No appearance points in Beginner-why not?

Seems to me that building a plane is building a plane. Why no appearance judging in Beginner?

Just because I cannot yet complete the "full" pattern, why should my workmanship not be noted or rewarded as in other classes?

Discuss

The primary purpose of the beginner pattern is to get new people competing. If a young kid can compete and place there is a much better chance he will be back, no appearance points increases the chance of this happening. Prior to the simplified pattern you competed by telling the judges what maneuvers you were going to leave out so you didn't lose pattern points which meant a new flier didn't have much chance.

Remember when I was flying the beginner pattern competed at one contest where most of the other planes were built by a top 20 flyer. One of the people I beat later became the senior champ my not being rewarded with appearance points was a minor sacrifice that possibly helped stunt.

On the positive side, when you enter intermediate you'll have an advantage over the people who don't build their planes as a beginner.

>Seems to me that building a plane is building a plane. Why
>no appearance judging in Beginner?
>
>Just because I cannot yet complete the "full" pattern, why
>should my workmanship not be noted or rewarded as in other
>classes?

Absolutely excellent point.

If I get to vote, there *should* be appearance points in beginner. There used to be, before "reduced pattern beginner". You could, and still can, fly ARFs or borrowed airplanes in any PAMPA class event in the country, but in beginner you don't any bonus for building your own.

But in fact, there are a number of people (fortunately a small number) who think that no one should get *any notice or reward* in *any class*, including the highest class of all. "Spent two years carefully crafting your model? Who cares, it's no better than buying one pre-built. We don't believe in rewarding these sorts of skills, and if that's your area of interest, find another event."

That, folks, is what "get rid of BOM" boils down to. And in my mind, that's the beginning of the end of C/L stunt for a whole lot of people.

> But in fact, there are a number of people (fortunately a
>small number) who think that no one should get *any notice
>or reward* in *any class*, including the highest class of
>all. "Spent two years carefully crafting your model? Who
>cares, it's no better than buying one pre-built. We don't
>believe in rewarding these sorts of skills, and if that's
>your area of interest, find another event."

IF the 12-15 points you get at the Nats or at a loacl contest is the reward you get from building your model then you really DONT get what being a craftsman is all about.

I get the reward form building my model when I fly it or buff it or whatever. Whenever a few judges a year tell me it is worth 14 points that really doesnt mean squat to me but that I am starting out behind a few other guys who can buff better than me.

The real reward is during the build process and finish process and that first wing over pull out and so on. Not what some judge gives it on the flightline before a flight.

>
> That, folks, is what "get rid of BOM" boils down to. And
>in my mind, that's the beginning of the end of C/L stunt for
>a whole lot of people.
>
> Brett

Boils down to what? Removing points off the flight.

The real reward isnt some judges giving you points. It is learning a skill and a craft. The BOM rule doesnt keep this alive. The people who participate in the event keep this alive. They pass on the skills needed to keep this event alive. Not some rule. You cant even go into a hobby shop anymore and find kits of only wood and plans anymore. Let alone CLPA models. The average kit is fast becoming a prebuilt of some sort.

I guess I just really dont place much stock in what a judge somewhere thinks of my plane sitting on the ground. I do however hold what they think of my flying in high regard.

Whenever a few judges a year tell me
>it is worth 14 points that really doesnt mean squat to me
>but that I am starting out behind a few other guys who can
>buff better than me.
>
>I guess I just really dont place much stock in what a judge
>somewhere thinks of my plane sitting on the ground. I do
>however hold what they think of my flying in high regard.

Ron B.
F4Fguy

OK lemme see if I've got this straight.What the judges think of your building skills,on the ground,for appearance points,is not important.The opinion of these same judges on your flying skills is to be respected.

And the difference is where???

Did you ever consider that you may be starting out behind a few guys who fly better than you?

