The Offical BOM Definition......

I would like to know what the NATS CLPA CD,Manager, and AMA Technical Directors definition of BOM is. According to the Protest Procedure a competitor files a written protest to the CD. The CD accepts the protest and gives it to the Manager. The manager (or CD if the Manager is not present) will rule on the protest in writting and present it to the competitor who lodged the protest. If the competitor wishes to persue the protest to a higher level, the Manager will deliver the protest to the AMA Technical Director. The TD will then assemble a jury. The NATS jury will be comprised of the AMA TD and 2 suitably qualified people of his choosing. Their ruling will be issued in writing and is final and not subject to be appealed any further.

In light of this, I think it would be appropriate to have the CLPA CD, Manager and AMA Technical Director give us their opinion of what they would consider a BOM qualified model. We can debate what is a BOM qualified model, but really matters is what THEY say it is.

Should I put a formal written request to our PAMPA board asking what the NATS, CD, Manager, and AMA Tecnical Director would say. In example is a Morris QB kit qualified to meet the BOM? I would like to know what the last several years NATS CLPA CD, Manager, and AMA TD would say, especially if they will continue in those positions.

How about it guys. Let me know. Maybe we can end this debate without having to file protests. I say having this information would be a big help, at least to me, concerning the BOM.

Crist,

My guess is that you'd get no response and here's why.

This is a hot potatoe and anything they might say could be misconstrued or taken out of context. That would be bad.

At a National event the protest goes directly to the AMA (Steve Kaluf) who has a jury in place for just such occasions. The AMA is the forced to interpret the rule and issue a desision. That's how you'll get a response. If I were in one of those positions I would not respond either because it would just add fuel to the fire, making a protest ruling however must be done with all present and a decision must be issued within a time limit.

i dont know sounds like a yes or no question to me.

>Crist,
>
>My guess is that you'd get no response and here's why.
>
>This is a hot potatoe and anything they might say could be
>misconstrued or taken out of context. That would be bad.
>
>At a National event the protest goes directly to the AMA
>(Steve Kaluf) who has a jury in place for just such
>occasions. The AMA is the forced to interpret the rule and
>issue a desision. That's how you'll get a response. If I
>were in one of those positions I would not respond either
>because it would just add fuel to the fire, making a protest
>ruling however must be done with all present and a decision
>must be issued within a time limit.
>
>Randy Ryan
>AMA 8500
>SAM 36
>I fly 'em all and love it!

Randy,
Let me correct you about the protest procedure. I'm reading it right now. I got it at this years CLPA NATS. It goes to the CD first, then to the MANAGER, and if the competitor decides, then it goes to the AMA TD. And there are time limits for each step.

Crist,

I may be in error since I speak from Free Flight experience, but either way the protestor can force it to the higher level which is my point. That's where it needs to go.

I don't think asking for a "clarification" is the way to go, but if someone thinks that someone has gone too far, then a protest can (and will) be filed.

the Brian Keiffer situation that Brett referred to in another thread is a good example of what happens. Brian flew in both Advanced and Senior (I believe) that year. (Senior or Junior, I don't remember.) He "won" in Senior and (I believe) also in Advanced. Then a protest was filed that he was not the builder of the model. He had just rebuilt a wrecked plane that he got from Windy and refinished it (Much more work than assembling and recovering an ARF Nobler, by the way). The protest was upheld and he was disqualified from Senior. Although his flight score was allowed to stand in Advanced, he was stripped of all appearance points (as per the rules--no appearance points if you did not build the model) and was dropped several places in the standings.

So, precedent has been set, but it does take the formal protest.

So, the logical answer is, if you see it happening, don't blink, wink, or whine after the fact. Just file a protest and let the proper officials follow proper procedure. Rebuilding a wrecked plane won't stand a protest. That has already been determined. I would assume that the same would be true of a quick build plane. I would advise that nobody try it next year. If that is what you were intending to fly, you had better start building your own.

Now, let's put this baby to rest.

