BOM: try again

Well there has been over 60 replies to my original post and there hasnt been an answer to my original question. There has been some interesting info given though.
1. That an advanced champion at the NATS won with a QB cavalier.
Was this known at the time? Was it allowed, and if so why isnt it generally allowed (i.e. the rules should'nt change over time)
If this was some sort of rules infraction, then why hasnt his title and placing been revoked? (rhetorical question)
2.This quote from Airicobra:
"In fact (commercial warning) many of the wings that I have built were in models that placed in the top twenty, the top ten, and even the top five at the Nats this year, and for the last few years as well. The wing in David's winning model was built by Dave using my Lost-Foam system. Rich Oliver, Randy Smith, Frank McMillan, Bob Gieseke, Dan Banjock, Bill Rich, Steve Millet, and many others who flew at this year's Nats, either used wings that I produced for them, or built the wings themselves from Lost-Foam system sets that I provided."

So top 20 NATS finishers are having their wings built for them? Doesnt sound like they "completely" built the model to me. How are they justifying this? Are they following the rules? If this is allowed, then the BOM that states "completely constructing the model" is interpreted differently or not being enforced.
So lets have those that have had their wings built for them that were in the top 20 reply to let us know who they are and how they justify this with the BOM rule.

I really dont have a significant interest either way on this issue, but I would like to have the rule and its interpretation clarified and adhered to. I would like to know if I buy a QBC (or read refinished ARF Nobler) and fly it at the NATS I can do so legally and without guilt that I am breaking the rules.
Cant PAMPA lay down some better interpretation of the BOM rule that will be consistently followed?
Thanks,
Brian

Brian,

Here's the facts. All this after-the-fact discussion of the BOM infractions at the Nats means zip!

If someone has knowledge of this happening at a Nats it is their responsibility to file a formal protest. That will force the issue and the AMA will have to make a ruling on BOM interpretation. Simply complaining about it to the CD will not help. Your protest must be documented and filed properly so it can be reviewed by the jury and a determination made.

The discussion of this subject has raised far too many tempers and caused untold hard feelings. If the cheating is as rampant as some seem to say it is, its up to them to protest and press the issue to resolution, idle chatter and complaining will solve absolutely nothing!

Gentlemen, can you who have these thoughts please take them to the Nats next year and ACT on them as the AMA has allowed for in the protest procedures? Once its before the jury, something has to happen!

Brian,
BOM at the NATS only applies to J,S,O as far as stunt. Beginner, Intermediate, and Advanced have NO BOM requirement to fly. However if you did not build the model, you should not have received appearance points in Intermediate and Advanced. Beginner has no appearance points awarded.

Randy,

You need more that a thought or speculation - you must actually have personal knowledge or some other kind of factual evidence. Just someone saying that some people in the top 20 may be using OP built wings is not nearly enough. Most people don't have the time, ability or desire to collect evidence. You probably only will see a BOM challenge if the builder actually admits his guilt and has actually won an event. I know that Kenny admited in advance that his was a quick build - but none of the rest of us minded so - no protests were raised. He really did fly the best anyway and he was responsible for the aerodynamic alignments, control installation and finishing. That was enough for me not to want to protest.

Jim,

I am aware of precisely what is needed, I've been throught it as a CD at the National level.

FILE A PROTEST!

I must confess this whole really puzzles me.

The only bulletproff solution would be hiring the services of a detective agency, and put a tail on each and every possible contender.

An ARF in the hands of a mediocre pilot is aws good as nothing.

I find it (and I am fighting my grain) easier to build a straight, lite plane than to trim one.

Could it be that England got the best over the ME 109's because they are so beatiful?

In Christ,

If "Kenny" admitted his plane was a quick build and he got points for the finish, then the error is the judges for giving him those points, not him. He admitted it. So did he get the points for finish? Yes or No? If not, and he still won, end of entire string.

Brian,

It is your duty under AMA Rules in Sections 6 and 18 on BOM and Protests to make known the alleged cheating to the CD. If you don't within 1 hour after the end of the contest on the conduct of the contestant or 3 days on other matters apart from conduct the results stand. The protest must be in writing and report in full the action or decision, the names of entrants and officials involved and the complete details. Only then must the CD or Contest Board Chairman accept the protest and act on it in one way or another. He, the CD, must reply to the protest in writing. He must assist the protester in acquiring any information to present a complete document in the proper form. The person who is the subject of the protest shall be so notified and shall be invited to submit a written statement before the protest is acted on.

So, I take it that it is your contention that any wing kit or like furnished by Bob Hunt is a violation of the BOM rule. Interesting. I don't agree, but I would like to know your reasons for this allegation. Does that include anyone that buys an engine already setup by Tom Dixon, Windy Urtnowski or others with a pipe or muffler plus fuel tank like Windy's CF tanks? How about Tom Morris's and Windy's control systems? What about Windy's preformed engine mounts and fuselage shells? Anything else? Or do we have to build our ships from raw wood and aluminum billets with our milling machines? Where do you draw the line. Please be specific.

Tom,

It works a little different at the Nats, there is a jury consisting of Steve Kaluf and several others selected by him that rule on protests.

The point still is only a protest will push this issue into being resolved and an interpretation of the rules made.

Randy, I agree. But will Brian be the protestor as he has so much hearburn about this? Does he have the strength of his convictions?

Tom,

How can you say that buying a prebuilt wing from Hunt is not a violation of the BOM? Be specific.