You may not like the rule but it IS a component of the scoring.As such,it is reserved to those who built their own.I applaud your zeal in building for self satisfaction.Would you feel the same if someone with an ARF got more(or even the same)appearance points than you? That he can assemble an ARF with out scratching the moneycoat is a great achievement in todays world.
While we're on the subject of rules,I don't like to fly the hourglass,I think it should be abolished.

News alert!!

Hot off another boaring BOM thread, it's another BOM thread.

Don't' like the rules, contact your district rep.

I was just curious as to why the rules are not the same in Beginner. To be honest, I really don't give a hoot. I'll fly no matter what the stinkin' rules are.

And by the way, at least at the contests I have been at, you DO NOT get pattern points unless you do all the moves. You can say that you'll be skipping X, but you won't get pattern points if you do. I was told that this was so the judges don't get confused if you skip a move. This makes sense to me.

And about the whole ARF debate, I would say that in Beginner, and perhaps in some cases Intermidiate, someone that shows up with an ARF Nobler most likely has an equipment advantage. When you get to Advanced and Expert, most people can build a better flying ship.

This will expose me as being the petty SOB that I am, but if I ended up getting punked out of say 3rd in Beginner by an ARF Nobler or two, I would be pretty well ticked off.

That's gonna tick you off? Wait until the end of summer contests where YOU'VE been working and supporting your family and some punk kid has been whittling away at pappy's fortune in glow fuel all summer. So you show up proud of getting a couple hours of practice in and this row of kids just cleans your clock. THAT will tick you off.

Well, not really, but I sure wish all I had to do in the summertime was build and fly. Noooo, my father had me enrolled in Junior golf all summer. Fly airplanes? No value in that.

I feel your pain man, but half the reward in this hobby is building and finishing your airplane. It'll fly better if only because you know how to fix and tweak it.

I totally agree. I get as much pleasure, if not more so, from building than flying. I was just saying that it would be tough to swallow getting womped by a pre-built. I would say that most true beginners will be hard pressed to build a plane that matched such a Nobler ARF. As soon as you reach higher levels of competition, I think it becomes moot. Most Intermidiate, and nearly (if not) all Advanced, and certainly all Expert level flyers can build a better ship than the ARF.

>I totally agree. I get as much pleasure, if not more so,
>from building than flying. I was just saying that it would
>be tough to swallow getting womped by a pre-built.

Another excellent point. But just as not getting appearance points for an ARF is not a significant disadvantage in the lower classes, getting appearance points for your own airplane is not a significant advantage, either. In beginner, you get a *very wide* array of skills and experience. In many cases, one extra afternoon of practice, with good coaching, would make almost any beginner flier pick up 25-50 points, and some 100 points! You can easily overcome any possible discrepancy in appearance points, particularly at a local contest.

> I would
>say that most true beginners will be hard pressed to build a
>plane that matched such a Nobler ARF. As soon as you reach
>higher levels of competition, I think it becomes moot.
>Most Intermidiate, and nearly (if not) all Advanced, and
>certainly all Expert level flyers can build a better ship
>than the ARF.

Better than current ARFs, certainly. But don't understate the possibility that someone could come up with a reasonably competitive *expert* level model. If you change the rules, they change for everyone, thus allowing a few cottage industries to sell a few exceedingly expensive "top gun" models to a few participants at very high profit ratios. I can easily see this happening.

>Ron B.
>F4Fguy
>
>OK lemme see if I've got this straight.What the judges think
>of your building skills,on the ground,for appearance
>points,is not important.

Yep, you got it.

It is not that important to me. It used to be yes but know I have reached a level of building that gets me 13-16 points at the Nats and so be it. It(app points) is such a small part of the total score, but it does have a BIG effect. Anyway I spend all this time building my model, almost as much a flying it. Then it gets 13 points. I mean it is just such a small part. Maybe if building and finishing were half of the total score then I would really care what they think. I really dont. I mean I put a big Chevy emblem on the side of my plane. What if the Judge works for FORD or something? I have even heard other people say "If he had a more traditional paint scheme he would get more points." What a crock. It is my scheme I look at it I finish it so I paint it the way I like. I just try my best each time to finish the scheme a little better each time. Yeah I may get a point or two more or I may not but I dont loose sleep over it.