My question on the Tom Morris kits is just how do you tell a quick build from a basic kit after it is finished???? I have a wing kit in a ready built profile fuselage and a basic kit. If I put the basic kit of 1,000 pieces together and finish it, how can anyone tell it from a quick built or basically finished or even a ready to fly Morris Cavalier?? In my case the finish would be a dead giveaway, but how about others?? Do they tell the truth if asked?

>My question on the Tom Morris kits is just how do you tell a
>quick build from a basic kit after it is finished???? I
>have a wing kit in a ready built profile fuselage and a
>basic kit. If I put the basic kit of 1,000 pieces together
>and finish it, how can anyone tell it from a quick built or
>basically finished or even a ready to fly Morris Cavalier??
>In my case the finish would be a dead giveaway, but how
>about others?? Do they tell the truth if asked?

Telling the truth is the key. A number of people have suggested that people sign a sheet stating that they were the builder of the plane or that they constructed it according to the rules. But, as in anything, if you built the plane for me and neither one of us told, well, no one calls out the identity police. With most people there is a pride they take in building the plane themselves and people simply accept you at your word. So, if you want to look me in the eye and lie, well, I guess you could do that.

I only lie to bosmy blondes. The sailor in me I guess.

So, if you want to look me
>in the eye and lie, well, I guess you could do that.

According to some building the QBC requires enough building and finishing to call it their own. They feel they have complied so they are not lying in their own minds. Kind of the "Eye of the beholder" type thing. Saying they are lying is not really a fair thing to do because the rule is subjective not definative.

I am not trying to start anything just pointing out another view. I read on a post somewhere along the way from Brett that said something along those lines. It is all up to the builder to determine if he built the model to call it his own. Kenny felt that way about his QBC and got 18 points for it in 02 and an Advanced win. He feels he complied by the rule and so it stands. No protests and so it stands.

The Keiffer situation. I was flying against him in Adv that year. It was 96. The Plane was Windy's V-Max. It had a damaged front end. He repaired or replaced the front end of the plane. From the wing back it was the same plane it always was. I checked it out closely many times. It still had the pipe tunnel exit in it. He did not have to set the wing in the fuse(Liek you do on an ARF Nobler) He did not have to put in the Stab(like you do on an ARF Nobler) He did not have to build the pushrod and setup the control surfaces like you do on an ARF Nobler) You see where I am going with this? All he had to do was put on a new front section and paint it black and go. I would say there is more in an ARF Nobler than what he had in the V-Max.

If I am not mistaken he was in Jr at the time flying agianst Dondi Garrison. He did win Adv and then he ended up 4th and I think Dondi won. Dondi went onto win Jr and Brian came back one or two more times and that was that. Dondi came back one more time and that was that for him.

He feels he complied by
>the rule and so it stands. No protests and so it stands.

That's the whole thing. We all knew it was a QBC, and NO ONE CARED!!!! Not one person! I did not hear one single grumble either year. The only people grumbling are on this forum, as far as I can see.

The problem is, Brad, you have made it an issue.

First off, I don't think he felt the quick build "kit" was not within the rules, so I am not blaming him for an intentional infraction. I want to make that clear. This has nothing to do with Kenny.

I don't believe a lot of the competitors knew at the time. It is not written on the plane or his score card.
If it was an infraction (and I believe it was)it would take a protest and a ruling to determine this. The time for such protest is long past so his entry and placing stands. However, this does not legetimize the quick build kit as legitimate according to the rules any more than OJ's getting away with murder makes it legal for all of us to follow in his footsteps. If a protest is filed, then a ruling will be made.

The problem, as I said, is that now you and others who want to do away with the builder of the model rule want to use this as a precedent to not only legitimize all such untries, but the ARFs as well.

I would only suggest that anyone, Kenny included, who wish to enter the Nats next year with a quick built model be prepared to stand a protest. This, apparently, is the only way to legetimize the builder of the model rule.

Now, we don't need to argue the point any more. You have your opinion. I, and others, have ours. And the rule book is quite explicit. It is an AMA issue, not a PAMPA issue. And it is not a forum issue. Neither PAMPA nor this forum will be able to settle the issue. So let's shake hands, agree to disagree on this issue, and move on to other subjects.

