Dennis, I'm the Northeast region manager for USSMA. I think many of your ideas are terrific...for the most part. I'm hoping all this discussion gets noticed by the USSMA board of directors.
Don't take this wrong now......why AREN'T you a member? I'd like to hear your reasons and that goes for any others paying attention to this thread. Although not a requirement, I for one feel that competitors in USSMA events should be members. Kind of like "What can I do for the organization rather than what can it do for me?"

I guess I couldn't have said it any better. You bring up an excellent point regarding the early Masters held at Mile Square in So Cal. I also like the "freestyle" format. Many planes perform certain maneuvers much better than others. It seems that pilots should be allowed to demonstrate the best aspects of their respective subjects. The static scoring/flight scoring does need to be revamped. A static score 5 or 7 points "out of the running" dooms any attempt to finish in the top ten.

Most of this is from a my post on www.rcscalebuilder.com and www.usscalemasters.org in this same titled thread, replying to other posts but still applies to this thread...

I have been working really hard to create a venue for members and non-members alike to be able to communicate... period. The last few years I have been associated with USSMA, first as a member, then Midwest Regional Manager and now as Director of Administration, there has been a big void in members communicating with each other and with the members of the Board. I am hoping the new web site and forums will do this.

I try to hit as many events that I can afford (both money and vacation time). I burn about 75% of my yearly vacation time attending events to show USSMA board support for the qualifiers. I take pictures, post and if possible run a live webcam feed as I did from the championships.

The biggest detriment to U.S. Scale Masters and can be applied to any organization relying on membership, are "part time members" as I call them. Folks who only join every 2-3 years based on if they think they are going to compete. We are working on ways we can keep people as repeating members. It's a two way street, not only is it what USSMA can do for you, but also what can you do for USSMA. Higher consistent membership numbers can bring about a lot to help. Then we also have the really dedicated few, who even though they have honorarily membership, and are not required to pay dues, still do and have been for year.

Now I have not been involved with USSMA for that long compared to many who have posted here. But didn't USSMA bring in a competition class for ARF's before Top Gun? Does Top Gun now allow ARF's? The last 3-4 years we have been trying to wrestle with issues like this. To keep the basic spirit what what the Scale Masters was intended. I have talked to a lot of CD's of qualifiers over the last couple years and one of the biggest complains was the major changes taking place yearly in the rules, more specifically the classes. It's not perfect and due to human nature, it never will be. But I think we are trying. The process for submitting proposed changes to the guide may have not been clear in the past, but that is going to change. It will be spelled out and looked at in the forums.

We have several committees currently working on rule changes, minor ones, but that is another story, re-aligning our membership fees and "perks" to help get and retain members. Check out the web site, and stay tuned for what I feel are going to be some exciting announcements in the near future...

Mitch
USSMA Director of Administration

I don't compete - currently when I do attend I help in the pits with a competitor. I would like to compete, but I had to face the facts years ago that I just didn't have the time.

I really haven't asked them to do anything for "me". I can do something for them, in less then an hour with a half dozen phone calls - write a revised rule book. I'm glad to do it. In fact given that chance, I could provide examples of how each specific change would improve not only the show, but the attendance. Past that, then a business plan/proposal needs to be formed to show sponsors and clubs that lays out "this is what we are going to do for you, and this is how much money its worth if we land here"

Being a member serves no purpose in some aspect, because they are not listening to anyone.

Example below;

and;

and;

Really? Now I'm not knocking this guy, but I want you to think about what is being said. The CD's complain about the major changes? What? Where? Adding ARF's isn't a change, that is just a class. What changes in the rules. Static is the same, flight scoring is the same to my knowledge. What am I missing? The biggest change I have ever seen is when they decide how many flight lines they are going to run.

You are not a trend setter by adding ARF's. In fact, it probably is debatable if it is even a good idea. The information is flowing the wrong way. Top Gun doesn't need to watch Masters and grab that ARF idea, Masters need to look to T/G and find out how they make money, invite competitors and by the way, have no membership.

This isn't a new deal, and in fact there were some Masters "Brass" milling around the conversation about a new format in Hemet, but there was no real interest. This 'group' including myself are business owners, who make decisions on how to offer a product and attract customers (product = Masters, customers = competitors). You would be sadly mistaken if you would come to the conclusion this just happened. Judging has been under criticism for years, there have been other ideas proposed - but nothing has ever changed except the decline of entrants.

