn't get this newsletter, unless they stated they were, on paper, competitve type flyers. So lets do the same with Stunt News. This should end all the hype about elitists, fun flyers, sport flyers, etc. Or not.

"They would have limited voting rights if any. Enjoy SN, maybe vote for their district rep. and officers but that’s about it."

Can we all vote to see if we can limit or eliminate our voting rights?

LAST EDITED ON Nov-21-04 AT 11:10 PM (CST)
 
Dick:

Two points:

1. While the intent of the founders may have been as you state, the wording shown in the bylaws would be broadly interpreted (in all likelyhood) in law, I.E: ANYTHING proper and legal which results in strengthening, increasing the popularity of, or assisting in the administration of PA would be LEGAL, the key word being "promoting" in the bylaws.

According to my lawyer friend, this in a very common problem with this type of organization. They start out with narrow aims then times, needs, and people change and the direction of the organization is bitterly fought over.

The best solution is for all parties to work out a reasonable compromise. Personally I would strongly oppose any attempt to make PAMPA into a "general" C/L organization or anything like it. Conversely, I think that encouraging new blood in PA is the embodiment of "Promoting" it. In the real world, most of that activity is done at the club level. STUNT NEWS is an excellant source of information already, but I see nothing wrong with acting as a source of information to clubs as to how to promote PA & provide competition at the local level. We already do some things so this is not any radical change, and would certainly not interfere with the traditional work in mid and high end competition.

2. I was thinking of a non voting membership also but there are real drawbacks to that, including possible legal problems. Why not simply allow subscriptions to STUNT NEWS? Unless that creates problems with Newsletter vs. Magazine legalities, why not?

Jeff W.

Some of you guys are very entertaining. I used to read the comics in the paper first thing in the morning, now I allways start with this Forum. I think one of the other posts pointed out that only a little over 2% of the posts on this subject are PAMPA members.

I guess to have this two tier membership you talk about would require a STUNT CZAR to police the PAMPA membership to make sure only the worthy had real rights.

You might want to start counting noses. You might not have enough members now to maintain the status quo, much less get the changes you are talking about. The Combat Racing Carrier flyers you seem to worry about so much are a part of PAMPA. Guess what, we actually show up and fly in your Stunt contests too. We all just get one vote, but we do get it. Seems a lot of us have the President we want, a few more cycles and we may even have District Reps who aren't pure Stunt Guys. I don't think its going to change PAMPA greatly, but its going to change it some. Might even make it better.

One thing I have discovered in my 50 or so years of playing with CL airplanes, the Combat and Racing guys really love to make rule changes. All that starts again in January.

Maybe Bob Dylan had it right a long time ago:

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now will
Later be fast.
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin'
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin.

Wayne Foster
AMA 959
Winston-Salem, NC

you sure got it right on the "combat and racing" guys having a LOT of rules changes and proposals. If you will remember, you will notice that every time the rules were vastly changed (and that was about every cycle) the interest and participation dropped.
Back some time ago there was a slight push in MACA to merge with "other SIGs but it died quite rapidly. I voted against it then and would do so again. All you would wind up with would be SIGs within a SIG.
I don't know if a two tiered membership would work or not but does sound a little intriguing.
Settle down and wait til the antisipated proposals come in and then let the EC do their job. Contact your district director and tell him your opinion and ask him what is going on.
I'm happy with PAMPA as it is.

Bigiron

I guess I prefer to be inclusive rather than exclusive,
united rather than divided.

Certainly my pleasure in flying (actually, all sorts of activities)
has been enhanced by the people who made an effort to include me
in their fun.

>I guess I prefer to be inclusive rather than exclusive,
>united rather than divided.
>
>Certainly my pleasure in flying (actually, all sorts of
>activities)
>has been enhanced by the people who made an effort to
>include me
>in their fun.
>
>Preston

How about RC Combat and Model Car racing? Lots of potential members there.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-23-04 AT 06:12 PM (CST)
 
>How about RC Combat and Model Car racing? Lots of potential
>members there.