I have built many Hunt wings and know for a fact that there is 250 hand cut a placed peices of balsa. YEP 250! If you dont use wing gear than it is more like 220 Pieces. But it is still a hand crafted piece of the airplane. The largest peice there is on the plane. When you receive it the surface is presanded and ready for covering. And woth every penny I might add. So when you finish it up you already have a surface prepaired for finishing that you were not anywhere near when it was being constructed. It has perfect joints. since fit and finish is a big part of the judging you are getting points fro someone elses work. It wasnt a help out session in your garage by two close friends it was a bought service.

I was specific why I think it does violate BOM.

Now you, or anyone else, tell me how that does not violate BOM, and remember 51% is not a real rule? Be specific.

>Tom,
>
>How can you say that buying a prebuilt wing from Hunt is not
>a violation of the BOM? Be specific.
>
>I have built many Hunt wings and know for a fact that there
>is 250 hand cut a placed peices of balsa. YEP 250! If you
>dont use wing gear than it is more like 220 Pieces. But it
>is still a hand crafted piece of the airplane. The largest
>peice there is on the plane. When you receive it the
>surface is presanded and ready for covering. And woth every
>penny I might add. So when you finish it up you already
>have a surface prepaired for finishing that you were not
>anywhere near when it was being constructed. It has perfect
>joints. since fit and finish is a big part of the judging
>you are getting points fro someone elses work. It wasnt a
>help out session in your garage by two close friends it was
>a bought service.
>
>How does that not violate BOM? Be specific.

I do not have to prove a negative. It is up to you and Brian and others that are unhappy with the BOM to prove your point. I do not accept the bald assertion by Brian that there is rampant cheating going on. He will have to furnish irrefutable proof to the AMA to prove his point. If there is, more power to him. Other than that, C'est la vie. And life ain't fair. I only hope for justice.

>I do not have to prove a negative. It is up to you and
>Brian and others that are unhappy with the BOM to prove your
>point. I do not accept the bald assertion by Brian that
>there is rampant cheating going on. He will have to furnish
>irrefutable proof to the AMA to prove his point. If there
>is, more power to him. Other than that, C'est la vie. And
>life ain't fair. I only hope for justice.

Just as I thought. You would not have an actual answer as to how that does not violate BOM.

I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking you to please explain how what I outlined is not a violation of the BOM by your interpretaion of the rule.

I am not one who is running around saying there is cheating going on. I am merely saying that what is happening from time to time is in violation of the BOM but without actual admission there can be no protest. I know good and well that Bob Hunt doesnt sell, scratch built, buit-up wings for 400 dollars that sit on the shelves. Please dont kid yourself.

You posted earlier that you didnt think that bought wings or components was a violation. Why cant you tell us your reasoning behind this? This is simply a discussion. There is no accusations from me on anyone else. I just want to know your views on why it isnt violation to buy a Scratch built portion of your plane and not be in violation of BOM. Then maybe I can use that as my reason to also think it is not a violation. But if you dont enlighten me than how can I learn?

My answer to your question is Brett Buck's reply to Brian in message number 10.

But I was really wanting some specifics from you. I want Tom McClaine's views on how it is not a violation of the BOM to buy ,scratch built, parts that you had nothing do with building and then add them on you plane and get points, read that...take credit, for building them. But you cant tell me why...I dont understand. I can be very specific why I think it is against the BOM. I dont protest because as Brett has said it is just model planes and I dont want to be the finger pointer and send someone home early from the contest. If they boot me from the Top 5 and I know for fact they didnt built it it will eat me alive. You always ask us to be specific then when I ask you, nothing. Doesnt seem so balanced.

What was the price? (serious)

In Christ,

Tom,

I wish someone would be a protester at the Nats and force this issue into interpretation. We are snarling at each other and its pointless, nothing will be solved here. The membership voted to keep the BOM and the supporting membership now has to make it stick.

I have made a number of passionate statements in previous threads but now its time to say this and nothing more.

FILE A PROTEST!!

I would agree on a few points noted here. First, if there are those who you know are not being honest, then I think it is imperative that you file a protest as explained in the rule book. That should take care of the issue.

Grizzly, are you saying that if I buy all my parts to a plane,wing, tail,fuse , etc...... then that's okay. You don't have a problem with somebody stating they built the plane!

See Brett's answer to Brian at message 10. Thank you.

>Brian,
>
>It is your duty under AMA Rules in Sections 6 and 18 on BOM
>and Protests to make known the alleged cheating to the CD.
>If you don't within 1 hour after the end of the contest on
>the conduct of the contestant or 3 days on other matters
>apart from conduct the results stand. The protest must be
>in writing and report in full the action or decision, the
>names of entrants and officials involved and the complete
>details. Only then must the CD or Contest Board Chairman
>accept the protest and act on it in one way or another. He,
>the CD, must reply to the protest in writing. He must
>assist the protester in acquiring any information to present
>a complete document in the proper form. The person who is
>the subject of the protest shall be so notified and shall be
>invited to submit a written statement before the protest is
>acted on.
>
>So, I take it that it is your contention that any wing kit
>or like furnished by Bob Hunt is a violation of the BOM
>rule. Interesting. I don't agree, but I would like to know
>your reasons for this allegation. Does that include anyone
>that buys an engine already setup by Tom Dixon, Windy
>Urtnowski or others with a pipe or muffler plus fuel tank
>like Windy's CF tanks? How about Tom Morris's and Windy's
>control systems? What about Windy's preformed engine mounts
>and fuselage shells? Anything else? Or do we have to build
>our ships from raw wood and aluminum billets with our
>milling machines? Where do you draw the line. Please be
>specific.

