In Reference to William's Question.....

Since there has been no change to the rule (at least since I have been aware of the rule) why do we hassle over it so much?
I know we all put things in the perspective of our own life experiences, I guess that is why.
Since I have been earning my living as a coach for over 25 years now, I guess I don't see "rules" in the same light as many others.
Please give a constructive answer to this, I can't seem to understand the reasoning behind some peoples comments, and I don't want to feel the wrong way.
"There can be no prefabrication other than the "average kit". I do not feel the "average kit" has changed over the years as to the parts contained. Now there is laser cutting, but the "parts" are basically the same in the "average kit". Brodak, RSM, UHP, Blue Sky, Umland, Richard's, and on (apologises to any I might have left out) are the "average kit". These are the ones that are "produced the most", making them the "average".
There has never been a consideration about how much construction the "builder" accomplished. He must build all the assemblies.
That is the rule, what am I missing? Honest question, I would appreciate honest answers.
Bill <><
P.S. Apologises to OS for any spelling errors! LOL!!!!

I am agreeing with you, Bill. I, too, do not want this to become a "wars" thing, and if it does, then let's just shut it down.

There are certainly modern technologies today that should be accepted. Lazer cut ribs and components, for instance. There is no difference between these and die crunched except for accuracy, and most kit makers are going this route now (or doing accurately hand cut components). Foam cores are common in kits. Certainly the good hardware and mini components should not be a problem. If someone had another modeler mold him a turtle deck it wuldn't be any different than using the already molded turtle deck in the SIG Mustang or the Top Flite Gieseke Nobler. You get a canopy from someone. Fine. Even a cowl or wheel pants.

Where we have gradually crept into the "grey areas" I think was when we not only got foam wing cores made, but then had them sheeted as well. The modeler still added the leading and trailing edges and wingtips and gear mounts and figured all was well Soon, however, the leading and trailing edges were also applied by the cutter...and the gear mounts...and the wing tips. And then the flaps were cut out of foam by the cutter...and sheeted. And...

You have asked a question that leads to much debate because each person has his own interpretation. It is sort of like drinking and driving. A person asks, "Can I drink a beer before driving?" I suppose it would be OK. I wouldn't, but it *shouldl* be ok. "Can I have two?" "Can I have three?" We always want to see how far we can go. I always say, "don't push it." God and the freindly government officials tell us that drunkenness is a sin (well, the government calls it something else, but they still throw you in jail.) We should never have to push the limits to see how far we can go before we cross that thin line.

Did you build the structure? All of it? If not, how much didn't you build?

Did you do the sanding, covering, painting? If not, how much didn't you do?

Are you the builder of the model?

Ask the question. Be honest. And let's move on from there.

So far we're in the same camp, Len, you made a statement a while back that the availability of the so called quick kits hardly made a dent in what would be called a kit on the average. So true! I can't spend allot of time right now (at work) but I think the "average kit" statement is still valid. What needs to happen, for us that want to hold to the BOM, is a written description of a "kit" in the rules. As Bill said, sturctures should be built by the builder, not the manufacturer, at least that's what I think I read. I believe this should be defined as building indicating that anything other is only assembling which does not qualify under the rule.

>So far we're in the same camp, Len, you made a statement a
>while back that the availability of the so called quick kits
>hardly made a dent in what would be called a kit on the
>average. So true! I can't spend allot of time right now (at
>work) but I think the "average kit" statement is still
>valid. What needs to happen, for us that want to hold to the
>BOM, is a written description of a "kit" in the rules. As
>Bill said, sturctures should be built by the builder, not
>the manufacturer, at least that's what I think I read. I
>believe this should be defined as building indicating that
>anything other is only assembling which does not qualify
>under the rule.
>
>Randy Ryan
>AMA 8500
>SAM 36
>I fly 'em all and love it!

Ron B.
F4Fguy

You'll find no stronger supporter of BOM than I,but I can see no rationale for changing the language.It still depends on the integrity of the modeler/flyer.There is absolutely no way to tell, after the fact,whether the the airframe was from scratch,or purchased primed,ready to paint,or something in between.

