Glimpse of AMA`s Rules Board`s Smoke Filled Room


Moderator: hbartel

Lee Liddle
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 10:30 pm
Location: USA

Glimpse of AMA`s Rules Board`s Smoke Filled Room

Post by Lee Liddle »

Since Lou saw fit to hijack my thread on it`s very first post, I`ve changed the title to fit the contents.

<font size="5"><font color="red">Warning!!</font id="red">....Read this thread at your own risk. Not all of the info posted is factual, Generally, the longer the post, the more likely it is to have misinformation in it. You have been warned!!</font id="size5">
Lou Melancon
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2001 5:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Lou Melancon »

<b>PLEASE NOTE THAT THE RULES CHANGES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE ARE THOSE THAT WILL GO INTO EFFECT JANUARY 1ST, 2009. The proposals must be submitted by September of 2007, so you still have a little more than six months to submit your proposals.</b>

Hi Lee,
I am the Chair of the AMA RC Combat Contest Committee. I keep up with combat through this and other forums as well as talking to combat pilots but will not fly any combat this year. There is no requirement, although there should be, for the Contest Committee Members to be active participants. They are each appointed by their AMA District VP, and serve at his or her leisure.

In years past proposals have been submitted for admitting a new class or classes to the rule book. We have more classes in the rule book now than are flown. A proposal to eliminate classes would be looked on with favor.

Any proposal for a new class should be accompanied with convincing evidence as to its ability to grow the sport or elminate something that is preventing the sport from growing. Combat participation, in AMA Sanctioned contests, looks like it will be less this year than in years past.

Adding classes because someone thinks they will work has, in the past, met with skepticism by the Contest Committee. Whatever is proposed should be proven to benefit the growth and participation in combat, and that proof included in the proposal as additional information.
Cajun
Posts: 2020
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2001 10:22 pm
Location: USA

Post by Cajun »

I don't involve myself in rules, or their pomulgation anymore, but I absolutely agree with Lou.

Events and classes that are not flown, or have no following anymore, should be dropped.
THend
Posts: 2397
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2001 9:12 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by THend »

AMA Contest Board Member Terry Harner checking in for District X.
Lou Melancon
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2001 5:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Lou Melancon »

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Lou, this is taken from the AMA`s PNP document.

<font color="red">3.4.a. Board members <u><i><b>should participate </b> </i> </u> in at least one event in their applicable category each year. Attending as a spectator or visitor is not considered "participation."
b. Board members MUST vote on ALL rules changes before that Board. Any missed vote <u><i><b>should result in removal from the Board by their Vice President</b></i></u>.</font id="red">

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Lee,
The wording regarding participation is very exact, the word is "should" rather than "must". Also the action to remove a board member is taken by the AMA District VP. No one else can either remove or put in a new Contest Committee member. Last rules change cycle several members were removed and replaced with more active competitors. Also members were added in areas where we had no contest board member.

If the folks in the districts that are represented by Contest Committee members who did not vote are unhappy then it is incumbent on them to lobby their AMA Vice President to replace this person. At the very least active combat fliers should contact their representative and get their committment that they will vote this time.

The AMA VPs have been apprised of the participation or lack thereof of their candidate. Unless there is pressure from their constituency to do something there is little chance of changes being made. Also it is important to recognize that most AMA VPs do not know the combat fliers in their area. Last vote cycle an AMA VP told me there were no combat fliers in his district. The truth was that there were very active participants in his own city that he was not aware of and as a result of bringing this to his attention that district now has contest committee representation.

Now, stepping of the official platform for a second let me make a couple of observations. If one were to base a rules change decision on the information posted on this forum it would be very hard to conclude that SSC should be adopted as an official class. Reading the posts for the last few months it would appear that 2007 will be the year of Open B, Limited B, and 3696. Maybe SSC is waning and putting it in the rule book would be do nothing to either increase participation or further its demise. Further reading the posts would lead an unbiased observer to conclude that IC scale is dead, SSC will be flown but grudgingly, and membership is down compared to the last rules change cycle.