Tom and others,
Just to clarify. I'm not accusing anyone of cheating or anything else. I'm just making observations and trying to understand the rules as they apply to the BOM. I only have local contest experience, but this year I would like to make it to the Nats. I would'nt protest in any case as I would depend on the word and honest interpretation of the person flying the model.
Dont want to beat that horse but thought I needed to clarify this.
Brian

>Well there has been over 60 replies to my original post and
>there hasnt been an answer to my original question. There
>has been some interesting info given though.
>1. That an advanced champion at the NATS won with a QB
>cavalier.
>Was this known at the time? Was it allowed, and if so why
>isnt it generally allowed (i.e. the rules should'nt change
>over time)
>If this was some sort of rules infraction, then why hasnt
>his title and placing been revoked? (rhetorical question)

I have no idea what the real sitution with Kenny's airplane was, so I can't comment on this. In general, if no one protests, nothing happens. The fact that no one did does not constitute a precedent.

Also in general, I would guess that, using the criteria used at the 98 NATs (where Brian Keiffer flew an airplane that Windy built (no debate over that part), and Brian rebuilt/refinished after a crash), that the Tom Morris Quick Build kit would not be allowed under BOM.

I point out that's this is what I think the AMA would likely do - not necessarily what I would do!

>2.This quote from Airicobra:
>"In fact (commercial warning) many of the wings that I have
>built were in models that placed in the top twenty, the top
>ten, and even the top five at the Nats this year, and for
>the last few years as well. The wing in David's winning
>model was built by Dave using my Lost-Foam system. Rich
>Oliver, Randy Smith, Frank McMillan, Bob Gieseke, Dan
>Banjock, Bill Rich, Steve Millet, and many others who flew
>at this year's Nats, either used wings that I produced for
>them, or built the wings themselves from Lost-Foam system
>sets that I provided."
>
>So top 20 NATS finishers are having their wings built for
>them? Doesnt sound like they "completely" built the model to
>me. How are they justifying this? Are they following the
>rules? If this is allowed, then the BOM that states
>"completely constructing the model" is interpreted
>differently or not being enforced.
>So lets have those that have had their wings built for them
>that were in the top 20 reply to let us know who they are
>and how they justify this with the BOM rule.
>

Nobody complained, including some *very vocal* anti-BOM advocates, so I guess that they didn't think it was worth making an issue of. Protests and official's actions are the paths to resolution - not internet posts by non-participants.

The idea that "pre-fabricated parts violates the BOM" is not a generally accepted idea. It's an arguing point on BOM rule interpretations, but in practice it's not an issue. Prefabrication to some degree or another is well-accepted as legal and not a realistic issue.

It's the degree of pre-fabrication that is the issue, and it depends on the eye of the beholder.

If you get a quick-build Cavalier, you can certainly fly it at the NATS in Advanced with no appearance points. You probably shouldn't fly it in JSO. It's up to the event directors for the unofficial events (Brickhaus for Beginner, and Peabody for Intermediate) but the general rule is that you can fly it in Skill Class aerobatics with no appearance points.

>Cant PAMPA lay down some better interpretation of the BOM
>rule that will be consistently followed?

One - no, PAMPA does not make or enforce the BOM rule. This is an AMA rule (and I happen to beleive it's OK as is for reasons stated at length before). It applies at ONE DIVISION of ONE CONTEST a year - JSO Stunt at the Nationals.

Two - many have tried to come up with a more objective rule, but have failed.

The latest attempt was the Peabody "wing to fuselage" rule (CLG-02? maybe). Hard to say for sure, but I think that this was an honest attempt at a resolution.

However, taken to it's extreme, it permitted a "supplier" from completely constructing an airplane for someone else, having the "purchaser" come over to the "suppliers" house, put two drops of CA on the wing joint, then let the "supplier" finish the airplane to Concours standards, and then let the "purchaser" take full credit for it. That's clearly not the intent of the original BOM, and this proposal was rejected at the screening vote.

Feel free to take a stab at coming up with a better rule, but also expect for it to be scrutinzed closely.

It's my (and many other's) personal belief that simply requiring all entrants to sign that they know and follow all the rules (to thier understanding) is sufficient for me. That's leaves it to the consience of the modeler. I figure if somone tries to get away with something and manages to succeed, I really don't care.

I figure
>if somone tries to get away with something and manages to
>succeed, I really don't care.
>
> Brett

If someone will "Say" they built then I bet they "Sign" that they built it. JMHO.

Anyway if they do get away with it and it booted you from the Top 5 and you found out about it it would eat you alive the whole 3000+ mile trip home.

Sooner or later someone is going to protest the prebuilt components because they get further and further along every year. First it was sheeted foam, then built up wings, then fuse tail and wing, now full components and a shaped cowling with wing gear installed and on and on. Someone will protest....but when will it happen...no one knows....

>I figure
>>if somone tries to get away with something and manages to
>>succeed, I really don't care.
>>
>> Brett
>
>If someone will "Say" they built then I bet they "Sign" that
>they built it. JMHO.
>
>Anyway if they do get away with it and it booted you from
>the Top 5 and you found out about it it would eat you alive
>the whole 3000+ mile trip home.
>

Absolutely incorrect. The only thing that eats at me on the 3000 mile trip home is *things I did wrong*. If someone else does something, it's really not my problem. You may not believe me, but it's absolutely true.

That's one of the things that I like about stunt - your fate is pretty much entirely in your own hands.