I suppose we could ask all the commercial builders to serial all thier airframes and submit the list to PAMPA.Short of that,there's simply no way other than to assume the modeler is honest,a concept which doesn't bother me.

Bill,

I want to add a couple of question to your list.

1. Why is it important in PA to have the BOM (which gives the pilot the apperance points)?

I mention this only because the BOM and apperance points are two different criteria and addressed seperately in the rule book.

2. What harm would elimination of BOM do to the hobby or competition?

As I've stated before, I really don't care much one way or the other and won't re-hash my position here. I will add one thought. If I go to a contest and place 4th, while the guy who places 5th does it with one of the planes I built. He claims no apperance points (honest guy) and I beat him by 4 points over all. I obviously wasn't the better flyer and I have always felt that was the point. But that's just me.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-18-04 AT 10:02 AM (CDT)
 
John,

At the risk of a flame job I would explain it like this. The with holding of appearance points for a non BOM conforming model has simply been a gentleman's way of handling the problem. However, a model not built by the flyer should be disqualified, not simply stripped on appearance points.

From my personal perspective, again trying to be without emotion, is that the construction of the model is a substantial part of the essence of the event. In the early days guys pitted their flying skills along with their design, building and finishing skills. It wasn't a simple "flying event", the competition was present on at least 3 of the 4 levels all adding up to the total. I, as an "old schooler" see value in that concept as well as being emotionally attached to it. Some may say that I should take the emotion out of it, but I, as the "old schooler" cannot do that. Further, at the very heart of it its very simple to me, if the BOM were gone, this event would not be the event I enjoy, nor would I have any desire to participate. In fact, the rule's compromise over these later years has cheapened the event for ME, I stress, ME, though I am sure there are many others that that probably feel that way.

This then gives rise to this question: Why should I and other supporters of the ORIGINAL concept of the event have to compomise so that those that have no desire to participate on all its levels can simply fly their toys?

I think you can see what harm elimination of the BOM would do to the hobby from the perspective of those of us that support it at the base level.

I've tried to present this in the most objective way I can, let's not turn it into a fire fight PLEASE!

>John,
>
>At the risk of a flame job I would explain it like this. The
>with holding of appearance points for a non BOM conforming
>model has simply been a gentleman's way of handling the
>problem. However, a model not built by the flyer should be
>disqualified, not simply stripped on appearance points.
>
>snip
>
>Randy Ryan
>AMA 8500
>SAM 36
>I fly 'em all and love it!

Randy,
I am not flaming you on this, just want to point out that the rule book says that if you didn't build the model, no appearance points but you can still fly in skill classes of Intermediate, Advanced, and Expert classes. I assume your statement was in regards to skill classes. JSO at the NATS the BOM is in effect and that you cannot fly.

Best regards,

Crist,

I was speaking in regards to events that have the BOM, no trying to differentiate between them, BOM means BOM.

In the main body of my post I was:
1. Trying to express what the BOM means to allot us old heads.
2. Bemoaning the loss of it in some areas and how its cheapened the event, again, for some of us older guys that have been around.

Now, the you older guys that disagree with me, please, I'm not making blanket statements, that's why it says "allot" and "some".

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Randy:

Well said!!!

>Bill,
>
>I want to add a couple of question to your list.
>
>1. Why is it important in PA to have the BOM (which gives
>the pilot the apperance points)?
>
>I mention this only because the BOM and apperance points are
>two different criteria and addressed seperately in the rule
>book.
>
>2. What harm would elimination of BOM do to the hobby or
>competition?
>
>As I've stated before, I really don't care much one way or
>the other and won't re-hash my position here. I will add
>one thought. If I go to a contest and place 4th, while the
>guy who places 5th does it with one of the planes I built.
>He claims no apperance points (honest guy) and I beat him by
>4 points over all. I obviously wasn't the better flyer and
>I have always felt that was the point. But that's just me.
>
>Later, John

Speaking as a beginner, or a re-beginner, I'd like to toss in my 2 cents.

