Call for rule co-sponsors

Home Forums Free Flight Everything Else Call for rule co-sponsors

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
  • #41159

    I would like to submit two free flight power rule changes before the September 1 dead line. The two rule proposals cover adding a new Category called II.5 with a 2:30 max. This category fills a void between Category II (3:00 max) and III (2:00 max) designed to fit fields like Muncie IN and Wawayanda NY.

    The second rule proposal is a stand alone addition to free flight power and prescribes a format with head-to-head flyoffs. These contests will have five (5) official flights and the full text is as follows:

    “10. Concurrent flyoff (ConFO) format
    10.1 Some events can be run in an alternative format called a ConFO format, which will be announced in advance as part of a meet’s schedule. Under a conFO format, Categories II, II.5 and III will have five (5) official flights. Each contestant will have a total of ten (10) attempts to make five (5) official flights. ConFO Official flights comply with section 6, replacing the 40 seconds cutoff with 20 seconds as an Official flight’s minimal time. All Official flights have to be completed by a specified time.

    10.2 If least two fliers who have maxed out, they can participate in the ConFOs. Each conFO will be flown in a ten (10) minute window, with the fliers positioned perpendicular to the wind. ConFOs will be repeated until all ties are resolved. The CD can shorten the motor runs and/or increase the max times of each conFO to attain closure.

    Logic behind proposed change
    It is my view that AMA contests are too short (three Official flights) and definitely lake structural excitement or public focus. It would be nice to have another alternative format on the book. The essence of a conFO format is to allow contestants to fly head-to-head, spinner-to-spinner against each other under the same conditions. In other words, fly against real people. The 10 minute conFO window, is well tested FAI protocol. ConFOs will create a public focal point and excitement later in the day, preceding the award ceremonies. But only one or two events per day should use this format to avoid conFO conflicts.”

    This posting is to try and get co-sponsors (two per rule proposal). Those who are interested should e-mail me at before August 15th. Obviously, good inputs are always welcome! And if you don’t agree with these ideas, there is plenty of time to shoot them down during the rule making cycle via your free flight contest board representative.


    Smiling, I’m thinking – nah, let’s shoot this down now.

    George Reinhart

    You got it Dan.
    Shoot it down now.
    I’m already flying a couple of FAI events.
    Next thing you know it’ll be “rounds”, “just to make it fair for everybody”.
    Don’t need II.5 either. Contest director can decide beforehand on format and publish it in the contest flyer or modify procedures on the field if conditions warrant.


    >Contest director can decide beforehand on format and publish it in the contest flyer or modify procedures on the field if conditions warrant.

    Absolutely !


    Theoretically a CD can do many things, but in practice any deviation is fought tooth a nail. Trying to convince a CD ahead of publication time, which might be 6 months, to experiment with any format, is very time consuming. Putting Category II.5 on the book as an option, will help tailor events to larger fields such as Muncie, Wawayanda and Camp Borden – the ones I’m familiar with. (While on Camp Borden, I was hoping to meet Jim at the Huron Cup a few weeks ago.) Category II.5 will also open a new records page.

    At least you guys are perfectly predictable.


    You no longer need co-sponsors to submit rules change proposals. Remember from the discussion on the Electric Forum ….
    Under General Information on page 5:
    ….. rule proposals may be filed by any Open Class AMA member..



    I didn’t speak with anyone at the NATS who thought this was an idea to explore.


    Dick thanks!
    I was working off a 2002-4 AMA rule book which specified three open memebers, one of which is a CD, to cosponsor a formal rule proposal. Checked the on-line 2009-2010 version and realized that the three-person requirement has been dropped. Whow, this would have saved me lots of rejections!

    Still think that proposals cosponsored by three well known fliers have a better chance of getting through.

    Dean McGinnes

    Please, lets drop this one.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.