The last quote; 'rule changes, minor ones' - wrong answer. This is like the Captain of the Titanic saying he is going to make a "course change, a minor one". You grab a sheet of paper, start from contest Thursday and go until contest Sunday and come up with something new. Changes are new flight routines, add a 'realism' judge to the static, add a protest phase to give competitors a fair shake and give them a feeling they have a chance - a reason to attend. There is nothing to be scared of, the worst is already here.

I have one I want to throw out there: If Frank Tiano reads this what are the odds he will change his flight rules/routine? In my view, you need to talk to and listen to everyone. If I were the USSMA and a neighborhood kid had an idea, jump on it - forget the membership as a requirement to listen. When I run into problems, manufacturing, whatever - I get a hold of somebody and ask some opinions, and what you get is "you know, I have an idea" - you have to constantly change.

Dennis

Yeah, 3 is out and 1.5 is close. So in static the color / marking judge dings you and his excuse is "this anti-glare strip should be dark blue, not black" and he dings you a point or 2. Your trip is wasted because some guy doesn't see it right, and has no knowledge that all anti glare strips are black. Now in the first flight one judge sitting in a chair thinks the figure 8 might have been low at one end, and the other doesn't know what happened because he wasn't looking so they converse and come up with a score - now instead of losing 2 points from one you lose 2 from both.

If you now could protest the static - a group preferably looks at you color sheet and agree it's black. It's "Daves a nice guy, he just made a mistake" - but you wouldn't be burned from somebody who didn't know what was going on. With the flight judges spread out and not allowed to have a conference during the flight, it's better judging and it is also safer, because they are paying attention.

I bring that up, because I see on another site that Sam Wright also caught this group consensus flight judging and the opinion that many of these guys have never been to a museum. It seems from the comments I saw from him, that F. Tiano was a little more on top of these issues in the last long period of time.

Dennis

It doesn't matter what you do about the judging during the flight. Even if you have the best judges in the world, there will still be complaints. I have done IMAC competitions for a while and even with well qualified judges people still complain. It is the human part of the equation. I do agree with a committee that would allow you to get a static judges decision over ruled if they are incorrect. That would be a very good thing. While I have not been to a Scale Masters event, I will say that I have heard through people before when I expressed interest in going, that you better do extremely well the first day because chances are if you don't you have no chance. Also, I am not letting that get me to down, I am still going to be starting an airplane that I can take to the Scale Masters Qualifier in Phoenix. It is something that I have always wanted to do.

JEFF

[8D]

I have never competed in Scale Masters at any level. I have attended one Scale Masters (Cave Creek 2006) and a couple of regional meets (Hemet) and enjoyed them very much. I also learned a great deal from them and am considering competing at sometime in the future (which maybe makes me worth listening too since the future of the event is keyed to getting new participants).

The one huge advantage that Scale Masters has is the existence of the regional qualifiers. I am sure some of these are better than others but it is a route to getting into the swim of things without driving a thousand miles or more. One cannot get into Top Gun that way. The regionals are a big strength of the concept and should be enhanced as much as possible. Maybe awards at the regional level should be publicized more.

The fact that the national event moves around, and isn't even determined a couple of years in advance, is a big detriment to making the effort to enter. On the other hand, a non-changing venue cuts off people in other parts of the country (other than the regionals, of course). I would love to see a schedule which had a set venue on even years and moved around on the odd years.

On judging, the rules are clear and perfectly fair. If judges aren't following them, then that needs to be addressed. A way of protesting, with a hope of reversing an unfair decision, would go a long way toward eliminating frustrations. The ratio of importance between static and flight scores is a good question but, if your model is shy on static, you shouldn't have a shot at the top rank anyway. Of course, the judges must score static on a fair basis, according to one's docs.
The organization should consider new ideas for sure because even fair rules can make the event boring. A "realism" judge who scores the entire flight is a good idea IMO. The pilots should fill in between the 10 maneuvers with interesting flying/unofficial maneuvers for the "realism" judge - making the whole flight more dynamic.
Just my 2 cents...