To me our hobby/sport/competition is a combination of many elements. One of those elements is building the model. I strongly believe that this should remain an element of our sport. One of the elements of building is finishing. I also believe that finish is an important element of model building. As to what harm removing the BOM rule would do: it would change a fundamental characteristic of our competitions which include model building skills. A skill which can be learned, practiced and improved. Wether or not removing the BOM rule is "harmful" is completely personal preference. It is certainly a major change. A fundamental change I do not support. It looks to me like a direction I feel is "harmful" to our sport: If you can justify hiring someone to build your model the next big step down this road is to hire some one to fly it for you because you don't have time to practice, etc.

On a side note to this: I've heard people say that the BOM rule discourages beginners. Speaking as a beginner, "baloney".
It simply does not apply to beginners.

As to beating somebody because you built your plane and he did not build his. This is a good thing. After all, building the model is one element of the total competition. Would you feel wrong about beating him if he left out a maneuver rather than leaving out the building element? Even if he flew the rest of the pattern better than you did?

It all comes down to your personal feeling as to wether or not building is a desirable element of the total PA competition packgage. I vote "yes" it is.
Clarification/refinement of the rule in light of modern technology is probably a good thing.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-18-04 AT 05:36 PM (CDT)
 
>1. Why is it important in PA to have the BOM (which gives
>the pilot the apperance points)?
book.
>
>2. What harm would elimination of BOM do to the hobby or
>competition?
>
>... I obviously wasn't the better flyer and
>I have always felt that was the point. But that's just me.

1) It's part of the essence of the event. The AMA was conceived and exists as an organization of modelers. Its contests are contests among builders of models. I will continue to oppose compromising this foundation. Contests of any type may be held outside of AMA and sink or swim on their own merits. The BOM, among other things, ensures that the winners of this nation's highst CLPA honors will continue to honor and uphold the standards of their predecessors.

2) One's dedication and loyalty to any endeavor are proportional to what s/he puts into it. Those who buy their way in usually don't have much staying power; they just have not really invested themselves. The statistics quoted to me a year ago were that R/C has a four-year turnover rate among 80% of those who participate. The 80% transcient population consists mostly of those who do not build. One of our members visited an R/C field belonging to another club and discovered that not one of the four pattern flyers there that day had EVER built a model plane. I don't think CLPA would ultimately stand up well to that level of transience. But Randy covered it best above; the event would cease to honor the skills of true modelers and would thus lose its appeal for me.

I believe that I have addressed your last point above: I don't see flying skills as the only point of contests.

Finally, in case you did not see my reply to your contention that the BOM rule discourages newcomers and those at the lower competition levels, I'll say again that I see no direct relevance of the BOM rule to new participation, since it does not apply to these PAMPA classes. Only the few appearance points count, and at that level, who cares? Despite having flown some CL 40 years ago, I myself am close to that level; while my building skills are probably a bit above average (not matching yours yet!), my flying needs much more work. The main reason I'm back at all is the inspiration of seeing and remembering the wonderful self-designed and built models at the top of CLPA. I think we should appeal to the best instincts and aspirations of our potential participants. That way we will attract those who have what it takes to develop into the best. We will nurture high asperations.

SK

Bravo!

The BOM, among other things, ensures that
>the winners of this nation's highst CLPA honors will
>continue to honor and uphold the standards of their
>predecessors.

Devils advocate...
How did they do this before the BOM was created?

Does anyone know when and why the BOM was created?
Did it not come about after a junior won the Walker Cup flying planes his parents built?

I'm just curious about the history. DO NOT READ ANYTHING INTO MY QUESTION PLEASE!

>Devils advocate...
>How did they do this before the BOM was created?

>Does anyone know when and why the BOM was created?
>Did it not come about after a junior won the Walker Cup flying planes his parents built?

Rick-

Since I was not around during CLPA's formative years, I can't be the ultimate authority here, although I have cited the present rules and mission statement. I think that BOM must always have been assumed in Nationals competition, since the organization was an association of modelers. This then would have been included in the rules as they evolved. I believe that as early as a certain young multiple winner from the late 1940's, there were concerns, but only because someone suspected that the rule - written or not - might have been violated. I do not think that the original appearance of a BOM rule was a change in concept or policy; it was just the written manifestation of original intent. Perhaps one of the SSW contributers who was active in AMA at that time can verify this.