If they came around while I was flying and wanted to know
about flying CL, I'd be glad to help them. If they wanted to fly
with me, I'd be glad of the company. And I'd be sure to point out
PAMPA as a resource. I'll bet you would too.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-23-04 AT 06:23 PM (CST)
 
Ted,

We have a Minneapolis Piston Popper member who drag races R/C cars, places in combat at the Nats and on rare occassion pick's up a handle with a stunter at the end and flies a 475 or so pattern on sheer flying ability.

How's that for potential?

Are we going to leave out the individual who is a contest director or judge, but, does not compete? -DOC

Doc... What is your position?

What's next? That's fairly simple in mind, as we need to sorta clear away a few problems, if for no other reason to more accurately determine the character and intentions of a key player:

1) Status of Mr. Brodak's treatment of none other that Warren Tiahrt. A mere 14 of our most influential and honorable suggested a resolution to this issue. John has so far just blown it off. This would be a negative as things stand now.

2) Whom is responsible for having changed the "free"* PAMPA advertisement in Flying Models magazine. While I do not like the changes, this is not a capital crime; I find it amazing that the person responsible can't just fess up. Another negative; also quite unbelievable.

3) When my representative on PAMPA EC will receive his very own copy of proposed by-laws changes. Until he gets the changes, no one in District 11 is being represented during the debate(s). This seems to run counter to current claims concerning opening up our representation, but there it is. This would be a negative under either previous or current leadership, let alone the double standard employed.

That's it, three items. Simple.

>Doc... What is your position?

I think PAMPA should stay as is. I beleive I have stated that in other posts. I for one am smart enough to know when it comes to rules or procedures for the Nats, leave it to the people that fly the Nats event. The experts are there for a reason, "They put in a lot of hard work." But, the judges and event directors have put in a lot of work also. Can't thank Warren Tiahrt for what he's done. The judges that come back year after year are another group.
Now anything that involves the lesser classes let them decide for themselves. I don't want to tell a beginner, intermediate and advanced flyer how to fly their class. Now does that confuse everyone? DOC Holliday

PS:As I stated in an earlier post I will be flying Advanced on the local level from now on. No intention of ever competing at the Nats anymore as far as stunt.

Perhaps my situation is not unique. PAMPA works for me as it is. (Even our outlandish go for the throat debates. Though I can see the point of shaking hands and behaving better. Sooner or later.)

I am actually becoming a competition flyer in a humble but committed way, the structure of PAMPA as it's now exists allowing for and inspiring this. In fact the easy access into the sport favored by PAMPA (pay your dues sign up join the AMA) has encouraged me to get much further into the hobby than I did back when I was a kid or a mere 30 year old. Informal PAMPA out reach -- the contests, the enthusiasts for building and flying -- the clubs at least in our 500 mile radius -- made it possible for me to go through my bull headed contrarian process with a grin on my face helped along by a lot of people. PAMPA's a lot more than getting a mag every couple of months. Looking at the attendance we get at many of the contests in our corner of red and blue, I'd say that's the case for most of us.

It seems to me that the actual aim of PAMPA as it now exists is not limited by any means to the hard core competition flyers. Obviously. In fact it's part of the genius of PAMPA. (Thanks to those who came up with it.) The creation of skill classes has welcomed and encouraged many to enter into the pleasures of competition stunt. Almost any fun sport flyer can learn to fly beginner and hop onto the first rung. We have chosen to be a broad and inclusive organization. That's why we've grown and prospered. If PAMPA ain't broke why fix it. I realize I'm using this argument to support a different end of the PAMPA constituency. But I think it applies. PAMPA has chosen to be inclusive of the less accomplished builder and flyer. It has stimulated the growth of our archaic non digital (except for our fingers) non electronic old fashioned method of flying.

Peace (for the moment anyway)