KidEpoxy

705 just makes FunFlying a Rulebook event,
but it only makes 705 Rulebook funflys that, while leaving non-rulebook funflys as just fun flys that could incorporate some all or non of the 705 deffinitions.

I may be wrong, but there have been more than a few ClassC Sanction FunFlys last year,
and I can only assume folks did indeed have fun without any Rulebook rules & burracracy.

Here is a reality check:
You dont need a 705 A Sanction to run a PPP Paintball Shoot.
Actually, you CANT have a 705 PPP event, right,
so the only way PPP folks can have a PPPPB is to run it ClassC Sanction FunFly PPPPB.
All the fun of a PPPPB happens regardless of 705 or any other rulebook event existing.
And there will no be no fun police there to prevent fun and goodtimes at the nonrulebook PPPPB .

NonRulebook funflys are fun.
Regardless of whether they could be sanctioned as ClassA or not.



Hoss
I have a question about Sanctioning and the CD having event rules different from the RulebookEvent-
Didnt I read somewhere that the sanction application has to have any divegence from standard rules up front?

How much variance is a CD allowed to take from a rulebook event,
as such, can a CD sanction a rulebook event with a sanction published difference of model requirement
like a PF adjusted 705 sanction?

Hossfly

When a CD applies for a sanction and he lists Rule Book event/s, then he is by procedure expected to list the deviations from the book. This is so the AMA can list those deviations if needed and so the CD will advertise the deviations. Then if YOU attend that event you will know that the deviation is planned and you will know how to practice for whatever is/is not to be. There are times that classes are combined, age groups combined, etc. etc. It is nice for those deviations to be advertised.
In this rule, AMA is not being a bad guy. They are simply leveling the playing field for all. [sm=thumbs_up.gif]

As for something like 705, the CD should state his chosen tasks so the contestants will know how to prepare for the event. AMA does that to make it better for all. If you travel 250 miles to an event and find the tasks are different than you expected while the locals have been practicing for a month, you probably would not be too happy. Since you did know, and you practiced, you will be happy, come back next year and ALL gain from the requirement.

If a CD sanctions an event using a rule book event, it is by rule/s supposed to be Class A or larger, or Class B if restricted, however that passes through AMA without any one calling it down. What AMA says and what AMA does can be different at times. Hey, I am not an official or an employee. Not mine to say other than the rule.

Now that does not, as far as I know, preclude a PPP member from going to the calendar on the AMA Web and checking all the dates for Class C events. For example, I am doing our Class C, 13th Anniversary Fly-In on Mar. 28. I am meeting with the Club heirarchy on Wed. the 01/14th. We will hash out all the items. As AMA stands, PPP would be welcome, however I seriously doubt that will pass. Since the Club is also the Site Owner, I feel confident full liability insurance will be required. In addition the CD stands firm against anyone that is not covered with full liability, since the CD is the one to take the brunt of any liability action. [>:] Instant Full AMA is available at a sanctioned event. I fully anticipate the published advertising will go out with "Full AMA Membership Required." Man, they do know how to make administration at the Club level soooo diffy-culting!!!

Hey, KE, I do hope you find some answers in all the above rhetoric. [sm=tongue_smile.gif]

KidEpoxy

Hoss
Thank you for confirming what I thought.

But now for Franks behalf,
in that he wants to use PFs in 705 and he was told they dont fit the rules,
could a CD sanction a (ClassA 705 with rule modification: Plane Type )
to have a PF plane <event, class or heat> in that normally non-PF rulebook event?

It looks to me that Frank is taking the long way to get a new x705.PF created
when a CD can waive PFs into his local 705 sanction.

Am I correct in thinking this can be done by a CD for his event?

<all above in respect to non-PPP members only>

Hossfly

KE, I am NOT an official spokesman for AMA rules, etc. I just read what they state, try to filter out the spam, and the items where they have conflicting statements, statements that allude to other conceptions, and then present my interpretation of what they mean. All rules usually leave a back-door-out spot for the rule-maker. I usually just try to locate that back-door.

If a CD lists 705 as an event on his sanction application that is a Rule-Book event, and therefore precludes using that event as a sabctioned event for AMA Park-Flyer members. AMA specifically states, "Can only fly at non-rule book sanctioned events."
Now the back-door-out as I see it, is to sanction a Class C Fun Fly event and then state that certain competitive events will be flown at the "C" Fun Fly. One could then state that the events are as used by the NCFFA in their AMA Rule-Book competitions, and thank the NCFFA for their leadership in setting up these events. NOTICE: The term 705 is NOT mentioned!

KE, that is about the limit of my ability to satisfy everyone concerned. [sm=49_49.gif]

KidEpoxy

Hoss
Again, thanx for you opinion on the matter.
Yes, I do know that it is just your educated take on it, but that is the educated take of a CD question asked of you as a CD. So I am not taking your recent answers as the word of Muncie, but as a CD.