This is all just how I feel about it. I will never have a plane on the front row. I just dont have the time to paint a plane like that. I can build them plenty staight but I just dont have two months to paint them. So I do what I can and buff it as good as I can.

The opinion of these same judges on
>your flying skills is to be respected.

It is not a matter of respect but importance to me. The building is very important to me. The finish is pretty important to me. I RESPECT their opinion and have never ever ever ever thought they didnt pick the right planes to be on the front row. I have been an app judge at INT for a few years at the nats. It is tough to pick one to be the best. I couldnt imagine having to do it with some of the planes that are showing up these days. A tough job for sure.

>
>And the difference is where???

It is a difference for me. Not anyone one else or whatever just my feelings on the subject. I still take a great deal of pride in my plane and take the time to clean it well before judging just like everyone else does.

>
>Did you ever consider that you may be starting out behind a
>few guys who fly better than you?

Now there is where you are wrong. When the I take off for a flight my score card is empty just like yours. We are even at the point. But as far as building goes there are some who will always be ahead of me on that front. I know it and I am fine with that. I just get in a few more practice flights, well maybe I will it will be harder with the new baby to get to the field for the next few months to a few years for sure.

>
>You may not like the rule but it IS a component of the
>scoring.As such,it is reserved to those who built their
>own.I applaud your zeal in building for self
>satisfaction.Would you feel the same if someone with an ARF
>got more(or even the same)appearance points than you?

That is just it at this point in the game there are people getting points for stuff they didnt totaly build. But they feel they "Satisfied" the BOM. Then it is on me to protest them. Yeah like that is going to happen.

I kind of have the Brett Buck attitude about it now. I wouldnt worry about what they did or what they got but more about what I could do to get better at the event. For me it will always be learning to FLY better. The flying is where most of the points are gained so getting better there is what I want to do. The finishing will come along with time also. But since you can practice the pattern many many more times than you can laying on a perfect coat of clear the pattern will come along faster.

That
>he can assemble an ARF with out scratching the moneycoat is
>a great achievement in todays world.
>While we're on the subject of rules,I don't like to fly the
>hourglass,I think it should be abolished.
>
>Ron B.

Ron if you dont like the Hourglass fine. Write a proposal and see if you can get it removed. People think the pattern is above reproach or adjustment. Why? I think it would be cool to have the overheads changed to be flown from 90 degrees to 5' bottoms on either side. Makes it really hard to fly smooth round loops that size. It is easy to search for 5' and you end up putting in a big flat spot that is easy to see. It is also easier to judge them when flown like that. It would be cool to use the whole hemisphere for that maneuver. Since it starts at the top the whole thing is wide open. When I bring it up to people just to get input they look at me like I am crazy. Oh well I like flying them that way and it is alot of fun and something different.

>The real reward isnt some judges giving you points. It is
>learning a skill and a craft. The BOM rule doesnt keep this
>alive. The people who participate in the event keep this
>alive. They pass on the skills needed to keep this event
>alive. Not some rule. You cant even go into a hobby shop
>anymore and find kits of only wood and plans anymore. Let
>alone CLPA models. The average kit is fast becoming a
>prebuilt of some sort.
>

Well, I'm happy for you. I wouldn't do anything different from what I do now, either. But if the existence of the BOM doesn't effect your enjoyment of the event, why do you want to reduce the challenges of the event for everyone (oops, sorry, not everyone, only the 40 people it effects each year).

We are talking about *event rules*. The *rules* can't dictate how you feel about building you own airplanes, so that's beside the point of a *rules* discussion. The point of the rules is to define what the *event* means - not what it means to individuals.

>I guess I just really dont place much stock in what a judge
>somewhere thinks of my plane sitting on the ground. I do
>however hold what they think of my flying in high regard.

