U.S. Scale Masters TP3 Testing

By starting this thread (intended for all USSMA members, 441 & counting) for members to suggest workable ideas to
improve this site,improve regional qualifiers,recruit new members,increase attendence at qualifiers,increase member participation
on this website and thoughts about the direction we're heading, I hope to inspire and encourage others to play an active part in their
Association. Please keep it civil and NO naming & shaming. Let's be positive and productive.

(1) I think we should have a button or link on the home page labled - Benefits of Membership - or something simular. To explain to new
"recruits" what is unique about the USSMA and why their annual membership (dues) is so important and appreciated.

(2) I think that maybe it's time to either appoint or elect someone to represent the middle part of the country. We need an ambassador / VP
for that part to "oversee" potential operations in the region - eg: regional qualifiers and Championship events. Bounded by the Rockies on the West
and the Mississippi River on the East. Some overlap of "sectors" is good.
Given the fact that we are looking for a loctaion for the 2015 Championships in that part of the country, it makes some sense to me that if we
have in place a "Mid-Con Vp" (from that area) he then could always be on the lookout for suitable clubs to host future events.
I recommend dividing the country into three (obvious) sectors. Then mirroring the AMA's eleven districts. Putting in place volunteers to manage
these districts. Think of it like the Eighth Air Force - Bomber wings, bomber groups, bomber divisions,bomber squadrons.

(3) I would like to change the two lower class names to a more "aviation-themed" indentity. For example:
Replace - Pro/Am Sportsman with - "Cadet Basic" or "Cadet sport" or "Cadet primary" ....you get the point.
Replace - Pro/Am Pro with - "Cadet senor" or "Cadet Advanced" or "Cadet pro" ....you get the point.
...."Pro/Am" is from golf or tennis and just doesn't fit with Scale Model Competition.

So,
Please (play nice) chime in with your thoughts and ideas.
Thanks for reading my crazy ideas and remember we all have a stake in our future.
Ken.

ADMIN NOTE - Submitted to Rules Advisery Committee 03/10/14

(4) Regarding the flying part of competition:
...if we are planning to keep the figure 8 maneuver as a requirement, ( I say that because there is always discussion about discarding it) then I recommend making it a mandatory second maneuver for everyone. Here's why:
...if it is always flown after take-off  (first is take-off, second is figure 8, third is "optional maneuver", fourth is "optional manuver",etc.) then
all of the other (3) pilots flying, including callers, will know to expect that the one who just took off will be coming around shortly for his figure 8.
As we know all to well, the figure 8 is the most stressfull,nerve-racking and troublesome maneuver to fly and to avoid mid-air collisions. So, by
requiring it to be the second maneuver flown by everyone, then pilots & spotters/callers will at least have a heads up that when someone takes off he'll be setting up for the figure 8 very soon after. Callers can then be extra vigilent and no more quessing about who will be doing the fig 8 next. It is rare when two or more planes depart one-after-the-other but when this occurs, maybe one can orbit and wait their turn. This is just a thought because it is very stressfull for both pilot & caller not knowing when other's will be performing the fig. 8
Ken.

AMENDMENT: My comments in this post were made almost immediately after I read the most recent - minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting for September 2014 - published on, I believe, Sept. 30th. In that 3 page pdf., there is a sample  Flight Score sheet that shows the addition of the "Approach-to-landing" as a seperate maneuver preceeding the "Landing". In addition, the "Fly-Past" is not depicted, nor is the "Figure 8". However, in the upper right hand corner in small print, it does list the required maneuvers - "Take-off", "Landing", "Figure 8", "Approach to landing" and "Flight Realism". It is a bit confusing to say the least. In the following couple days I realized that this is the form we used in Hemet in 2011 as (you might say) an experiment. It was not well received by the pilots or the judges. I was a flight judge.

After reading the minutes again, I see that Curtis was simply using this form for showing ways to improve - judge's feedback and better clarification of the score for - "Flight Realism". Of the many concerns that the BoD is trying to address at this time, I don't believe anyone is proposing (at this time) removing the - "Fly-Past" or the - "Figure 8".

I hope this clears things up a little and I do apologize for any confusion by my previous comments and recommendations.
Ken.
ps; I too think that the "Figure 8" is a valuable test of pilot skills and recommend we keep it. I just wish we could find a way for better communications between the pilot stations to lessen the possibility for mid-air collision.