Hoss, you are still of the mindset that Frank is talking about PPP when talking about his PF goals in this thread. That was my take on what he was talking about, but he seems to want that idea corrected to him wanting this to exclude PPP by design. So, even though Frank is contented by us all excluding PPP from this AMA activity, I am still willing to help him get where he wants to go.

As such
if Frank's goal is to have a PPP-excluded 705 rulebook event that allows nonPPP PFs,
and if he asked you as a CD to set help set it up with him,
Could you, or any CD out there, using current AMA sanction & rulebook policy,
sanction a ClassA 705 with a published rule deviation of planetype to include PF planes of non-PPP members
It is my opinion, I may be wrong so I'm asking,
that Frank can get what he wants within current policy/rules.... lets help him.


Yeah, I know all the PPPs out there can find some CD to sanction for them a ClassC "705-Style"-FunFly,
that local ruled up events like what 705 has without actually being 705 & rulebook.
One might even start the snowball rolling and get those ppp embracing "705Style"-FunFlys web-published & commonplace to the mindset of the people, if one was a PPP Advocate. Who knows, perhaps folks from the presumed leagues of $58 x705.pf rulebookers will bring theirOpen PF planes to the "705Style"-FunFly to fly with the PPPs that their own events choose to exclude.

KidEpoxy

woah
has anyone here actually read 705/4.1 in regards to prohibiting PF style planes ?

Now, this is less than cut & dry
we have to first agree that in Section 4 denoting the existance of 2 classes that 4.1Unlimited is the first class and then the nect bolded section "FunFly" is indeed the second class. This would be more readily apparent if "FunFly" was formated "4.2 FunFly" or if "4.1 Unlimited" became 4.1a and the other class 4.1b. A strict interpretation of the document format makes it appear thet there is no definition of the second class noted in 4.... such as like this:
4. Task Categories
4.1a Unlimited
4.1b FunFly
4.1c ParkFlyer

However,
if we accept that the 2 classes are indeed "Unlimited" and "FunFly"
we can readily accept that the planes Frank has been talking about would fit in 705.

If Frank were to want to fly planes outside of the "FunFly" class and yet restricted far more than "Unlimited",
perhaps he should draft up a 3rd new class "ParkFlier" and propose it to be incorporated into 705/4.1c
(assuming there is format change to make "Unlimited" 4.1a and "FunFly" 4.1b, with wording change in 4 to denote 3 classes existing rather than 2)



Of course,
within the now posted here wording of 705
seems like Frank can get a ClassA Unlimited 705 that allows PF planes any time he wants
right?





Frank
Just what about 705/4 "FunFly" class is preventing your "PF"s from qualifying?
I see a profile thickness & heights requirements, and wheel requiremnets,
but there are plenty of PF plane designs that meets those requirements.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

In the time it has taken to hash and rehash the technicalities, I've just scratch built and test flown a Polar Bear with a OS .32.

Bob Mitchell

In between all the rain, mud slides and floods that you guys have been having?

KidEpoxy

Good point CP.
Just how long would it take to slap out an electric 3-5-1 tall 1/4" profile with 6" wide gear?
How would that not be completely 705 "FunFly" spec legal?

Also of note is that the "FunFly" spec with those restrictions is not actually a 705 requirement: Of course, it looks like the class that isnt "Unlimited"
doesnt have any requirement to follow the commonly successful example that has the measurements and gear spec.
It really looks like whatever NCFFA source Frank talked too
just wanted to kick PFs to the curb even though they are technically welcome,
and Frank didnt fully read the 705 Rulebook Event

Frank, why not just form the eNCFFA using straight up 705 ClassA sanctions for your $58OpenPF gatherings.
What is stopping that?

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

Bob, around here if you don't fly when it is raining lightly or threatening to rain, you won't fly much.
KE, there was a .30-.40 size Fun Fly designed in the early 90s featured in MA that only has a handful of parts to it. I built one, got my fun out of it and sold it to a club member. I've got the formica airfoil template right here, but it isn't named.....I'm sure they gave it some kind of a name for the article. Anyway, if you drop down to about 24 inches span with a 8 inch chord, 1.5" thick airfoil and keep the whole works down to 10-11 ozs, a good 1/2A engine or brushless will keep you busy for awhile.

KidEpoxy

Frank
Are you getting anywhere with this?

aeajr

My Feedback: (2)

I just read through the thread and I don't understand where the problem is with having an electic fun fly under the 705 rules. Electrics can do pretty much anything a glow powered plane can do.

Frank,

You said you would like to do this using parkflyer type aircraft. Are you using the AMA's definition of a parkflyer or are you using this term to mean any elecric aircraft?

I also don't see any suggestion on your part that this has anything to do with the Park Pilot Program but people keep bringing it up. I don't understand why.

Am I correct? Do you simply mean electric aircraft?

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

.

KidEpoxy

Looks like a hoot with a Mini UltraStick, or even a brushless GWS Formosa (either size)
Heck, I wouldnt mind seeing a WarBird meet with multiple pingpong drop type events

Muroc1

Ed,

I was thinking park flyer sized aircraft to get more folks involved in fun fly competitions since this seems to be an area of RC flying that is growing faster than any other area. But it is not limited to the AMA/PPP rules relative to speed and weight.