Well guys...this is great, thought-provoking and the passionate ideas are starting to emerge. I, for one, strongly beliieve that the business folks needs to be listened to. Their very existence depends upon attracting and providing value to their customers. Isn't this exactly what the Masters and all other competitions strive to do? New ideas must float up from those who care and then "pruned" to yield a finished product. The Masters came about because some scale builders decided they wanted to fly against some other scale guys. At the heart of it was Harris Lee to gently guide this loose gaggle into someting which became the Masters.

If we (all who enjoy scale competition, no matter what level participation) wish to change the status quo, the old must be thrown out and a new "clean sheet" must be brought in. It is easy to walk away in frustration. This may be why the Masters does not really grow. I point to Top Gun...constantly changing, adapting, trying new things. This is how a growing, relevant event must do it, IMHO.

I agree that membership dues is NOT the answer. People pay for memberships if they perceive a return value. I submit that the state of active memberships flowing to the Masters bank account is a testiment to the perceived value the Masters generates. The solution to the financial requirements must involve a more sophisticated combination of sponsorship and endowment money (hence my argument for a single venue where sponsorship can be grown). The competitors should be spared the "gouging" of an entry fee after paying to transport themselves and their models to the venue. After all, the competitors are the show, or in business terms, the customers.

Despite my schedule (busy like most of yours) I stand ready to join with Dennis and others willing to remake this great event. As a cautionary word, things must change or this event may go the way of the Nationals (which was once considered the pre-eminent competition).

Point taken Chaz on #2...membership requirement for competing. I thought about this before but didn't throw into my comment. Entry level, Open and possibly Advanced classes may not have a membership requirement but I think Team and Expert should. If qualifying for the Champs is the goal...and who doesn't want to improve??...membership SHOULD be required to compete there. Competition is a sure road to improvement of one's skills. When one sees what others are trying, doing and succeeding at it lights a fire. At least it does for me. Sorry about making this public Dave but I'm sure you'll be OK with this....Dave Johnson ,Cocoabear, one of the best modelers and flyers on the planet attended a local USSMA qualifier and got hammered in the static portion of the judging. If I'm not mistaken it may have been his first scale contest.
What did he do after his ego got repaired? He took the crticism constructively and made the necessary changes, "improved" his entry so that next time he'd be right up their before becoming one of the "Big boys" himself.
USSMA fills a huge gap by offering scale competiton at all levels and by having the regional qualifier system it allows us "locals" to compete in a real scale contest....not a fly-in (they surely have their place). Are there any AMA scale contests near you (everybody)? Not near me.
The USSMA motto is "Keep the Dream Alive". Good words. Mitch Epstein...the other Mitch

I can't believe what happened here. Some positive input. All of the posters here have been great - somebody trying to fix a "problem"

Alright, here is what I have . . . . it is an idea, not a demand. Copy and Paste at will with credit please.

[link]http://www.glennis.com/Scale%20Masters.htm[/link]

Dennis

Thank you all. I can now see there are really others that feel as I have for several years,not months but years. i too have a few ideas to pass on. Thanks to Mitch Baker by the way the Masters is still alive. It seems as though I was treading on thin ice at times in the past. As some know I was assigned the responsibility of being an advisor by Mr. harris Lee many years ago. Now let me make it clear I have much respect for our past and present leaders in the work that they have done. However I also feel that some have simply not advanced us with the times. One would think that the low numbers of members would signal something to these leaders.
It seems as though the writings such as rules etc are well done But! out of touch with todays competitor and serves to scare the devil out of those that may wish to try.
Judges. Thats always a joyful subject in todays scale world. Remember at one time we had several other scale meets being held from which we could get judges from. I feel we need to provide our judges a much simpler,fairer and faster way to judge. On top of that we add classes in a program that does not equally fit all the catergories in scoring. The entire procedure need to be easier for everyone. The following will suggest some very different ideas. In closing of this section I will say that unless things change and I mean real change we just may continue to whip this horse until it falls and by all comments it cannot be far off.

To Continue. Hers is an idea for all to consider. Would something like this work? Some may call this a dumbing down others may call it back to scale modeling reality.