Absolutely incorrect. The only thing that eats at me on
>the 3000 mile trip home is *things I did wrong*. If someone
>else does something, it's really not my problem. You may not
>believe me, but it's absolutely true.
>
> That's one of the things that I like about stunt - your
>fate is pretty much entirely in your own hands.
>
> Brett

As I make quite a lot of mistakes during any given pattern, it may well take a 3,000-mile trip to get them all sorted out.

I've always figured that once I get my feces consolidated then--and only then--can I complain about other factors which may or may not influence my scores. Looked at with objectivity, noting the goal, there seems to be a great many opportunities to use to my advantage in increasing productivity. None of them have anything at all to do with BOM adherents; BOM miscreants; kits from any source, built to any stage of completion; ARFs; ridiculing judges; and the highly regarded etc.

Brett puts this attitude into a truly meaningful sentence: "That's one of the things that I like about stunt - your fate is pretty much entirely in your own hands."

Even though some may not agree, I think it really important to note that a lot of us feel exactly the way Brett has put it. It is also worth noting that, in my opinion, those who do not have this attitude, or one which is very similar, instead lash out at all the outside forces which they perceive as costing them points and contest wins are not only real unhappy people, they are approaching this event in a manner which is not very productive. To them and their goals. Not to mention being mildly to wildly annoying.

> I have no idea what the real sitution with Kenny's
>airplane was, so I can't comment on this. In general, if no
>one protests, nothing happens. The fact that no one did does
>not constitute a precedent.

So, are you saying that if Kenny places higher than you next year flying the same said Cavalier, that Cavalier is confirmed to be a QB, you will protest?

> Also in general, I would guess that, using the criteria
>used at the 98 NATs (where Brian Keiffer flew an airplane
>that Windy built (no debate over that part), and Brian
>rebuilt/refinished after a crash), that the Tom Morris Quick
>Build kit would not be allowed under BOM.

Comparing a fully painted, finished, RTF (not ARF) is really apples and oranges.

> Nobody complained, including some *very vocal* anti-BOM
>advocates, so I guess that they didn't think it was worth
>making an issue of. Protests and official's actions are the
>paths to resolution - not internet posts by
>non-participants.

I have been a "very vocal" anti BOM advocate. I still am, simply because of these exact types of discussions. No one is willing to say who is OK and who is not. Pre-sheeted foam wings, with tips and controls installed, complete with a sheeted stab are OK to buy, but to go to a QBC is too far? Sounds like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.

> The idea that "pre-fabricated parts violates the BOM" is
>not a generally accepted idea.

To me this screams "PRECEDENT". A precedent was set years ago that, in my mind, violated everything that was specifically written about the BOM. Nobody cared, everyone said it was OK dispite the wording in the AMA rules. It became a "gentleman's agreement". This has been my take on QBC's. Nobody protests, it must be OK. Same as all the other "pre-fabricated parts".

It's an arguing point on BOM
>rule interpretations, but in practice it's not an issue.
>Prefabrication to some degree or another is well-accepted as
>legal and not a realistic issue.

Well then, let's answer the gentleman's original question:

In general, the Tom Morris QBC has been accepted and not protested as being in violation of the BOM rule at the last two Nationals, in both Advanced and Open. To that degree, it would be expected that a FULLY REFINISHED TF ARF would also not be protested, since the two are at the same level of completion. But "buyer beware", just becasue it has not been protested YET does not mean that it will not be protested at the next Nationals. Personally, I think a person would have a hard time making the said protest stick at this point. IMHO

BTW I won't protest you. I personally know of no one who will.

Gentlemen,

Once again, as before, this discussion is and will remain fruitless. Only a contestant at the Nats with knowledge of a violation and proof can bring this to a head and that is where it will have to happen.

FILE A PROTEST!

FILE A PROTEST!!! FILE A PROTEST!!! FILE A PROTEST!! That is repeated over and over and over. Especially by those who cannot or will not define how far they are willing to go to protect their SACRED COW the BOM.rule. Hmmm Whether it is for "shiney points " or the AMA rule for JSO at the Nats the harping is the same when they are backed into a corner and have to state their reasons for their stance . FILE A PROTEST ... Well, WHY SHOULD I OR ANYONE ELSE have to file a protest when it says in the rule book (read Paragraph 6 on page 7 of the current rule book)"The CD (note CD) shall make every reasonable effort to assure himself that each flier has completely constructed the model(s) ... ".
Why protest?? Let the CD do what he is supposed to do.
I am living in fantasy land if I expect ANY CD to enforce the rules without someone protesting so he MIGHT have to do his job. Has ANYONE out there seen a CD stop a flier for the BOM violations? without a protest?? How about anyone stopped for unsportsman like conduct without someone else complaining? Or drinking alcoholic beverages at the contest site?? Again without someone ELSE protesting or complaining???? I will probably hear of a few that have "heard" of action being taken by a CD on his own but I doubt that they have actually seen it.
I will never file a protest against anyone for any reason. I may sit around and grumble and gripe but never file a protest. I build my own models and cover them and finish them PER THE RULE BOOK Can ALL the top dawgs say that?? I certainly would like to THINK so!

Marvin Denny aka Bigiron

Marvin,

I understand your trustration, it comes from the same place mine does. For the last 2 years maybe more people have complained about this or that guy doing this or that and the CD didn't do anything about it. If that's the case then the AMA should be involved and a protest is the only way to make it happen.