That's fine for you. Other people have other opinions. But what is the qualitative difference between appearance judging and flight judging - independent of your own personal opinion?

> Well, I'm happy for you. I wouldn't do anything different
>from what I do now, either. But if the existence of the BOM
>doesn't effect your enjoyment of the event, why do you want
>to reduce the challenges of the event for everyone (oops,
>sorry, not everyone, only the 40 people it effects each
>year).

I will get to that later.

>
> We are talking about *event rules*. The *rules* can't
>dictate how you feel about building you own airplanes, so
>that's beside the point of a *rules* discussion. The point
>of the rules is to define what the *event* means - not what
>it means to individuals.

Good point.

>
>
>>I guess I just really dont place much stock in what a judge
>>somewhere thinks of my plane sitting on the ground. I do
>>however hold what they think of my flying in high regard.
>
> That's fine for you. Other people have other opinions.
>But what is the qualitative difference between appearance
>judging and flight judging - independent of your own
>personal opinion?
>
> Brett

There isnt. It was just my personal opinion. Notice I used "I" all throughout that comment.

Hi Tom,
Can you come out and play this weekend??
Bill <><

P.S. And someone out there thought I was going to offend someone, again!! LOL!!

Just.... me ........

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)

Bill <><

I guess I'll check in here since I am a recent 1yr out of Beginner.

My take is that the Beginner class is to "ease" a person into the competition arena. There are alot of things to become aquainted with, even if one is an accomplished sport flier. Time limits, pattern points, starting protocol, flight order, etc.

There is also a huge disparity among planes that would make appearance judging difficult to do without undo influence on the final (flying )result. Many of the events I competed in, the top few point margins were only a couple of points. And the planes ranged from multi-repaired Ukey-35s, Teosawki's, to full-blown 60 size stunters and myriad Twisters, Banshee's, etc. in between.

I could have taken it or left it as far as appearance points are concerned--but there is plenty of time for that once you get into Intermediate.

Regardless, I agree that, with or without appearance points, there should be no BOM for Beginner--this would only limit the possible entries.

A couple of top 10 fliers, both said the same thing to me as a beginner when chatting about building--your building skills progress as you gain more experience in the event--each plane will be better than the one before.

So use the Beginner class as a stepping stone--learn as much as you can but strive to move up as soon as you can.

FWIW

As a follow up to Curt, I would agree on the rules for Beginner Class.
It is an "entry level" event, and should only be used as such. Move up as quickly as you feel you safely can.
We are all familiar with "Wingwalk" here, so I am not talking out of turn. Kirk (Wingwalk) has done a TON of building/flying in other events. His finishing skills, etc., are way ahead of what most "beginners" would posess. Would it be conducive to the "rank" (no offense meant) beginner to get 10 points (or less) for appearance and have Kirk get 17? I think that is one of the justifications of not having appearance points on beginner. The "rank" beginner might "outfly" Kirk (but I have seen him fly, and he'll be in Intermediate soon), but loose on AP. Not good for entry level competition.

Bill <><

LAST EDITED ON Apr-26-04 AT 12:55 PM (CDT)
 
Tom,
Many, me included, have strong feelings about BOM. But, to just your specific question for now...

PAMPA introduced Skill Classes as unofficial events in the '70s. Guys began competing with others near their skill level. AMA Precision Aerobatics, Official Event #322, is still based on age classes and builder-of-the-model.

Now, #323(Beginner), #324 (INT), and #325 (ADV)are AMA Official Events. At the NATS, Expert flies as Event #322 -- WITH age-classes and BOM -- as the premier stunt event. BEG does not judge for appearance points. INT and ADV fliers only get them if they built their own models.

Skill classes primarily reflect FLYING ability. Allowing use of models someone else built makes sense while skills develop, but appearance points for someone else's work doesn't. At beginner level, flying skills and scores vary widely -- often not very high. 20 possible appearance points in a field where the top flight score may barely top 100 pts distorts things.