STATIC JUDGING. 1. Two pictures only [one per page] The model is posed as shown in the full scale photos. Note! A new judging stand easily constructed has been designed
Once on the stand the model only moves left or right to accomodate the full size picture angles.
2. A short one page history of the full size for a total of 3 pages.
3. NO three views
Items to be checked and judged on the model vs the full size aircraft photos supplied.
1. How realistic does it look at the prescribed angles judging color,markings,details and shapes. Note! WW1 models may use a color rendition.
2. Each category has a maximum of 5 points for a total of 20 points.
FLIGHT JUDGES
1. Only 5 flying maneuvers and 2 ground maneuvers are to be judged plus the overall flight for a total of 8 maneuvers.
2. Ground maneuvers are takeoffs and landings and they include such things as taxi out and taxi back,wheel brakes,folding wings etc.
Another words HOW REALISTIC did it appear to the type of plane being judged. Note! The addition of a steering mechanism would be able to be used for
WW1 aircraft.
PILOTS
1. Model shall perform in a REALISTIC MANOR ony those maneuvers and ground characteristics applicable to the aircraft bing flown.


Seeing as I do not know how to transfer to the Scale Masters web site I would appreciate if someone could do that for me. Thank you in advance.

Finally Thank you all again for the comments

Dennis, Are you proposing a flyoff for all classes at both the Champs and qualifiers too? Mitch

The problem with the static is not the way it is judged except one respect and that the judges need to see all the planes as a group at one time. Static is usually a trickle in come when your here thing. Static should be done after the first flights of the competitors not before. Static is usually done fri before and up to the first flights on Sat. If someone comes in late with a compeitive plane the vib of the judges will be slightly different than the day before. They are human and do a great job, but I have seen them have to award a 100 because they were a little too high the day before. I think the judging is as fair as it can be, but day to day everyone is a slightly different person and that can matter. I like supper tough judging; I dont want a freebee.

No, I'm mainly concerned with the "big show" I guess. At Hemet there was a group of spectators leaving the field mid day Saturday, and someone made the comment about already knowing who won. With a couple of point lead after the first round, the meet is over for second place on back.

You could do it at qualifiers too. I don't think the qualifiers and the Masters have to be the same. The rules don't - if you qualify at Top Gun, it is only saying you qualified. Get ready though, because at "Masters you are going to have to get it together, they have the best rules and the tightest most fair judging". Of course we don't have that, but we could.

My view of Scale Masters is this; prior to Top Gun, Masters was much more elite than going to the AMA Nationals. You hadn't accomplished much winning the Nats, but Masters was the show to be in.

While they basically use the AMA rule book for Masters, they shouldn't. They could simplify the rules very easily - gray areas and subjective judging make it complicated. I personally think the static documentation should be expanded. The reason static takes a long time is it is time consuming, and since some of the judges don't know what they are looking at, they are trying to figure out what to do and how to score it. I know that sounds harsh, it is, but we have all seen some dogs get a great static compared to a really well pulled off scale model.

You come up with a set of rules that set you apart from Top Gun and the AMA, try something new. Right now it is just another scale meet with a fancy name. You know, it is a sad aspect that is only found in this hobby - everyone is trying to copy someone else instead of developing a unique new product. I run into it everyday. Somebody copying an O-ring brake, or retract valve, or scabbing a fuselage and releasing their own copy kit.

So, break the trend, write a new rule book - make some news. What's going to happen, 25 show up instead of the 28 or whatever this year. Now there are two reasons for not doing it, either they are scared to change, or they don't want to.

If they are scared to, we have a management problem. For every competitor that decides they don't like a new format, two will come along that do. If they don't want to, then we have another, deeper issue. Either they don't want new ideas for fear it would open up the competition and not allow it to be "controlled", or it is just a hard headed power trip deal. Now I'll take a step out of line, but I am willing to now. When I say controlled do you think rigged or guided to certain individuals winning? It does make me wonder when I see the numerous judging issues go on for decades and nothing is done. If you have a static judge that doesn't like you, or "P-51's", he can either consciously or not ding you - he holds all of the power is not accountable to anyone under any circumstance. The good thing is he'll be there again next year, so you're done. There is NO reason for this crap.