SK

John,

Serge Kraus wrote an excellent summary of why BOM at all. It involves AMA rules, and there are procedures to propose, discuss and accept or reject rule changes. Apparently, dropping BOM from the basic, Age Classes Precision Aerobatics (Event #322 in the Rulebook) never got far as a rule proposal. A lot of us like the grand tradition of the thing, and a lot of us don't like this part of the tradition.

HOWEVER----- The Skill Class Events are also Official (#323 - #326), and have the alternative approach. No appearance points at all for Beginner, and appearance points only to a flier who built his model in Int, Adv and Exp.

If there's a lot of opposition to BOM in a local region, why not fly the Skill Class events( #323-#326) instead of JR/SR/OP Age Classes (#322). Then guys who like to build get some reward, and those who don't know they can't "buy" points earned by someone else's work. Both sides get a much fairer shake this way.

Skill Classes introduced by PAMPA (within AMA, anyway -- WAM in No Calif had something like that wa-a-ay back, if I recall) work so well that the only time I know of in recent years that Age Classes #322 is sure to be flown is at the NATS.

We do this because we like it, right? Hard, confrontational subjects of any kind cut into the enjoyment we can find. We have people who love BOM and people who hate it. But we also have a middle ground that's pretty fair to both of the extremes.

Let's meet there and have a good day's flying.

>"There can be no prefabrication other than the "average
>kit". I do not feel the "average kit" has changed over the
>years as to the parts contained. Now there is laser
>cutting, but the "parts" are basically the same in the
>"average kit". Brodak, RSM, UHP, Blue Sky, Umland,
>Richard's, and on (apologises to any I might have left out)
>are the "average kit". These are the ones that are
>"produced the most", making them the "average".
>There has never been a consideration about how much
>construction the "builder" accomplished. He must build all
>the assemblies.
>That is the rule, what am I missing? Honest question, I
>would appreciate honest answers.

I agree with Bill. Always have. There might be over 200 Control line stunt kits out there in today's market. Maybe less than ten offer pre-fabrication. These are not average. Never have been.

Letting pre-fabrication slide would always be in violation of the letter of the rule. Always.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-18-04 AT 01:23 PM (CDT)
 
I thought I had read in one of the earlier discussions on this topic that the defintiion of "average" kit took into consideration all types of kits and didn't limit it to just C/L. I may not be remembering that completely accurately though.
I don't have a problem with with the current rules. Either keeping it or changing it won't affect me much. It does make for some interesting discussion for a little while as long at it stays civil.

From someone that is in the middle of the road and has no idea of what really hapened..

The big problem is that pre-built foam wings have been accepted since the 70's and Tom's quick builds have received appearance points at more than one NATTs. When I came back into the hobby I was under the distinct impression that a quick build was ok to receive appearance points and nobody even hinted otherwise.

So what we had was an accepted bending of the rules that goes all the way back to the 70's. Then all of the sudden several flyers decided to start trying to enforce the rules as written, not as accepted. Result = BOM wars.

>The big problem is that pre-built foam wings have been
>accepted since the 70's and Tom's quick builds have received
>appearance points at more than one NATTs. When I came back
>into the hobby I was under the distinct impression that a
>quick build was ok to receive appearance points and nobody
>even hinted otherwise.
>
>So what we had was an accepted bending of the rules that
>goes all the way back to the 70's. Then all of the sudden
>several flyers decided to start trying to enforce the rules
>as written, not as accepted. Result = BOM wars.

As I stated above, I think the problem is these things gradually evolved with no one really thinking of it as cheating. "Can you cut a foam core for me?" "Sure, I can even sheet it if you want me to." We don't think about it and then have the leading and trailing edges added. And then the wing tips. and then... It is like "If drinking one beer is OK and drinking 6 beers is too much, where is the dividing line?" The answer is, "Don't push to the dividing line." If you have to ask, you maybe should never even go there. "Is adding the leading and trailing edges to a foam core too much? Here, let me do it myself, and then there will be no question. And I will buy a kit from Tom Morris, not a totally built airplane if I want to enter it in competition under BOM.