I do think the names of the Pro Am classes are a little odd.  In most other sports/activities in the U.S., a "Pro-Am" label implies a professional participant and an amateur participant competing or participating as a pair, not on an individual basis.  Last year was my first year participating in U.S. Scale Masters and I remember telling someone that I was participating in the Pro-Am Pro class and his response was "who are you flying with?"  Since this person flys r/c, I said the first name that came to mind, which was "Ali Machinchy!"  We both enjoyed a good laugh, but the point was made that the name didn't really fit.
-Ed B.

Thanks for the input.  Those names were initially chosen to being things closer to TopGun.  But after everything was finished, and the want to have "novice" pilots at the champs to increase pilot numbers, only ProAm/Pro is related to TopGun rules.  I for one would prefer we move things close to AMA rules and class names since all east coast events are mostly based on AMA rules.  I truly believe that SM needs to be a notch or two above AMA rules, but the closer we are the better off the organization is for those pilots on the east coast.  We have had this discussion for years.  We know the Guide is way to complicated and long.  I for one would love to see anything that is duplicated or covered under AMA rules to be removed from the guide and only leave items that are different.  The Judges part would have to kept mostly in tack since AMA does not have a program for certifying judges.  Also qualifiers are not required to have certified judges, but it is helpful.
Ken, I will be passing your suggestions to the Rules Advisory board for review.  They may have more questions for you down the road.  Also there is a form on the front page to use for submitting change requests.  Logged in, if you are a USSMA member and have notified the webmaster (me) that you are a member, there should be a block on the right site of the front page.  Member Info block "Propose Change"
See-ya
Mitch

Here are two example class naming schemes that could be used:
1.  Team; Expert; Advanced; Intermediate; Beginner
2.  Team; Expert; Advanced; Intermediate; Sportsman
In both examples, the Team, Expert and Advanced class names stay the same name, but the current Pro-Am Pro and Pro-Am Sportsman class names would be changed.
Just a thought,
-Ed B.

Quote from: rcphotog on Thu, 10/02/14, 02:23 AM(1) I think we should have a button or link on the home page labled - Benefits of Membership - or something simular. To explain to new "recruits" what is unique about the USSMA and why their annual membership (dues) is so important and appreciated.

If someone wants to put an article together (Top Menu, hover over TinyPortal, move down to "My Article" and click on "Write HTML Article"  This will bring up an editor windows you can type text into.  When  you submit it will be queues for approval) I will be glad to post it. 

Quote
(2) I think that maybe it's time to either appoint or elect someone to represent the middle part of the country. We need an ambassador / VP for that part to "oversee" potential operations in the region - eg: regional qualifiers and Championship events. Bounded by the Rockies on the West and the Mississippi River on the East. Some overlap of "sectors" is good. Given the fact that we are looking for a location for the 2015 Championships in that part of the country, it makes some sense to me that if we have in place a "Mid-Con Vp" (from that area) he then could always be on the lookout for suitable clubs to host future events. I recommend dividing the country into three (obvious) sectors. Then mirroring the AMA's eleven districts. Putting in place volunteers to manage these districts. Think of it like the Eighth Air Force - Bomber wings, bomber groups, bomber divisions,bomber squadrons.

Well, we have an AD in Texas. Lawrence Harville. More support for him would be great, esp moving north.  The problem is getting someone to do the job.  We have a hard time just getting folks for the current positions.  If anyone has contacts for folks in that area
Thanks for the input, we need more and get more input from others....
See-ya
Mitch

One big change that has to take place to have quality locations for the Championship is to eliminate all of the contract/financial requirements that clubs have to endure to host a Championship.  To start, you are asking a club to provide volunteers, give up their flying site for up to a week and then shoulder trophy and hotel obligations?
Remember, this is a hobby and we do this for fun.  If the clubs are going to provide the field and the help then the financial benefits should go to them without any requirements for front money or arranging hotels and banquets.
I have been part of many special interest groups in this hobby and none have the up front financial requirement that USScalemasters ask for. Eliminate the upfront requirements beyond the field and volunteers and you might find a lot more clubs willing to host a Championship.
Paul Stenberg