This exact problem is on television right now. Many of you know I am a big auto racing fan. If you know anything about NASCAR you are watching Scale Masters on television. NASCAR attendance is dropping, and they blame the Economy, but all experts agree the officiating is sketchy, to many gray areas and suspect judging calls. The product is not as good, it is dumbed down and controlled to a point people are leaving. With all of the ideas proposed, they refuse to listen to new ideas.

When I read the post above, I just shook my head. Rcrmel - read what he said. Several years. Everyone is scared to mention possible rigging or sloppy rules or anything in the open, it is always the whispered discussion behind the porta potty.

I read on here about this being brought up on a public forum, not the USSMA web forum. I didn't even know they had one, and most don't. If this is on a popular forum, it is out there and it is exposed, and look what is happening now - now we see that Rcrmel and LA7 weren't whispering about our ugly airplane over there, they are talking about what we all are in our own little circle.
quietly.

I see the comments about the flight judging, but I only agree to some extent. When I stand there and watch a judge checking out girls in crowd (or whatever he was looking at) and completely missed more than one maneuver, then they converse on it, he looks at the other judges sheet then changes his 8.5 to an 8 and writes it on his own sheet - There is NO reason for this crap.

These groups of buddies sitting there discussing the flight like they are watching reality t.v. is not what judging is about. The jury doesn't sit in the jury box and openly discuss the testimony and and one is looking out the window not paying attention. I'm trying to work on a better plan for that deal - they also need to be accountable for what they are scoring and why. When someone is going to be questioned on what they did, they are less likely to do sloppy work. I had two well known competitors tell me on the phone yesterday that they didn't go this year because of the judging. I'll leave out what they specifically said about it, but it wasn't very nice.

If you think this post had a different attitude, it did. My anger level went up a little the more I think about this deal. I feel good about something though. I checked out the other thread and didn't see anybody come up with much, certainly not what has been talked about here. I'm going to print this thread and pass it out when this thing goes down in flames.

Dennis

Why not post this where it should be. Scale Masters web site. There is also a process for submitting rule changes...

Mitch

It is my understanding that you have to be a member of USSMA in order to post, but that may be wrong. I found this by accident, and just replied here. I am not sure how their forum is moderated, so I'm curious what is allowed or how far some of my ideas/comments would go.

Mitch, I do feel bad because I feel like you may think this is aimed at you. This is a situation that has a very long history. I got two calls yesterday and even more today from competitors of Masters that have seen this thread, and the comments all fall along the lines of "finally someone really spoke up and is getting listened to" (at least by someone).

They are also saying 1). they no longer (and some for many years) belonged to USSMA because they were not listened to, 2). They are not going back to Masters. 3). judging is the reason.

I am not inclined to join USSMA because from what I have been told your $35.00 doesn't go far when it comes to changes.

Dennis

Dennis. Excuse me. I meant exactly what I said about several years and it was not behind the porta potty. Ask around if you care. I have felt alone on this issue for along time. Most will not say anything they just quit. Obviously I kept all of this within the Scale Masters as I hoped that someone would listen I did not feel that any of this needed aired out in public forums. Now that we are on this forum maybe this may work. This is the first time I feel like there is someone else as concerned as I am.
We all seem to know where the problems lie and NOW is the time to help fix it. That is the reason for my post offering an idea for a new concept.
You may be unaware of our group of 10 here in So Calif. Late in 2008 we hosted a new concept in scale competition. The turnout was small,the weather was not good etc. However we did use some of the new things I talked about. The judging stand I spoke of on my previous post was one. Another idea used was a business type card inviting the participants to the event a web site was created etc. To be truthful I immediately found that old habits do not dissapear easily among the leaders of this group. However everyone jumped in with a job to do. Who started this? I DID so that we could operate as Top Gun does and that is if something does not work the first time we can change it easily. In addition I felt by doing these so called radical things the Scale Masters group would not only be watching but we felt that it would help to improve the Masters qualifier attendance and they may see that something different will work. Will this continue? I do not know however we will attempt something after the first of the year. Regards Mel.