An INT or ADV flier can compete with an OP and no appearance points, or build 'his' own, and get a few points. Learning curves often cost several models, so even if an INT or ADV flier's #1, home-built gets wiped, he could still compete with a different model.

That's an easy answer for someone who has "graduated" from beginner less than a year ago:

1) It's hard enough to keep the plane in one piece let alone worry about the finish of your model or BOM! Don't foget, a pattern to a beginner pilot is two and a half minutes of sheer panic!

2) beginners tend to crash a lot more often than any other group. A plane built before beginning of the season is usually gone in the first month. I remember a period of 3 months last year when I was flying every Sunday trying to learn the beginner pattern. I used to bring 3 planes to the field and go home when all three crashed which was in about 1 hour. If it wasn't for the generous help from fellow pilots I would have never progressed as far as I did.

If you think through the answers to these two questions, I expect you will understand why there is no BOM in Beginner. What is the best airplane for a Beginner to use learning the Beginner pattern? Would BOM discourage the Beginner's use of this airplane? As a clue, the answer to the second question is Yes.

I think there is come confusion here on rules. In OTS you can tell the judges you will omit certain maneuvers and still be awarded pattern points. This is not part of the AMA/PAMPA Beginner rules, but could be done at a particular contest, I suppose.

Incidentally, when I came in second in Beginner at my first stunt contest in 1978, we flew the full AMA pattern. Back then we Beginners had hair on our chests, we did! I don't recall if there was BOM.

Jim :

Jim:

Not sure when the rule was changed but at one time a beginner could notify the judges he was going to skip particular maneuvers and if he completed all the rest in proper sequence he got pattern points, however if he only flew 10 maneuvers and another person flew 13 he was at a disadvantage.

I always felt that the best way for beginners to learn stunt was to just do what they could do of the real pattern, and leave the rest out.
That's how it was done in beginner before the beginner pattern was adopted.
I never thought it was a good idea to have to learn a beginner pattern that you immediately have to unlearn. I voted against the beginner pattern when I was on the CLCB (and got some nasty mail about it).
I still think that's the best way to approach beginner stunt -- using the real pattern. If a novice asked my opinion, I would advise them to skip beginner altogether and start flying intermediate from the get-go.
I would agree, however, that not having the BOM in the beginner class is a reasonable thing to do to encourage participation. I would hate to see it dropped from the other classes, since you already have the option of not building the plane and giving up a few appearance points.
--jt

>Not sure when the rule was changed but at one time a
>beginner could notify the judges he was going to skip
>particular maneuvers and if he completed all the rest in
>proper sequence he got pattern points, however if he only
>flew 10 maneuvers and another person flew 13 he was at a
>disadvantage.
>
>Carl

snip
> I never thought it was a good idea to have to learn a
>beginner pattern that you immediately have to unlearn.
snip

I guess I don't get this part of your comment. The only thing different is the wingover. All of the other manuevers are/can be flown precisely the same as the full pattern manuevers. Even the order is the same. Full pattern simply adds more in between.

Not arguing the fact that it is DIFFERENT, but I guess I didn't consider the change to have been unlearning--it seemed to be a good intro.

Just me--recent graduate.

>snip
>> I never thought it was a good idea to have to learn a
>>beginner pattern that you immediately have to unlearn.
>snip
>
>I guess I don't get this part of your comment. The only
>thing different is the wingover. All of the other manuevers
>are/can be flown precisely the same as the full pattern
>manuevers. Even the order is the same. Full pattern simply
>adds more in between.
>
>Not arguing the fact that it is DIFFERENT, but I guess I
>didn't consider the change to have been unlearning--it
>seemed to be a good intro.
>
>Just me--recent graduate.
>
>Curt

I am with John on this one. The beginning pattern was designed so you don't have to learn to fly inverted. So we have people learning to fly a pattern and competing without ever learing to fly inverted. Dumb! If you get into trouble, then what? You give full control--"up"--never "down". "Up" is all you ever leanred (except for the kamakazi outside loop which is just hang it on a wire, close your eyes, and hope it goes around).