And it is not "an acceptance" of certain things. I would not accept Tom's quick build airplanes as qualifying for the BOM. Tom built it. That's it, plain and simple. Did the one who brought one of these to the Nats go up to the event director and say, "I am flying one of Tom's quick build models, but I am the builder of the model." No, he just quietly entered. Perhaps some of the contestants there knew its origin. And perhaps it is like this current "gay thing" that is going on in San Francisco. It takes a court challenge to establish the validity or non validity of what is taking place. The fact that it is happening, in and of itself, does not make it legal according to the law.

Maybe it takes a challenge of a competitor by a competitor to establish the validity if the modeler himself is not agreeable to owning up to the fact that he did or did not construct the model. The trouble is, then somebody gets mad at somebody and sometimes we would just rather let them have a trophy than cause a fire.

I think if we would simply use the three point question that I earlier posed, then those, faced with the truth, would own up to the truth and not claim to be be builder of the model when they indeed are not. And, if not, they need to live with themselves. It is just a model contest. The end of the world is something else.

Leonard,
My view is that the BOM rule has been "interpreted" so much that newer guys have no clue as to what it is. I get the feeling that many have never even read it in the AMA rule book. There is a strict mention of how much "prefabrication" is allowed. There is absolutely no mention of 51% or any other percentage. The flyer must build it ALL minus the appropriate hardware.
As to your questions (which I would have no problem with), why should we even have to ask?
I have no answers, only questions. And I don't believe that in the present state of the event that they can be answered in a manner that will actually work. We must, as has been stated, rely on the honor system, which to our dismay, is rapidly becoming degraded by our society. "It isn't cheating if you don't get caught" is the common catch phrase now.
Thanks!
Bill <><

>Leonard,
(snip)
>As to your questions (which I would have no problem with),
>why should we even have to ask?
(snip)
>Bill <><
>
>Just an Old Advanced flyer.

when I go to the Post Office to ship something I am always asked the question "Are their any liquids, perishable, or hazardous materials inside?" I am tempted to say, "just a small package of anthrax spores, but they are no problem as long as no one opens the package."--but seriously, the question is repetaedly asked to remind us of the problem and to get us to make the statement that we have complied with the law (which many people aren't even aware of.)

If we merely bring our models to a contest and nobody even asks us if we are the builder of the model, it is like nobody even cares. If they have a pull test but nobody asks if you tested, we don't test. Nobody cares. If we have builder of the model and nobody asks, we don't bother to comply. "Nobody cares." If we are merely asked, "Are you the builder of the model?", but do not state something like "comstructing and assembling all major components, covering and painting all structures yourself..." somebody is likely to say, "yes", even though all he did was assemble a quick build kit and have Windy paint it. To him, he is the builder of the model. If he is asked, "Did you do this and do that?", he then is confronted with having to answer, "yes" or "no", and then to confess if he is not or lie if he is not. If we don't ask, he merely feels that he has complied with all that was required.

Did you exceed the posted speed limits at any time during the past week? Does the fact that you did now make it legal for anybody to do so? When you get pulled over by a patrolman who then gives you a ticket, do you have a valid defense in saying "Others have done it before me"?

Are you the builder of the model? I am not asking if your model is more or less constructed than anything that has slipped by before you. I am asking you right now, "Are you the builder of this model that you are entering this contest with today?" "Did you construct and assemble the major components of the airframe, did you cover and finish the airframe? If you received help, how much help did you receive? Are you the builder of the model? It should be simple enough to enforce, and anyone who wished to cheat would at least know within himself that he was doing so. As it stands today at many contests, I don't think that many even know that they may not qualify for appearance points or why.

I was at a contest two years ago and the contest director asked me point blank if I built the model. There is no BOM in OTS and I felt insulted. As if I would pay someone to build a model as crappy looking as mine was. What gall.

First of all. Thank all you guys for the tone of this thread. I sincerely asked the questions I did and really appreciate the responses. I am pretty much old school myself having entered my first contest in '56. There is much to be said for the tradition and enjoyment of building these models. I have never even considered entering a plane in a contest which I didn't build and certainly appreciate the views expresses and the reasoning behind it. I do think that getting rid of it entirely might be a little "..throwing the baby out with the bath water."