I read your ideas Dennis and disagree wholeheartedly with all but the landing gear deal. I have flown in Top gun for the last three years and just received my invite for next years, and though I fly ww2 planes I have not taken the landing gear as a manouver yet. Maybe this year but it is my choice. Most judges I have seen at any event, from scale to combat and pylon etc. have being very conscientious and I am sorry to say that a lot of your points seem to come in my view from the sour grapes that I hear all the time in competition. There is always someone whingeing about this isn't fair or that isn't. I think Mels ideas are a thousand times worse though. Reducing scale competition into a kindergarten event, before we know it we will be giving everyone an award , "just because they tried " so as not to make them feel bad. Harris would be turning in his grave.
I do see how the USSMA has dropped a little but check out Top Gun last year. The economy caused a lot of no shows, Frank however works hard to overcome it and still make a success. The biggest problem though is, I never hear about the ussma events. They are not promoted enough and newcomers are not told how easy and fun it is to start in it. I do think having the masters in one place could stifle the idea of it being for the whole USA but i think picking two places one on the east and one on the west coast and sticking with the same venues alternating years. Who knows. I am not an Old fogey who is stuck in his ways, I only four years into competing and just disagree with your ideas.
By the way, I am going to a wmwa fly in tommorrow and called my buddy to see if he was going. He is busy so maybe next week in ocala he says. Maybe, ,, and then he asks if i am going to the Corvin Miller event,. I didnt even know it was on. I think that is a problem everywhere. it is not just the USSMA's problem, it is mine too. I have become lax in finding out about events, yet one of Mels ideas is fair about making contact. i think all registered scale buffs could be notified by mail or email. i think if the USSMA posted on here and rquested an email adress for all scale afficionados and did the same on all the other sites. we could be kept informed and i think that would go a long way to boosting the attendance.
good luck
Paul

No, that is the exact opposite of the direction I proposed. Eliminating free options makes it harder, cleaning up judging makes it fair and more competitive. There is no idea I have about giving awards to everyone. Exactly what I said before - drop the AMA as a guide and draft a unique set of rules tailored to this level of scale modeling. Not to make it easier or give everyone awards, but set the meet apart and up the competition, and restore its status. The AMA founded in 1936, and I don't know when they wrote the scale competition section, but I think with the progress in hobby, scale in particular, their layout has not kept up the same pace.

If any of the issues I raised would cause Harris to turn in his grave, then maybe this whole deal started off on the wrong foot to start with. If you don't think the adding an ARF class wouldn't make him turn in the grave - it would. If you are going to run a legitimate competition - then in year one when there are gray areas in rules and judging problems or whatever, you jump in and start working on those problems.

If anyone is inclined to think all is fine, and it is just the economy, well I guess you may have your answer and things are fine. What I heard on the phone is "I'm not going to waste the time or money because . . . . " And the reasons were all laid out above.

This thread is probably winding down (if not fine), so if it is, I want to leave it with this:

At the very least, my judging proposals should be implemented immediately with no special process required. It is just plain common sense that there should be a protest phase and the flight judging should not be subject to a group discussion. Sam Wright (who has been around as long as Masters) addressed this right off the go on another forum site - judges who had never been to a museum and were grouped together for discussion were his comments - it is more than myself who see these issues as a problem.

Dennis

My own perspective on SCALE model contests is this: A model that doesn't score into the top 5 slots in static judging shouldn't have any mathematical possibility of taking one of the prizes because of good, or even great flight scores.

Thanks Dennis. I guess of all the posters, I find myself most closely aligned with you and your proposal. Frankly, I am not sure what, if anything, happens next. Maybe nothing if the inertia is too much to overcome. I am hoping that a small change, as a starter, might help get the powers that be moving toward a better, healthy and growing Masters. I concur that if nothing else happens, start by implementing your proposal and see how it works at the next Championships.

I don't know what is planned to try and reverse the declining qualifiers numbers. I have heard of some rather desperate measures that have been used, in the past couple of years, to try and boost the numbers going from the qualifiers to the Championships. At one qualifier, all the participants were awarded qualifying status because the winds were blowing too hard to fly most planes without risking substantial damage...hmmm...free pass by showing up. OK....I hope this kind of thing doesn't happen too often...it really cheapens the qualifiying process which, like the NFL Divisional title games, can sometimes be a pretty good competition.

As I said in an earlier post, I stand ready to try and lend support to a strategic plan for moving the Masters back to the pre-eminent place that Harris Lee always envisioned it to be. I see others equally engaged and willing. Is it enough to overcome the inertia? we'll see.....