Thanks for the post Paul. Clubs do not really have to endure any financial burden at all. We USSMA can help with any finances just need to ask how it can be worked. All expenses incured go into the expense report they are shared between the club and USSMA and come out of the Event. Some clubs pay some the expenses up front but it all gets put into expense report then done at the end. They are asked to provide the trophies so that we do not have to worry about shipping does not mean that it is not part of the joint expenses. As far as volunteers not sure how we could not do this without them from the host club. We always appreciate them and a lot of them I think have a good time doing it and being part of the event. Some jobs are better than others and that can be helped by having extra volunteers so that no one has to be working for long periods of time not true for the judges though. Again any club that would like to host the Champs only have to ask and any finacial problems can be worked out. Hope this helps.
Randy Warkentin, West Coast VP

As Randy said Paul, thanks for the input.  I just wanted to add a little to what Randy said.  We try to keep the overall expenses of the event as low as possible. Since the core working group within USSMA is so small, we have to rely on the host club to handle much of what is local to that area.  As Randy said, the bigger trophies, if they want, we let them handle to avoid shipping. Many times the host club has contacts within the community which can get some better deals with a hotel and location and caterer for the banquet.   Hope this also helps. 
See-ya
Mitch

One more note, as far as I know the Hotel does not ask for any money upfront or I should say that I have always found one that didn't and know of at least other Champs that were the same way. Most will put a deadline on how long they will hold the rooms but most give us more than enough time to get you reservations in. At Fresno 2011 one hotel did want a deposit so I did not use them even though it would of been nice.

Randy Warkentin, West Coast VP

Why are the USSMA rules above the AMA rules?. Our selection process for flying at the Championships are less than the NASA Classic Scale contest invitations? They only take the top 25% from the Expert Designer and Team entries. Another question doesn't the fly past follow the takeoff, then the dirty fly past if selected? I find it difficult to fly the figure 8 the first after take off. I never do you need the fly past maneuvers to orientate the runway and get a feel for the wind. Just my thoughts. Where do I write my campaign statements?
I am not good at all with this site took me 20 minutes to figure out where to write this. The concrete has weighed heavy on my pea brain. If we go with the military names I want to stay a Warrent Officer.
Mike B. East Coast Chairman
 

Mike
I like your ending on your post, to me it brings in the fun that should be there. To me competition events in our hobby do have some common rules but should not be exact from one interest to the next. It would take away the variety of the different judged contests that are out there to go too, for me that is part of the fun. As for helping the host club the USSMA does step up and help with the up front cost of a Champs if needed. Why does the local club do a set task, as Randy and Mitch have posted, it is much easier for the host club to locate a banquet, hotel and get the place trophies, gives the club a chance to use their local contacts which can help them in future endeavors. We take care of all the Best Of's, shirts, hats, pins and admin at the contest for a start. Now as for class names, this is a National Contest and the names of the classes should try and reflect that. The figure 8 is the greatest maneuver, it does take some effort, but I do not think any more than a Lazy 8, a Derry Turn or a slow flyby with a Golden age model in a cross wind. We are looking to show case the best modelers at the Champs from as many areas, states and countries as possible. I do like the idea of trying out the first three maneuvers as takeoff, flyby and then the figure 8, I will ask all to just try it out in a practice section and let me know the results. I have in the past changed maneuvers at my Qualifier for testing and by the end of the weekend it was not all that bad. Now I have been working for the past 3 years with contacts for a major sponsor, we have gotten in the corp.door and down to talking about what was needed from the USSMA and unfortunately we have not been able to complete. Most of the time we could not promise the spectator turn out that was needed, too its not what they want too sponsor. I have started looking at the private sector for backing this year, with sponsorship money and the money we earn from the sales of the Best Of's and Major sponsors we the USSMA could in fact pay more of the cost, by bringing in judges to make it easier and ensure that the host club provide a small crew with a set profit number up front for each Champs. With this we would be able to move around the country a lot easier to set up Champs two, three or four years ahead on paper. If this sounds a little like a campaign statement, its just  I love this hobby and the USSMA has giving me a chance to meet a great group of people and see parts of the country I have not seen and revisit areas I have lived in.
Curtis Kitteringham
National Chairman                               

Just my $.02, I like the figure 8 and would prefer it stay in as a mandatory maneuver, yes, it's hard, but what a great feeling of accomplishment when you score well on it. Having other people doing maneuvers around me doesn't make me nervous, if I feel there's a conflict, I'll bale and set-up for the maneuver again, so don't want to have to do the (or any) maneuver in a specified order, I'm trying to tell a story with my flight that showcases my airplane in the best light and the figure 8 right after take-off may not fit in my story.