But on the other hand is there some common ground to at least modify or re-define the BOM to reflect the realities of the times in which we live?

Thank all of you once again, both for the response and more importantly, for the courtesy.

>First of all. Thank all you guys for the tone of this
>thread. I sincerely asked the questions I did and really
>appreciate the responses. I am pretty much old school
>myself having entered my first contest in '56. There is
>much to be said for the tradition and enjoyment of building
>these models. I have never even considered entering a plane
>in a contest which I didn't build and certainly appreciate
>the views expresses and the reasoning behind it. I do think
>that getting rid of it entirely might be a little
>"..throwing the baby out with the bath water."
>
>But on the other hand is there some common ground to at
>least modify or re-define the BOM to reflect the realities
>of the times in which we live?
>
>Thank all of you once again, both for the response and more
>importantly, for the courtesy.
>
>Later, John

Ron B.
F4Fguy

John:

I'll make a deal with you.I'll help you fight to change the rule,if you help me to gaurantee that any one breaking the rule will be banned for life from flying PA.

It's not just a nostalgia thing,it's inherent.The only reason the rule was ever formalized was because of people competing with airplanes they hadn't built.I first started flying contests in the late forties,before there was a "Precision Aerobatics".NO ONE would would would have thought of flying anything of which they were not the BOM.As far as I know,(I don't have the 1953 rule book)BOM was required at the first Nationals I flew in.As Serge said above,AMA is an association of MODELERS,not just flyers.

If I seem passionate on the subject,it's because I am.The constant attempts to get rid of the rule by parsing it to death are just more steps along the instant gratification road.If all you want to do is fly,get yourself a Game Boy,I'm sure somebody will soon have the software available.

Great response. It's all about the passion and love of the hobby.

I am not in favor of the abolition of the BOM rule. I have much the same feeling as Ron B., and others here.
My bone of contention is that there is a wide spread acceptance of certain practices that do not adhere to the rule as written. This has been admitted to several times during these discussions.
What gives any of us the right to bend a written rule?
I feel no ill will towards anyone, and I have not directly confronted anyone over this. I just wanted the answers/ideas of everyone here.
William is a friend, flying pal, judge, and club leader. He was wanting the information to clarify the rule at our meets.
I will stand behind the statement that tooo many fliers have lost/never knew the real meaning of BOM. And I believe that it is because we have "allowed" certain acceptable practices over the years that do not conform with the rule as it is written. We do not have that right unless we propose and get a rules change. Hasn't happened, so the rule stands as it was written way, way, back.
HAving said that, those sheete3d wings are a no-no by the rule as it is written. Think about that the next time.
Thanks for ALL the responses, call your next case.
Bill <><

>I am not in favor of the abolition of the BOM rule. I have
>much the same feeling as Ron B., and others here.
>My bone of contention is that there is a wide spread
>acceptance of certain practices that do not adhere to the
>rule as written. This has been admitted to several times
>during these discussions.
>What gives any of us the right to bend a written rule?
>I feel no ill will towards anyone, and I have not directly
>confronted anyone over this. I just wanted the
>answers/ideas of everyone here.

I feel that this is why the BOM will eventually be abolished. There are too many people who have been laboring under the dillusion that pre-fabbed components are legal by the rules, and I do not feel they will ever stop using them (or frankly that the manufacturers will ever offer LESS prefabrication---in fact just the opposite).

To keep friendships in tact and keep everything civil the BOM will eventually be abolished for AMA CLPA competition. It's simply a matter of time and participation.

