A compromise from the 'polder'.

Hi all,

It is with hesitation that I would like to present the following.

As a regular reader of the SSW and other US stunt forums during the past 7 years I could not miss the regularly appearing, rather heated discussions you have on items such as BOM, USA vs FAI rules and the like. Apart from the fact that I was very astonished by the intensity of these discussions I also thought it was a pitty that, all of us being enthousiastic about and genuinely interested in promoting our favourite passtime, the debate always seemed to derail. Meanwhile the problem does not get solved and the discussion goes on. Sometimes smoldering, sometimes an open fire.

Without doubt, the strong US position in precision aerobatics or f2b is a great boost to continued worldwide interest in stunt. So allthough I am not a USA citizen and therefore have no direct interest in your discussions, no axe to grind, no position to defend, I do care about how you are going to solve this issue because it will, in some direct or indirect way, affect the development of stunt worldwide.

By education I am an historian so I have great understanding for those who want to respect tradition, that same education also tought me that postponing or preventing nessasary change will spell future disaster. If you want to survive you have to read the signs of the times and if you need to adapt you best do it gradually. That strategy does not make for exiting history, it does for longevity.

As I understand in the US there is a majority of the stunt community which prefers the 'American way of Stunt' including BOM, AMA rules and the like. Meanwhile this majority faces stubborn opposition from those who want change, the pinacle being abolishing the BOM-rule. So far the discussion has ended with the 'traditionalists' suggesting to the anti-BOM faction to organise their own contest. I gather no one will have a good nights rest over this compromise. Representing a majority opinion does not mean that you can turn your back to a minority, especially majority leaders should recognise their reponsibility towards minorities. I think that presumption lies at the basis of the success of your presidential system.

Therefore I would like to suggest that you research the possibility of combining in one contest both AMA and FAI rules. Not by making an amalgame of these rules but by really judging one flight under two sets of rules giving two results. I think with modern computer supported tabulating this could be done (using a single set of AMA scores as the basis for recalculating FAI scores in the background) and it would give the anti BOM faction the possibility to compete with the rest. In time it would show up if there is support for the FAI approach, the competitor who does not present his airplane for concourse, and religiously stays within the 7 minute FAI timeframe obviously competes under FAI rules. The one who wants his concourse points and/or uses the extended AMA flighttime goes for the Walker cup. It could be done.

I have great respect for all those who design and build there own, I do it myself. With others I am not very enthousiastic about the growing amount of prebuild stunters appearing nowadays but nothing will be more destructive then internal dissention and the inability to be bigger then ourselves.

What 'polder' has to do with this? It is our (Dutch) way of looking for compromise. We don't like it ourselves, we would like to be heroic so great books can be written. But d***, it works. I do not want to stir up the discussion, if it gets zero replies it probably is best. I do care.

Respectfully, Bram Anker

edited to comply with 1st response

>As I understand in the US there is a small majority of the
>stunt community which prefers the 'American way of Stunt'
>including BOM, AMA rules and the like. Meanwhile this majority
>faces stubborn opposition from those who want change, the
>pinacle being abolishing the BOM-rule.

"Small majority"? The PAMPA BOM poll was 80:20 in favor of some sort of BOM rule. The desire to get rid of BOM is grotesquely over-represented in on-line postings and arguments.

Brett

>
>>As I understand in the US there is a small majority of
>the
>>stunt community which prefers the 'American way of Stunt'
>>including BOM, AMA rules and the like. Meanwhile this
>majority
>>faces stubborn opposition from those who want change, the
>>pinacle being abolishing the BOM-rule.
>
> "Small majority"? The PAMPA BOM poll was 80:20 in
>favor of some sort of BOM rule. The desire to get rid of BOM
>is grotesquely over-represented in on-line postings and
>arguments.
>
> Brett

What you say is certainly true with regards to PAMPA Polls, however it must be remembered that there is a sizable contingent of "Stunt Fliers" that are not in PAMPA and likely were not included in the PAMPA Poll.
While I am among the majority that do want a BOM Rule, I would recognize that the real majority is not anything like 80% of all stunt fliers. There are in fact a number of contests now being advertized without BOM rules. Too bad in my opinion.
I think Bram's idea has some merit (although it certainly would complicate the tabulation), in showing what the real difference would be (likely, not much since I believe the same folks would perform in the same relative positions).

Randy C

Randy, I think you missed what Brett said. He said the Pampa polls and I believe that to be the most important one out there. Pampa pretty much rules how the stunt event is conducted at most contests and is the leader in how things get done.

Sure there are other contests that are not Pampa run and they really don't amount to much. I am and always have been pro BOM and not likely to change now or later. That just about says it all. RJ

This sounds so complicated that it makes my head hurt. What am I missing?

Hush. I see a new market for stunt software.