In defense of CD's however, policing the entire event at the National level is probably an impossible thing to do, especially in our day and age of grabbing what you can get as long as you can get away with it. Its like any other thing I've experienced running a meet, there are lots of ideas and suggestions but once asked to volunteer and be invovled well, somehow they aren't that important after all but after the meet the CD is a ......... becaus ehe wouldn't listen to me.

All this BLAH BLAH BLAH about all this alledged cheating is not going to accomplish anything. Its time for those BOM supporters that really believe what they say to step forward and stand for their convictions. Its that or concede defeat. So I'll repeat it again,

FILE A PROTEST!! Or give it a rest.

Randy Ryan
AMA 8500
SAM 36
I fly 'em all and love it!

Randy, I am not frustrated. not even disgusted. I am somewhat amused by the seriousness that some of the parties on both sides of the argument take. You would think that it was a matter of life or death. Most people do not quite understand my position. I am a serious defender of the BOM rule. BUT (and that is a big BUT) I do not like the pretty points being applied to a Precision aerobatic accomplishment. If they want "pretty or shiney points award, separate those points from the physical portion of the event. A concours, so to speak. A few of the defenders of the pretty points claim that the 15 to 20 points account for only 3 % or less of the total points available, and if you only practice enough to get ONE more point per maneuver, you will overcome the pretty point loss and that is insignificent. Well, when there is only one or two percent of the total points difference between first to fifth place, that three precent becomes VERY significant.
As far as AMA being responcible, I sorta disagree. PAMPA is the voice of the PA fraternity to the AMA If we want something, we PAMPA will HAVE to initiate it.
H--- I can live with anything that they can throw at me. I will quit stunt and go back to combat if I get too disgusted with this event
Bigiron
I have been a CD at very large and very small contests . Been a CD since 1957. Still help out in a AAA contest each year.

Marvin,

For PAMPA to do what you suggest, the issue would have to be presented to the EC for discussion and vote. If adopted, then it would have to go through the same process on a rule change with the AMA just as an individual would do. It would still take 3 years. That is the process and it can't be changed for the NATS overnight. It takes 3 years. Doug Moon and Rich Peabody attempted this recently and both proposals were defeated in the first vote unanimously. But, anyone can try again.

I am with Brett on this one. I do not see a problem if the builder/flyer attests that they complied with BOM unless I as a CD am presented with overwhelming evidence of their noncompliance, and that takes a written protest, unless I as CD have personal information about the transgression. I can only rely on the integrity of the builder/flyer and the rest of the contestants. Unless someone is willing to protest in writing, I can do nothing but accept the word of the builder/flyer.

And I see that those who say they have personal knowledge of some alleged transgressions have said that they are unwilling to protest in written form. What is a CD to do then?

It seems to me that what is important is to the indiviual that comes to the event with a scratched built plane that is the most outstanding ship around. I thought the experts would work on a plane like that, even if they had to go to school to a paint class. And if that plane took the highest trophy all around, don't you think that would be worth braging rights. Let the beginner as myself see this kind of ship when I come to visit you guys at the events. That would impress me. Exclude the hardware that everyone can get. From bellcranks to control rods, and trust your own ability in the construction and finishes. If arfs are going to get higher points then your scratch built ships so be it. You pros out there can tell what each others ships are worth talking about. I may not be know all the rulls and things like that, but you all make great discussions.

FROM MY MANY YEARS OF COMPETITION I HAVE FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NATS WINNERS AND CONTROL LINE SCALE TEAM MEMBERS THAT HAVE NOT BUILT THE MODELS THAT THEY WERE FLYING. SCALE IS A BUILDING AS WELL ASE FLYING EVENT AND THE C/D EVENT DIRECTOR OR EVEN AMA'S LEADERS HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT AND FAILED TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
IT IS A SHAME THAT WE HAVE RULES THAT SIMPLY CAN'T BE ENFORCED. THEY ARE BASED ON A HOPE THAT MODELERS ARE HONEST. THAT IS NOT THE CASE. THERE ARE SOME THAT WANT TO WIN AT ALL COST. BIG DEAL!
I THINK THE BUILDER OF THE MODEL RULE IS OUTDATED BUT I WILL NOT WAST MY TIME PROTESTING. THEN EVERYONE HATES THE PROTESTOR INSTEAD OF THE RULES VIOLATOR.
I AM GLAD THE ARF NOBLER IS OUT. IT WILL CHANGE THE RULES I THINK.
I HAVE A NOBLER AND IT IS FUN. THATS WHAT I WANT NOW JUST FUN. YOU FIGHT THE FIGHTS PLEASE.

Alright Dick,

You say you have first hand knowledge of the alleged cheating. Did you protest in written form to the CD at the NATS event that you are talking about? Who were the transgressors? Or are you going to be like the others who malign the many by alleging what you are unwilling to take responsibility for and hold the guilty accountable.

I will say it again. I have been at the Brodak, GSCB, Bergen County, Metrolina, NVCL Musciano, and the VSC and have yet to hear or know of anyone doing what you and others are alleging.

It is put up or cease and desist time on this.

>Alright Dick,
>
>You say you have first hand knowledge of the alleged
>cheating. Did you protest in written form to the CD at the
>NATS event that you are talking about? Who were the
>transgressors? Or are you going to be like the others who
>malign the many by alleging what you are unwilling to take
>responsibility for and hold the guilty accountable.
>
>I will say it again. I have been at the Brodak, GSCB,
>Bergen County, Metrolina, NVCL Musciano, and the VSC and
>have yet to hear or know of anyone doing what you and others
>are alleging.
>
>It is put up or cease and desist time on this.