According to the events set up by NCFFA, specific aircraft such as the Minus dominate the events making electric planes non players so to speak. That's why I wanted to touch base with them to see if they could do something for the PF crowd.

http://www.ncffafunfly.org/


Ken,

No word yet back from anyone at NCFFA. Not sure if the email link/address is still good.

Frank

Muroc1

I agree, the MUS would be a perfect plane, although I'm sure a profile plane such as the Skeeter30 would rule the event. Not saying that's a bad thing, but I do like the look of a full fuselage myself although those profile planes sure fly well.

Frank

Stickbuilder

Rather than. "Tweaking" the rules to suit your purposes, why don't you guys build something that is within the rules as they are written. Even if I were CD'ing a meet, and these guys came out in force, I wouldn't bend the rules as they applied to a Class-C fun fly event. Their membership in the AMA excludes them from these events. If you want to fly in a Fun Fly Competition, then pay up, and become a full member. It is not difficult. If you want to play, you gotta pay.

The Park Pilot Program was not designed to allow the PP's to mix and blend with existing clubs, or competitions. but rather to allow them to form their own clubs, and hold their own competitons. You never see a Little League Baseball team playing against the Yankees. Wonder why that is? Oh, I know.....They are not in the same league. Neither is Jr. Pro Football. They don't play the Patriots either. There is a good reason for these differences. Why don't you quit trying to make them fit. It's the old Square peg in the round hole thing.

Take it to the PPP forum, and whine and complain about it over there. or do it on RCGroups. They are experts on whining and complaining. Not much else though. Oops, I forgot...They are very good at ratting you out to their, "Little Hall Monitors."

Bill, AMA 4720

aeajr

My Feedback: (2)

Stickbuilder, I think it has been made very clear that this discussion has nothing to do with the Park Pilot Program.

KidEpoxy

Yeah, Frank & I cleared that up on page1,
he is talking about Non-PPP members that want to compete in 705 rulebook event
with PF type planes.... and these PF are by his tba standard rather than AMA/PPP.

I still dont see what is stopping him.
705 rulebook doesnt exclude small electric planes.

Is there some NCFFA rule that the planes not be small electrics?
Just what are the NCFFA rules?
Where is a link to their rule page.

Muroc1

Here you go Ken. You'll have to dig a little as it's not spelled out as easy as I would like it.

Frank



http://www.modelaircraft.org/members...ation/sig.aspx

http://www.ncffafunfly.org/

Muroc1

Bill,

Nice stick to RCG. Glad to see you aren't stil holding a grudge.

Frank

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

.........are we having fun in an official kind of way yet?

Hossfly

Frank, in my learned opinion, your concepts of both NCFFA and AMA RB Event 705 leave a bit to be desired. As a CD you can set the rules of any Fun Fly as YOU want them to be. Look at the pictures I submitted of a Class A 705 event. I, and the club officers, set our rules for mission oriented tasks. Electrics have participated.
If you wish, you can select events that electrics can do better. YOU ARE THE INDIVIDUAL SETTING THE STAGE. As a CD with 45 years experience in many modeling disciplines, from local club events to Nationals Man Power Director (72 & 73) I think you can set a stage to obtain your goals without trying to get an established group to do it for you. You simply have to use Class C if you want PPP type models. If you use Class A, you eliminate the AMA PPP member, but NOT the model qualified for PPP.
You can simply:
Use 705 event and sanction Class A and restrict entry to ELECTRICS ONLY. You prohibit both wet and PPP members, but not PPP airplanes. Remember restricting model type does not create a restricted event, B or Cr.
Use Class C sanction, restrict models to electric or whatever, and you open to PPP members if you so allow.
Use Class C sanction, allow any models you select and see how it works out. YOU do it!

You have joined the NCFFA and that is fine, however you could be like me with AMA: I get the boot when I try to make big changes in AMA direction. You could well set a pattern of hosting some electric fun flys and get something concrete established. You can even select tasks that electrics could do better than wet power.
You have an opportunity to do something worth doing, however let me suggest you do NOT start with interfering with the established program of NCFFA. They have provided all Event/Contest Directors with an excellent tool and the opportunity to use it is as good as what you make of it.

Muroc1

Excellent advice Hoss. I believe I will forget trying to work this out with the NCFFA and follow your advice.

Thanks,

Frank

KidEpoxy

Frank
There is no real function to have both the AMA link and the NFFCA link
since the AMA page only holds a link to the same NCFFA page as your link.

As such,
from the NFFCA page we see they have 2004 Rules, and 2005 Proposals online.
Their "2004 Rules" is just a copy of Rulebook705,
which we have thoroughly covered as not prohibiting a 30w Lil'Foamie or any other PF you choose.
Their "2005 Proposal" is part 8 stuff for defining stunts, no plane restrictions there.

So again,
I have to wonder where the holdup is
since the restrictions in 705:4 are only an example of optional non-unlimited plane specs.