Howard Rush
Bellevue, WA

I can code

Make it an iPhone ap.
Derek

>Randy, I think you missed what Brett said. He said the
>Pampa polls and I believe that to be the most important one
>out there. Pampa pretty much rules how the stunt event is
>conducted at most contests and is the leader in how things get
>done.
>
>Sure there are other contests that are not Pampa run and they
>really don't amount to much. I am and always have been pro
>BOM and not likely to change now or later. That just about
>says it all. RJ

Hmmmmm....
Well, Yeah... It's easy to say "My opinion is the only one that matters", even if it can't possibly be true!

At any rate I'm not trying to get the "BOM Thing" started again, but, realize that there are other opinions and just dismissing them "out of Hand" tends to show one as a "Donkeys Rear".

Randy C

Bram, although I respect your comments and effort to offer polder, the definition of a compromise is an outcome that neither side likes. It is like Solomon suggesting to cut the baby in half. There is one side that would do that. The true mother won't. But the compromise in this case was not to cut the baby in half, but to give it back to its real mother.

There are always those who want something, and when they don't get it they will cry, "compromise". But they never stop. Our dog is that way. If I have a piece of bread (it loves bread) it will sit up and beg. If I give it half it will gulp it down and then quickly ask for half of what is left. For some there is no compromise and that is the sad reality.

In the case you site (BOM for example) There are contests held throughout the country where people are allowed to fly a plane they did not build except they get no appearance points. Now some are crying they want appearance points for a plane they did not build. Appearance points awarded to the builder of the model are a long tradition in our event here in the US. But the "compromisers" want points even if they don't build the plane--or else deprive the rest of us of ours. We have heard cries to abolish seeding at our Nats with the hope that lesser flyers might be able to break into the upper circle. The problem with "compromise" is it often doesn't make sense. The majority are supposed to give into the minority because that is "compromise". Give them an arm and they will take a leg until they have their half of the baby only to find that now it is dead.

We have an FAI event in our country--the US team trials. The same people come to the top in the competition here. Sadly only eighteen or so flyers show up for it. Yes, its purpose is to choose the team to send to the world competition, but the purpose of our Nats is to choose a national champion and that doesn't stop them from turning out. So it is not that they want the FAI rules or FAI scoring, it is just a back door attempt to get their way in abolishing the BOM rule.

There is only one contest that I know of in our country that absolutely demands the BOM, and that is the Junior-Senior-Open events at the Nats to choose our national champion. Maybe a little understanding of all this would lead you to, perhaps, withdraw your suggesiton of "polder".

>Bram, although I respect your comments and effort to offer
>polder, the definition of a compromise is an outcome that
>neither side likes. It is like Solomon suggesting to cut the
>baby in half. There is one side that would do that. The true
>mother won't. But the compromise in this case was not to cut
>the baby in half, but to give it back to its real mother.
>
>There are always those who want something, and when they don't
>get it they will cry, "compromise". But they never
>stop. Our dog is that way. If I have a piece of bread (it
>loves bread) it will sit up and beg. If I give it half it
>will gulp it down and then quickly ask for half of what is
>left. For some there is no compromise and that is the sad
>reality.
>
>In the case you site (BOM for example) There are contests held
>throughout the country where people are allowed to fly a plane
>they did not build except they get no appearance points. Now
>some are crying they want appearance points for a plane they
>did not build. Appearance points awarded to the builder of
>the model are a long tradition in our event here in the US.
>But the "compromisers" want points even if they
>don't build the plane--or else deprive the rest of us of ours.
> We have heard cries to abolish seeding at our Nats with the
>hope that lesser flyers might be able to break into the upper
>circle. The problem with "compromise" is it often
>doesn't make sense. The majority are supposed to give into
>the minority because that is "compromise". Give
>them an arm and they will take a leg until they have their
>half of the baby only to find that now it is dead.

Clever illustrating...Solomon would be proud.

For what it's worth, I agree. And I'm not even a competition flier. Builders should get credit for their efforts, as opposed to "just fliers".

Maybe the appearance points for a "boughten plane" should revert to the one who built it!

>Bram, although I respect your comments and effort to offer
>polder, the definition of a compromise is an outcome that
>neither side likes. It is like Solomon suggesting to cut the
>baby in half. There is one side that would do that. The true
>mother won't. But the compromise in this case was not to cut
>the baby in half, but to give it back to its real mother.
>
>There are always those who want something, and when they don't
>get it they will cry, "compromise". But they never
>stop. Our dog is that way. If I have a piece of bread (it
>loves bread) it will sit up and beg. If I give it half it
>will gulp it down and then quickly ask for half of what is
>left. For some there is no compromise and that is the sad
>reality.
>
>In the case you site (BOM for example) There are contests held
>throughout the country where people are allowed to fly a plane
>they did not build except they get no appearance points. Now
>some are crying they want appearance points for a plane they
>did not build. Appearance points awarded to the builder of
>the model are a long tradition in our event here in the US.
>But the "compromisers" want points even if they
>don't build the plane--or else deprive the rest of us of ours.
> We have heard cries to abolish seeding at our Nats with the
>hope that lesser flyers might be able to break into the upper
>circle. The problem with "compromise" is it often
>doesn't make sense. The majority are supposed to give into
>the minority because that is "compromise". Give
>them an arm and they will take a leg until they have their
>half of the baby only to find that now it is dead.
>
>We have an FAI event in our country--the US team trials. The
>same people come to the top in the competition here. Sadly
>only eighteen or so flyers show up for it. Yes, its purpose
>is to choose the team to send to the world competition, but
>the purpose of our Nats is to choose a national champion and
>that doesn't stop them from turning out. So it is not that
>they want the FAI rules or FAI scoring, it is just a back door
>attempt to get their way in abolishing the BOM rule.
>
>There is only one contest that I know of in our country that
>absolutely demands the BOM, and that is the Junior-Senior-Open
>events at the Nats to choose our national champion. Maybe a
>little understanding of all this would lead you to, perhaps,
>withdraw your suggesiton of "polder".