Grizzly, I realize your question is directed towards Dick, but just let me say, that Bob Hunt indicated on one of his post that there were top 20 fliers who were using his wing he built or the method he uses to build the wing. I posted his quote in an earlier statement that Maverick made. Now, was I at the Nats this year, No, but one of our most respected members stated this. I think that warrants some objective scrutiny.

In reference to being a protestor. I don't think that anybody wants to be the one to do this. We would like to think that everybody is being honest about what they built. It is apparent that some are not. When the rule book cites a rule, do we ignore it? If I don't do 2 laps between each maneuver, do you think the judges are going to give me pattern points? I guess my point is, if we have rules we follow them. I bet you didn't skip to many items on your pre-flight before a mission! I understand the process to change the rules and maybe we need to work together to have a document that is applicable.

IF YOU REALY WANT TO KNOW SEND ME YOUR E MAIL ADDRESS AND I WILL TELL YOU. YOU WILL BE ASTONISHED. I WILL NOT EVER HAVE ANYONE QUESTION MY OBSERVATIONS.
DICK

Dick,

No one is questioning your observations. Check out my post, #39. You deserve credit for what you did.

> I THINK THE BUILDER OF THE MODEL RULE IS OUTDATED BUT I
>WILL NOT WAST MY TIME PROTESTING. THEN EVERYONE HATES THE
>PROTESTOR INSTEAD OF THE RULES VIOLATOR.
> I AM GLAD THE ARF NOBLER IS OUT. IT WILL CHANGE THE RULES
>I THINK.
> I HAVE A NOBLER AND IT IS FUN. THATS WHAT I WANT NOW JUST
>FUN. YOU FIGHT THE FIGHTS PLEASE.
>
>DICK BYRON

I have learned that Dick Byron is a man of principle and his word. At a previous NATS of several years past, Dick saw an obvious problem with judging and administering of CLPA and instead of sitting on the sidelines and complaining about it, he took action and filed a written protest. He was not very popular with the group on hand that day, but his protest did result in AMA making the needed and just change that improved the event for all. Thanks Dick for your contribution to the sport.

>> I have no idea what the real sitution with Kenny's
>>airplane was, so I can't comment on this. In general, if no
>>one protests, nothing happens. The fact that no one did does
>>not constitute a precedent.
>
>So, are you saying that if Kenny places higher than you next
>year flying the same said Cavalier, that Cavalier is
>confirmed to be a QB, you will protest?

Geez, where to start? First, I am on record for stating, a long time ago (at least 3-4 years), I thought the QB Cavalier would be about my limit for BOM. If I would allow it as a CD, why would I protest it as a contestant? Note once again that this is my personal opinion, and does not constitute policy or a national standard. Others, including NATs officials, may have just as legitimate other opinions.

Second, if I did see something I found illegal and was a problem for me, I would protest it RIGHT THEN. I wouldn't wait until the contest was over and see if it mattered - as soon as I knew a situation was unacceptable to me, I would protest. To do otherwise would suggest that I was doing it for competition advantage, and not on principle.

I had this decision recently. Had I any evidence to support my gut feeling about a certain situation, I would have protested IMMEDIATELY, even though there was VERY LITTLE chance of it affecting my finishing position.

>> Also in general, I would guess that, using the criteria
>>used at the 98 NATs (where Brian Keiffer flew an airplane
>>that Windy built (no debate over that part), and Brian
>>rebuilt/refinished after a crash), that the Tom Morris Quick
>>Build kit would not be allowed under BOM.
>
>Comparing a fully painted, finished, RTF (not ARF) is really
>apples and oranges.

As I'm sure Windy would quickly point out, that was not the situation. The airplane had been built, then crashed, and Brian had put it back together. The AMA (Kaluf) did not find that this met his standard. Others might of done otherwise, but nobody asked them, since it wasn't their job.

I am not in a position to debate the rest of the question. There was absolutely no doubt, and nobody claimed, that Windy didn't build the model in question. It was on a nationally-distributed video tape. I had no way of knowing whether or not Brian fixed it, but he apparently said he did, and as far as I can tell, everybody took his word that he did. The ruling was that rebuilding the airplane was not adequate for BOM.

The question was "did you build every part of your model?" and he (truthfully) said he did not, and that did not meet the standard being applied in that situation.

Given this standard, a QB Cavalier would not likely pass, either, and the ARF Nobler is a non-starter.

>> Nobody complained, including some *very vocal* anti-BOM
>>advocates, so I guess that they didn't think it was worth
>>making an issue of. Protests and official's actions are the
>>paths to resolution - not internet posts by
>>non-participants.
>
>I have been a "very vocal" anti BOM advocate. I still am,
>simply because of these exact types of discussions. No one
>is willing to say who is OK and who is not.

People won't say because no one is in a position to be definitive. I am not the NATs CD, so my opinion is not binding as to what happens at the NATs. It's a judgment call, just like everything else in this event, and you will just have to live with that because subjectivity is a hallmark characteristic of stunt.

> Pre-sheeted
>foam wings, with tips and controls installed, complete with
>a sheeted stab are OK to buy, but to go to a QBC is too far?
> Sounds like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.

In your opinion. A question was asked, and a bunch of people told you what they thought, and you didn't like it. You can ask 30 more times, and unless someone comes up with a persuasive argument otherwise, I expect you will keep getting the same answers.