>>I am not in favor of the abolition of the BOM rule. I have
>>much the same feeling as Ron B., and others here.
>>My bone of contention is that there is a wide spread
>>acceptance of certain practices that do not adhere to the
>>rule as written. This has been admitted to several times
>>during these discussions.
>>What gives any of us the right to bend a written rule?
>>I feel no ill will towards anyone, and I have not directly
>>confronted anyone over this. I just wanted the
>>answers/ideas of everyone here.
>
>I feel that this is why the BOM will eventually be
>abolished. There are too many people who have been laboring
>under the dillusion that pre-fabbed components are legal by
>the rules, and I do not feel they will ever stop using them
>(or frankly that the manufacturers will ever offer LESS
>prefabrication---in fact just the opposite).
>
>To keep friendships in tact and keep everything civil the
>BOM will eventually be abolished for AMA CLPA competition.
>It's simply a matter of time and participation.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Those who use them can can continue to use them.They just need to get over the erroneous notion that they are the builder of the model.

Of course the Mfgs will continue to fill a market.What has that got to do with the case? The fact that we are fast becoming a nation of ADD afflicted,instant gratification starved individuals doesn't mean we should lower the standards to meet their needs.

I've cut a lot of foam wings and a lot of my friends have cut wings on my equipment,but,while I've given advice,I've not cut the wing for them,and certainly not sheeted it for them.Some of their first attempts were not pretty,but I'm convinced they felt better about acquiring a new skill than they would about buying a ready to finish wing.I encourage anyone to buy an ARF or "previously owned" airplane to use in practice or even beginner competition,but beyond that,I(personal opinion)firmly believe all should "roll your own".To do otherwise is to weaken the event,as it is,and always was,a modeling competition.

>Of course the Mfgs will continue to fill a market.What has
>that got to do with the case? The fact that we are fast
>becoming a nation of ADD afflicted,instant gratification
>starved individuals doesn't mean we should lower the
>standards to meet their needs.

This type of reaction has always puzzled me. What exactly would condemning the next generation of flyers do? The reality is that times have changed (and they will continue to change), there is nothing that the "event" can do about that.

I think you missed my point. Whether you like it or not, the next generation will put little stock in the BOM rule. This may be tough to swallow, but then again nobody is really asking you or anyone else to accept or not. You can either ACCCEPT your CHILDREN's AND GRANDCHILDREN's way of thinking or you can CONDEMN it. It is truly that simple. The choice will eventually be out of your hands.

All I am saying is that I see a CLPA event in the future that will allow ARF's. At that time in the future the majority will endorce it. We are certainly at that time now.

...and everything you said about the BOM is spot on. I agree.

The funny part about all of this is the guys who want to keep the rule never enforce it. It is a very simple and to the point definition. I think the prebuilt parts are a direct violation. I think pre sheeted wings are too. No one is ever going to protest a guy who bought a prebuilt wing or a sheeted wing. Nor should they. This is a hobby that is to be done for fun. That rule will have adverse effects if it were strictly enforced, at least it could cuase ill will between competitors. People are never going to stop buying parts. Once they have done it and figured out how much time it saves and how much more time they can spend with other parts of the process, why go back? So the rule becomes a joke. I know of built parts competing at the Nats. I dont protest them. I think the rule should go and it should be a run what you brung type of contest. A flying contest if you will.

I have read many places about how it would be ok for INT guys to fly built components in their models. Built components dont come CHEAP! Price out a wing and you will see that a person who is really committed, an expert, to CLPA will be the spending that kind of dough.

If you are in support of the rule figure out a way to enforce it. In a friendly manner that relieves the competitor of the duties of calling out someone on their build.

Nobody wants to be the bad guy, me included.

This discussion is very similar to one I had with a top Navy Carrier flyer perhaps 20 years ago.

At the time there was an almost event wide discussion about how "scale" were the "scale" classes in Navy Carrier (Navy Carrier Class 1 and Class 2). I had complained that the model the individual was flying was not "scale" because it was missing the engine radiator. Of course, no one was building the aircraft with the radiator. But I was a new CD at the time and wanted a discussion as to why the presented configuration of the model was considered "scale".

We never satisfactorily resolved the specific question. The configuration was just accepted in the Navy Carrier community.

However, I think one point that was raised in the conversation may apply to this discussion. It goes something like this: There are folks participating because the idea of flying scale like models in competition appeals to them. There is another group of folks that find the performance challenge of the event predominates and the scale aspect of the event is secondary. It is as if there is one group that is participating in a hobby and the other group that is competing in a sport.