Best explanation I have heard to date.

Bram,

Thank you for your considered thoughts! The trainwrecks that some on-line "discussions" turn into are regrettable. You may have noticed that only a few individuals seem to dominate in the count of posts in any such dispute.

One thing many of our FAI Rules friends around the world might not fully realize: Our National Aeromodeling Club, the AMA, allows and encourages local contest organizers to fit events to the desires of likely contestants. That almost always will mean straight per the Official AMA Rules, but it also allowed for the emergence of Old Time and Classic (nostalgia) Stunt events. Also, for the many years of Skill Class CLPA (Provisional or Unoffcial events) before the AMA adopted them as Official Rules. Several other events have regional popularity: they would not exist without this encouraging approach.

The principle restrictions AMA requires are that safety not be compromised, and that any variations from Official (or other nationally understood) Rules be publicised for all who may wish to attend.

I believe many National Aeromodelling Clubs do something like this. There are events that are not FAI, unless and until the FAI says so...

Igor Panchenko
It is back again! BOM rules in PAMPA has very dip and philosophical meaning. There are some aspects + and - for it. I was thinking about it a lot, and from time to time it keep coming back to my mind. There are ARF contests that clubs supported in US. I have only seen some profile category, they decide do not have BOM. About rest of the contests I just have heard or read. Eliminating BOM from rules may help pilots concentrate on flying side of skills. May help those people who has opportunity to buy model and to fly it , but has no time, or no skills to build it. It may bring more people in PAMPA and probably more Yang ones - who many times after a couple crashes loosing interest to it and prefer some thing more like computer gams or RC or what streets always proposing them behind parents shoulders.
But.... From another side - look how fast RC grew up from last 20 Years. Every think became available, every think became more corporate looking. It does grew up by people amount. But look; some times they do not know - how to use CA glue even. It will repeat definitely it experience. What is going to happened with old ad experienced people when they will go beyond horizon line? Who will share with yang and new people, how properly to build, how properly to trim models and -which most important - to help understand the problem.
Those Corporate people, who will sell - will never let them to learn, Because it is their money. I think decision about BOM should based on it natural Evolution process. If there will be more interests without it; it will found an attention eventually. I just do not want the Islands in this Beautiful hobby, and politics. Every think should look like in real sport - clear and friendly, than - it is interesting and attractive.

Igor,

Very valuable points in your post!

What we need to do more is be family to young people who show interest. You met our young Michael Duffy, in Tucson. He has adopted many of our Cholla Choppers as close and caring relatives. He builds his own models, among them that Nobler that looks prettier in person than in the Stunt News color pages.

Grace Paris is another young flier with the interest and energy to join with us. Support from her own, and our extended, families make us all feel good. And these are only two of many we know and love.

You are right. In today's world, here, at least, there are too many distractions for young people. None of the distractions save many of them from feeling something is missing... Perhaps one of the things missing is acceptance of something they like to be part of, and being accepted by good people who like to do the same thing.

That is where control-line has a built-in advantage over other things to do. We must trust someone to launch our model, and we must be good enough for someone to trust to launch his (or hers). That is a bond from the very start.

There may not be many such young people, but they are there. If we can find them, we offer a community that helps, supports, encourages and regards them highly. That is something missing in the commercial, exploiting world that is so much around them.

Again, compared to other things they might do, even among model fliers in free-flight or radio-control, control-line NEEDS to be among close friends. Welcoming a young person, who may feel isolated and resentful, into a family, a community, that depends on them as much as they depend on us, may waken a sense of something good that they do not find anywhere else.

It does take some work to find and 'bring in' young people who will enjoy flying with us. Many of us try to start some of this interest, and find a low return on the time spent. If I could 'win' 5 cents out of every hundred dollars spent, I'd be a rich man. I would not be discouraged...

Thank you again, for reminding us that we need to be part of the answer, not just of the question!

(edit) Since the question is about BOM, I guess I must say something about it. 'BOM' is in a way like the way DNA forms a new, never seen before, person. Some agree; some don't. Leave it there...

As far as FAI Rules, I'd rather see something that slows or prevents great fliers from BUYING models better than they can build, for competition. Yes, I know, most of the top F2B winners do build and fly their own - or at least claim to. I admit I am prejudiced from years of seeing talented builders given no recognition for that effort.

Let F2B be what the representatives from all countries vote it to be.