So far I have gritted my teeth and done all I can to stay away from this topic Of BOM and quick build kits. Well heres my two cents worth. If you buy one of Tom's QBK, You still have to finish it. I can have a model framed up and ready for dope in a couple of weeks. From that point, I'll spend more than a couple of months In the finishing process. Gee, sounds like more than 51% of my time goes into finishing. Now I know most of you out there are going to be replying,"I dont take that long to finish a plane" Maybe not but are they "twenty Point" finishes??? Now, if my flying buddy Jim Goss and I both bought Toms Quick Built Cavalear(?). He would be flying his a lot sooner. But when it comes to appearance points ( and this is what I hear most of you sniveling about) Jim is going to get his usual twelve points and I'm going to get ninteen. No different than if both of us built completly from scratch. Im afraid I just dont get it. Larry NorCal Circle Jerks.

> He feels he complied by
>>the rule and so it stands. No protests and so it stands.
>
>That's the whole thing. We all knew it was a QBC, and NO
>ONE CARED!!!! Not one person! I did not hear one single
>grumble either year. The only people grumbling are on this
>forum, as far as I can see.

First, we didn't "all know" since I had no idea, and still don't, how Kenny got his airplane. Second, no one here "grumbled about it" that I have seen - except anti-BOM advocates that use it as an example, and "grumbled" was more like "held it up as a shining vision of the future".

Once again, it's a matter of opinion whether the quick-build model meets the definition or not. Also once again, even assuming it *was* a quick build model, the fact that it was not protested does not mean that it will stand a protest if one is made the next time. If a quick-build model gets protested next year, and it's ruled non-compliant, the fact that it may have flown before is not at all relevant - because that's not the question that a protest poses.

Kenny signed the same entry I did, he thought it was OK, and so as far as I am concerned, that's good enough for me.

Geez, it's just not that hard a situation to understand.

> First, we didn't "all know" since I had no idea, and
>still don't, how Kenny got his airplane.

You were in Open. I suppose it did not really effect the outcome of the event for you, so it was not of your concern at the time. I spoke to several of the Advanced competitors, in fact, KENNY spoke openly about Tom's kits and great they were. I remember it distinctly that we (Advanced pilots) had a lot of conversations in the scoring tent. Our take was more of "the times are a changing" rather than there was a violation, just like you yourself said. No one that I spoke to in Advanced interpreted a QBC as being in violation of the "standard kit" by the modern definition. Everyone was very happy for Kenny and I would definately say he is very well liked and a wonderful champion.

Second, no one here
>"grumbled about it" that I have seen - except anti-BOM
>advocates that use it as an example

Saying that SOMEONE should protest the first QBC they see at the Nats on general principle sounds like grumbling to me. There was an entire thread devoted to it, Brett.

>and "grumbled" was more
>like "held it up as a shining vision of the future".

That is simply overblown. I said there was an oportunity to enforce "one version" of the BOM rule, and no one really cared. I also said that I think that now that a QB kit has won, WINNING a protest may be more difficult. I could be wrong. I am sure someone will make sure to test my assertion.

> Kenny signed the same entry I did, he thought it was OK,
>and so as far as I am concerned, that's good enough for me.

It was for us, too.

Look, until two years ago I thought the "51% rule" WAS a rule. I heard it so often, from so many credible sources, I just assumed it was in the rules. It goes all the way back to the 70's for gosh sakes! Most of the guys I know my age have came up hearing the term so much it is indelibly etched in a lot of people's minds. So a QBC is 51%. That seemed to be good enough until the "ANTI BOM" crowd brought it up. Now it seems to be an unacceptable standard. It seems that in an effort to obsolete the BOM, the result may change to actually enforcing the BOM. That seems very interesting.

Don't worry, Len. I'm done.

>Telling the truth is the key. A number of people have
>suggested that people sign a sheet stating that they were
>the builder of the plane or that they constructed it
>according to the rules.

That's already the case. When you enter the NATs, you sign an entry blank that says something to the effect that you have read, understood, and complied with all the rules. Right there above the signature.