>> The idea that "pre-fabricated parts violates the BOM" is
>>not a generally accepted idea.
>
>To me this screams "PRECEDENT". A precedent was set years
>ago that, in my mind, violated everything that was
>specifically written about the BOM. Nobody cared, everyone
>said it was OK dispite the wording in the AMA rules. It
>became a "gentleman's agreement". This has been my take on
>QBC's. Nobody protests, it must be OK. Same as all the
>other "pre-fabricated parts".

That does not logically follow. Precedent is generally based on decisions that have been made - not on decisions that have not been made. "Grandfather clause" is closer to what you mean - except that point has not been made, either.

>It's an arguing point on BOM
>>rule interpretations, but in practice it's not an issue.
>>Prefabrication to some degree or another is well-accepted as
>>legal and not a realistic issue.
>
> Well then, let's answer the gentleman's original
>question:
>
>In general, the Tom Morris QBC has been accepted and not
>protested as being in violation of the BOM rule at the last
>two Nationals, in both Advanced and Open. To that degree,
>it would be expected that a FULLY REFINISHED TF ARF would
>also not be protested, since the two are at the same level
>of completion. But "buyer beware", just becasue it has not
>been protested YET does not mean that it will not be
>protested at the next Nationals. Personally, I think a
>person would have a hard time making the said protest stick
>at this point. IMHO

I wouldn't be so sure about that part, which I why I mentioned the Keiffer situation. It's not going to be voted on by popular vote. The standard seems to have been set at that time, and to my knowledge nothing consequential has happened to change it. Your opinion, like my opinion, will not be asked and therefore doesn't count when it comes time to rule on the protest.

I absolutely agree with you Brett about the "grandfather clause".

Also, notice I said "buyer beware". There will always be a chance that someone will challenge the said "grandfather clause". I would personally like to be fly on the wall for that protest when someone claims to the CD that possibly past winners or Top 10 flyers were "cheaters", and that they too should have been protested. The simple fact was that other competitors were lax in their duties for not protesting at the time. Tough sell...

Also, I am simply saying that I have no problem with it. Neither did anyone else (obviously), in the case of Kenny's win, since Kenny was very forthright and we all congratulated him.

I hope everyone will at least give Steve Moon the credit that his proposal did do away with all of this bickering. Eliminating the BOM rule seemed to be only fair resolution, (to me), as I felt the rule had become so twisted over years of "grandfather clauses".

But for the most part, well said Brett... Actually, we agree in principles, just not the method for how to enforce the rule or remedy the suituation. Common cause, different solution.

>I absolutely agree with you, Brett.
>
>Notice I said "buyer beware".
>
>I am simply saying that I have no problem with it. Neither
>did anyone else (obviously), in the case of Kenny's win,
>since Kenny was very forthright.
>
>I hope everyone will at least give Steve Moon the credit
>that his proposal did do away with all of this bickering.
>Eliminating the BOM rule seemed to be only fair resolution,
>to me, as I felt the rule had become so twisted over years
>of "grandfather clauses".
>
>Well said Brett....

Thank you. I think the reasoning behind Steve's proposal was a "baby and bathwater" situation. But, inexplicably, Peabody may have shown us all the way...

> Thank you. I think the reasoning behind Steve's proposal
>was a "baby and bathwater" situation. But, inexplicably,
>Peabody may have shown us all the way...
>
> Brett

Steve's reasoning is to stop all of this back and forth like we are having now. No one is willing to stand up and protest what's the use? Simplify the event and move on. Rich's proposal doesnt clear up anything. It only extends the BOM out to the point where the AMA official or CD official at the time of the protest only has to ask if you installed the wing and tail and rudder instead of did you build the whole model.

As I and many others have stated on here many times there truely is no way to really clarify that rule. It is actually perfect for stunt.:)

Rule books can be written two ways. All inclusive meaning "If it isnt here you cant do it, period." Or the kind that lay out qualifying scenerios. The former is a very restrictive rule book and allows no deviation from the standards set forth and people are very willing to protest and "claim" on that type of book all day long. The latter is almost impossible to write all acceptable situations. Not to mention it will be as thick as the circle is wide.

As it stands now we are relying on the modelers word and the AMA/CD's opinion should a protest come up. So far it has worked but the grumblings try to say otherwise.

Tructh be told no one not anyone wants to be the finger pointer. This is a hobby done for fun. Let's say the Walker trophy paid $10,000 in winnings. You can bet people are going to be bringing proof they built and complied 100% by the rules and the competitors would demand that rule be very definitive and people follow it. But it doesnt so people dont.

Brett,

I really like what you said about the only thing that really matters is what you yourself do in the circle. If you cant keep that attitude you are done for....

I bet in 1964 if someone showed up with a QBC and admittedly said it was a prefab plane people would have protested. Just spectulation though...

> Well then, let's answer the gentleman's original
>question:
>
>In general, the Tom Morris QBC has been accepted and not
>protested as being in violation of the BOM rule at the last
>two Nationals, in both Advanced and Open. To that degree,
>it would be expected that a FULLY REFINISHED TF ARF would
>also not be protested, since the two are at the same level
>of completion. But "buyer beware", just becasue it has not
>been protested YET does not mean that it will not be
>protested at the next Nationals. Personally, I think a
>person would have a hard time making the said protest stick
>at this point. IMHO
>
>BTW I won't protest you. I personally know of no one who
>will.

GENTLEMEN, I AM GETTING SICK OF THIS ARGUMENT. THERE IS A BUILDER OF THE MODEL RULE, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. IT WILL EAT AT YOUR FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS IF YOU LET IT. YOU ARE NO LONGER BEATING A DEAD HORSE, YOU ARE KILLING IT YOURSELF! ENOUGH!!!!!