Somehow this discussion about BOM seems real familiar. The viewpoints expressed almost seem to match my observation in the last sentence in the previous paragraph.

There is one difference in the approach that PA has chosen. The skill catagories do not require the competitor to be the BOM, the core PA event (322) does require the competitor to be the BOM. If a determination is required, the rulebook places the responsibility clearly on the CD to make the determination. My own choice is to ask the competitor when the model is processed. The response to that question is sufficient.

How should it be? I don't really know. The question goes to the heart of the issue: Are we creators of flying model aircraft that compete? or Are we competitors that use model aircraft that fly as our venue? I think there is room for both approaches. I enjoy building and flyng my own equipment. Or in the team events (racing) our equipment. But I have appreciated having someone's used equipment when trying a new event or for practice. When we were starting out in racing, someone else's equipment is what hooked my son and I on the event. Often having something that works correctly make the transition to a new event or a new level in an existing event easier or perhaps even possible. Being able to use what you have available, regardless of who built it, sometimes is what makes participation possible.

The growth that PA has seen over the past decade is evidence that the overall approach PA chose to implement (skill classes and perhaps the approach to the BOM within those skill classes) actually works.

Be careful how the boat gets rocked. Too far one way or the other and we will lose folks, far enough and it might even sink.

Dave Rolley

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Dave:

I believe you(and several others in posts above)have misread the original question.It was how to define the builder of the model in the context of the rule.It was emphatically stated that the rule itself was not in question.
You do have a point,however,in saying that a simple question to the flyer should suffice.We have to believe that we are honorable people,dealing with honorable people.

You are probably right. I did drift a bit in my overall answer.

But you caught the operative part.

When I was a lot younger I remember folks that thought you were cheating or not a "real" modeler if you built a kit. Either that or you were a kid (like I was then). Folks that built from purchased or barrowed plans weren't even pure enough. I never liked that viewpoint. But that is ancient history.

Even if I was so inclined, I have no effective way to check up on everyone at a contest. I figure the competitor can read the rulebook just as well as I can. So, if the individual answers my question 'Are you the builder of the model?' with a yes, that ends it for me.

If I can't trust the answer, why ask the question?

Bill,

I don't normally 'contribute' to these threads, but I'll make an exception in this case.
Being a life time Free Flighter, until I saw the light a few years ago, I have always felt that the BOM Rule was a backbone of our Sport.
The argument of it's enforceabilty is also fundamental to our activity; since integrity of the competitors has always been a given, whether engaged in Free Flight or Control Line or (excuse the expression) RC.
There are numerous ways even an Aerobatic Pilot can gain an unfair edge, if he (or she) was so inclined. Making changes to model or lines after processing is an example. But, instead, I see competitors trying their utmost to not cheat and actually assist their fellow contestants, when they can.
In my opinion, what constitutes building a model airplane, is like the definitiion of pornography, 'I can't define it, but I know it, when I see it'.
I think all competetant builder/flyers know what it takes to construct a model, and not just assemble or paint components. I therefore think, Bill, you have expressed this viewpoint rather eloquently.

JOEL:)

LAST EDITED ON Feb-23-04 AT 06:05 PM (CDT)
 
FAI...that is all I have to say. I have seen to many contest won over who is the best builder.....not the best flyer!!!!

I like beautiful airplanes but the event is about who can fly the best pattern!

>FAI...that is all I have to say. I have seen to many
>contest won over who is the best builder.....not the best
>flyer!!!!
>
>I like beautiful airplanes but the event is about who can
>fly the best pattern!

Derek,

I totally disagree with your statement. I have participated in many contests from the Western US to the Eastern US and have yet to see a contest where the builder walked away with the trophy, except for the Concours award at the NATS. It took an excellent flyer to earn the award. Being a good builder was just part of the total package. The points spread usually was greater than the difference in appearrance points.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-23-04 AT 07:39 PM (CDT)
 
>... but the event is about who can fly the best pattern!

Derek:

I disagree entirely that this is the sole thrust of the event. I assert that this is NOT true, and I have supported my contention above (and several previous times). In all the skirmishing over this issue, no one has yet acknowledged, let alone addressed, the issues raised.

SK