I feel that inverted flight is about the third maneuver that you should learn. Take off and level flight is the first. Maybe a loop or two. Then learn inverted. Now you can master the rest of the pattern and learn proper reflexes. How do you learn proper reflexes in eights when you have never learned to fly Inverted? You just "do" a loop, you don't fly it. You don't have any instincts to fly a correct circle.

I am totally with John. My thought for beginner is to take out the stuff above 45 degrees. Basically you learn the lower part of the pattern--all of the first maneuvers and in proper order. You can fly high without danger. OK, so maybe your 45 degrees are 60. Fly high, learn the shapes, then bring the pattern down. But you are flying the pattern. As you progress with the first part of the pattern you can begin to add the rest--the vertical eights, hourglass, overhead, and the dreaded clover with its exit into the wind!. Hey, you are now ready for intermediate and you never had to unlearn a thing.

Hi Leonard:

I cant really disagree with much you said but..you are making the assumption that the learning sequence is tightly connected to the pattern. It may very well be--I wouldn't argue otherwise--but it doesnt HAVE to be that way.

I never learned to fly inverted as a kid--just couldnt do it going 80 mph with a 36x on a flite streak!--I was much better at it as a retread--better mind control I guess.

But the beginner pattern allows one to fly inverted and do the outsides from inverted just like the full pattern. I think that allows a person to progress from non-inverted pattern to an inverted pattern if he so desires.

I think the way a person learns and integrates their progress into the competitive pattern will depend alot upon the coaching he or she receives.

Also, I do think that it is good to have at least one overhead manuever in the mix--it just sets the stage for what will come. It kinda of forces us to develop a feel for the reduced line loading on top, understand the effects of wind gradient and sheer, and the slow-hand control inputs required for energy management.

Anyway, no argument, just my thoughts having recently come through the beginner system.

>I feel that inverted flight is about the third maneuver that
>you should learn. Take off and level flight is the first.
>Maybe a loop or two. Then learn inverted. Now you can
>master the rest of the pattern and learn proper reflexes.
>How do you learn proper reflexes in eights when you have
>never learned to fly Inverted? You just "do" a loop, you
>don't fly it. You don't have any instincts to fly a correct
>circle.

Leonard, I agree that inverted flight would have been a good choice but I think the idea of the pattern is to give the pilot "the taste" of what the whole pattern is all about. Taking out overhead 8 and replacing it with inverted flight would deprive the pilot the taste of flying things up high. I think overhead 8 is the best way to learn about affects of the wind on your pattern as well as flying without much reference to the ground. Outside "loop of death" is also a harbinger of things to come with outside squares and square eights.

I do agree that inverted flight is imperative to learning the pattern but let's face it: there are only 2 maneuvers out of 16 that require knowledge of inverted flight. Well, plus two 1/2 maneuvers (outside squares and square 8). Knowing how to fly overhead, on the other hand is needed for 5 maneuvers.

I'm with Curt on this one! The benefit of having reduced pattern instead of full pattern and giving the choice to skip maneuvers, is that it provides a FIXED target for a beginner to achieve. Having a fixed goal gives one a sense of accomplishment plus a big self-confidence boost.

There is not need to "unlearn" the pattern afterward either. Full pattern is a natural progression of the beginner pattern. I had no problem whatsoever transitioninig to the full pattern as did Curt.

Hi Steven:

Right now, for PAMPA beginner, there is NO option to pre-state skipped manuevers--if they are not all done, in sequence, you lose pattern points.

And if one chooses to utilize inverted, that option is acceptable.

I actually learned the beginner pattern after I learned inverted flight. So I did it like Leonard suggests--and it made it that much easier to transition---but---my flying buddy flew beginner w/o inverted and I think it was easier for him to learn outside squares since he was comfortable with the "death dive".

Like alot of what we do, there are many paths to follow through the woods.

FWIW