Just so everyone knows the BOD has not talked about replacing any mandatory maneuvers. That being said that I know where twice the Figure 8 has been removed by the Contest Director from the host club but had good reason and so was allowed. I think there has been some confusion with a change to how the Judges and Pilots flight sheet is looked at. It isn't a change but a reminder to the Judges to judge per the rules. So no worry.
Randy Warkentin, West Coast VP

Hello All,

Lots of topics covered in this post.

It seems we would be wise to follow AMA's flight requirements for mandatory manoeuvres so there is consistency between all events and Scale Aero-Modelling organizations. One less thing to fuss over and more energy put towards coordinating the organization.
- Fliers practise their routines for events & to come to an event - to be surprised by a change in their routine which is showing of their aircraft through their routine I wouldn't think that it goes over well with the majority of pilots (not fun).
- Experimenting should be left to a practice flying sessions with a few pilots.

       - rcphotographer quote; "Approach to landing" and "Flight Realism". It is a bit confusing to say the least. In the following couple days I realized that this is the form we used in Hemet in 2011 as (you might say) an experiment. It was not well received by the pilots or the judges. I was a flight judge."

Top Gun is a special & great event, most would like to participate at least once - I would stick to AMA as the guiding light for standardization of Scale Aero-Modelling across the country.

Agree with Paul's86 comments, except that most of the Championships financial rewards should go to the club.  
   
 - Trophies a major cost can be paid by SM and shipped to the hosting club.
 - the banquet can be organized by SM and the facilities by the host club.
 - Scale Masters does need seed money for the following year.

Sure hope that the Championships can be planned 2-3 years ahead so host clubs can get their support systems, unrestricted site, and seasoned  judges in place. Also time to promote the event to the Host Club comunity as a "big deal miniature airshow", Scale Aero-Modellers and help to ensure a financial success for the "Club" - agreed portion to SM.

    - Suggest there be a position for this and that's all they deal with, a committee should be struck to recommend minimum site standards.

Reward clubs with seasoned qualifiers in place to host the Championships. If they won't host find out why ask questions - clubs and organizers who host qualifiers are reasonable.

Thanks, Roly - B.C. Area Director

Here is my thoughts on the figure 8.
It is a difficult maneouver to fly and fly well. Yes it is stressful for both the pilot AND caller, and needs to stay in. I don't keeping it is as much of an issue as it is making is the second maneouver. To fly it well both the pilot and caller need to be working as a TEAM. To fly it well it takes the team to be in the flow of that round. Meaning what are the other aircraft doing in the air, which way and how hard is the wind blowing, is the sun going to be a factor, and most importantly..... HOW is my plane or pilots plane performing. To expect someone to take off, and on the next circut start the figure 8 is unreasonable. You cannot get all of the before mentioned things in order and fly the 8 well. thats why most of us do the fly by first. To get the feel of whats going on, its good for both caller and pilot to be in the flow of the flight before starting the "hardest" maoeouver (next to making a great landing). Making it the first airborn maneouver takes all of that away, and I believe it will cause more problems than it solves. It's not going to make the guys any more attentive, and if there is an early mechanical issue, the pilot doesn't have the option to just land. As an example, last Sunday at the NSC, a Tigercat lost an engine setting up for a flyby (the first airbore maneouver) and he opted to land. If he was in the figure 8 he would have been higher and would not have been able to make the runwy and save the plane.
When I have my caller hat on, and I see a plane make that cross for the 8, I feel I can predict where that plane will be for my pilot. I cannot say that for other manerouvers. Leave it up to the pilot as to when that maoeouver is flow.
Yours truly
John "I've got this" Boyko

I say keep the figure 8
placement on the flight schedule should be up to the pilot
I like the current names  Pro Am Pro   Pro Am Sportsman
Cadet and Beginner  to me are not as impressive  Trying to encourage more competitors with titles that imply your a rookie or beginner seems to me to be condescending
just my 2 cents

Hello All,

 I agree with Lawrence on all points.

  Just my two nickles (we don't have pennies any more)

          Roly

Simpler break down in classes could be
Pilot Builder:   Builder of the model only event.
Team:    Pilot flying for Builder who is present.
Pilot Owner: Any other scale model entered to fly.
No condescending or judgement just the facts.

I too agree with Lawrence on all points, especially the last.

Paul Fleming