Look at the rules change proposals from other events. They are small, incremental changes, rather than sweeping "throw the event out and replace it with a new one changes". They may change the wire diameter in CL from .015 to .018 or change the wording of the "builder of the model rule". In the case of combat it be something like change the time for a combat match in scale from 7 minutes to 5 minutes or change the maximum weight in scale 2610 from 3lbs up to 3.5 lbs. To the best of my recollection those are the last two changes that actually passed in a rules cycle. I think that a number of small changes, affecting one thing at a time will be more effective and be a better approach than broad based changes.
RH
Posts: 970
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2001 4:30 pm
Location: USA

Post by RH »

AMA Contest Board - RC Combat, District IX checking in.
montague
Posts: 1639
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 3:24 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by montague »

Kirk Adams - Distric IV checking in.

(fwiw, D.IV was one of the ones that didn't vote last cycle. As a result, I talked to my D.VP and Lou, and I was appointed just after the results from the first vote during the last cycle were in.)

I don't read the forums as much as I used to, but I'm still flying plenty.

I suspect there are other board members who do fly local events but don't get on the RCCA forums or fly RCCA sanctioned events, so a poll on this forum may not mean anything either.

If you want to know what is up with the contest board members, your best bet is to contact them each directly. I know at least one person was doing that not long ago about some ideas they had.
Lou Melancon
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2001 5:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Lou Melancon »

Lee,
There is six and a half months from now till the AMA distributes the rules change proposals that have been submitted for the first review.

The changes that are made in the next rules change cycle go into effect January 1st, 2007.
Captain America
Posts: 1009
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:33 pm
Location: Middle of f'n nowhere

Post by Captain America »

Lee,

Does a list exist of those who voted and those who did not?
User avatar
Ed Kettler
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:05 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Ed Kettler »

Image
User avatar
boiler
Posts: 3336
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:16 pm
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Post by boiler »

I think it is not present but I have no idea. I do see a no for district 3. I need to have a talk with that person who ever it is. That's my district. Lee thanks for getting this ball rolling. That is what we should have done last year.
jj
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2002 11:45 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by jj »

Lou,

How could anyone conclude SSC is not popular???

The number of participants for SSC in 2006 was almost twice that of other combat classes, and the straw poll results of what people wanted to fly gave SSC the most likely participants and second most positive participants of all results. How would anyone think SSC is not a very active class?
User avatar
Ed Kettler
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:05 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Ed Kettler »

I believe NP means "No preference", judging from page 18 of the AMA rules change procedures guide. http://www.modelaircraft.org/comp/Conte ... 2final.pdf

the voting options are
a. is acceptable
b. is not acceptable
c. no preference

"No preference" appears to not be an "is acceptable", so it does not count as a vote either way.
User avatar
Ed Kettler
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:05 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Ed Kettler »

<b>Statement of Intentions</b>

I will be submitting the following proposals this year

1. Eliminate 2105 - has not been flown in 5 years
2. A combined Limited/Fast Scale proposal built around 2548. Limited is basically 2548; Fast eliminates the list, allows .26 engines, tuned pipes/mousse cans. One airframe, two events.
3. SSC(maybe as Limited A)

I will be contacting each AMA District VP and RC Combat representative to go over the proposals and will work with the RCCA district reps to make sure we accurately communicate the message and actual event information.
Lou Melancon
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2001 5:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Lou Melancon »

Ed,
In addition to being a fully recognized rule book class we learned, in the last rules cycle vote, that the RC Combat Contest Committee could make a proposed class a "provisional" class as a step toward the full approval process. This step has merit in that it allows the event to be adjusted as necessary. Unfortunately the mechanics of how provisional worked was not explained to us until the deadlines had been passed.

Since RCCA lists SSC, 2548, and some other events as "provisional" I think you may wish to consider asking the AMA to make them provisional as well. An alternative would be for RCCA to grant them full RCCA status and then ask AMA to give them the same status.
Post Reply

Return to “Trends in Participation”