IF ANYONE SHOWS UP AT THE NATIONALS IN OPEN NEXT YEAR FLYING EITHER A QUICK BUILD PLANE OR AN ARF OF ANY KIND I PERSONALLY WILL SEE THAT A PROTEST IS FILED. OK. DONE WITH. OVER. ON TO THE NEXT DISCUSSION.

AND, YES, I AM SHOUTING.

Geeeeez Len, I thought it was a discussion, not an argument!!! And yes, I am not shouting.

The horse is dead, guys. We have people e-mailing me saying they are leaving the forum because of it.

>The horse is dead, guys. We have people e-mailing me saying
>they are leaving the forum because of it.

Len,

Don't let a few dictate what is included in this forum. If a thread annoys me or contains little of interest, I go to another one. I would never ask you to shut down discussion on any topic.

If these guys are serious--and I simply cannot believe they are--let 'em leave.

>Don't let a few dictate what is included in this forum. If a
>thread annoys me or contains little of interest, I go to
>another one. I would never ask you to shut down discussion
>on any topic.
>
>If these guys are serious--and I simply cannot believe they
>are--let 'em leave.

Totally, totally, agree. Squeaky wheel gets the greasin'.

or better yet,

"Well, I will just take my ball and go home then". Very mature...

>>Don't let a few dictate what is included in this forum. If a
>>thread annoys me or contains little of interest, I go to
>>another one. I would never ask you to shut down discussion
>>on any topic.
>>
>>If these guys are serious--and I simply cannot believe they
>>are--let 'em leave.
>
>Totally, totally, agree. Squeaky wheel gets the greasin'.
>
>or better yet,
>
>"Well, I will just take my ball and go home then". Very
>mature...

No, what it is is this constant rehashiung of "Why can't we just do away with the BOM rule?" Well, it is here. Live with it and let's move on to another subject. We have 500 postings on this subject and all I hear is the same stuff over and over. It does drive people away.

>No, what it is is this constant rehashiung of "Why can't we
>just do away with the BOM rule?" Well, it is here. Live
>with it and let's move on to another subject. We have 500
>postings on this subject and all I hear is the same stuff
>over and over. It does drive people away.

>Leonard Neumann

Leonard,
Enough is enough. Only you can do something about it, you have the power. I, along with many others, have all but written off this forum because of the politics and selective editorial policies. If I were new to the event, I would be turned away by all this stuff. Grow some, take a stand, and simply delete anything having to do with elections, PAMPA policies, or BOM.

I told you before, and I will tell you again. Perhaps the productive time for these forums has passed.

Very tired of it all,

Curt.

PS: In spite of that, Dirt and Howard still make me laugh.

Curt, your views are, unfortunately, what many others have expressed. There are some who have hijacked the forum and made it into a political platform where they want to express their views and change the world. I have tried not to be "heavy handed" and simply delete everything on the subject. I want to moderate, not delete, which I have bent over backwards to try to accomplish.

When the builder of the model rule was a rules proposal, perhaps there was a valid reason to discuss it. There no longer is. The election process is about over. Let's move on and use the forum for its intent which is to help people design, build, and fly model airplanes.

Thanks, Curt.

The above reasons are precisely why I stressed protesting. I am tired of it as well and it should be plainly obvious that all the verbage typed on this subject for the last nearly 2 years have been useless. I hope we can get back to flying and modeling stuff and that the other stuff happens at next years Nats where it belongs.

>Leonard,
>Enough is enough. Only you can do something about it, you
>have the power. I, along with many others, have all but
>written off this forum because of the politics and selective
>editorial policies. If I were new to the event, I would be
>turned away by all this stuff. Grow some, take a stand, and
>simply delete anything having to do with elections, PAMPA
>policies, or BOM.

I am simply floored. I thought this was America... I am personally, very disappointed.

If you don't like the thread, don't read it. How hard is that? Why is it so important to STOP OTHER PEOPLE FROM TALKING.

This is my take---"along with many others"... I bet my "others" are the majority...

If a guy won the NATS lying, I'd say ain't very honest. Shame.

But, this darn no good liar can fly!!

In Christ,

THERE IS NO BOM IN BEGINNER CLASS. Read the rule book! Rule 5.3. "The builder-of-the-model rule will not apply to the Beginner class and no appearance points will be awarded."

I wonder if anyone knows that the AMA rule book allows for deviation of non safty rules. All you have to do is submidt it to the AMA in your sanction allpication. You must post the changes in your contest flier in advance for it to be ok. That is how the non builder of the model rule contest are legal.
Just to fill in the uninformed, my protest was in 1981 in Seguin, Tx. The problem was that the AMA was allowing PAMPA to run the nats as they (pampa) saw fit. The rule book said 3 attempts for 2 official flights. They never published any changes anywhere. My protest changed that to the current way of running the event.
On to the builder of the model rule. Go to the AMA Model Aviation archive and look on page 138 of the AUG 1990 issue. It shows up as page 140 on the internet. That letter did actualy stop the offending modeler from competing ever again. In fact several years later a relative of the offending person, under the control of much beer, admitted that it was he that, in fact , built the model in question.
Personaly I love the BOM rule. However I think it is uninforceable. It would appear that the SIG that run the nats could not enforce the rule if they wanted to. I don't know. Just an observation.
It makes do difference to me.

dick byron
[email protected]