RCCA Scale Rules....whaaaaaaat?

[MrRepublican]

As many of you know, MadWags and I founded RCCA. We left there (him first) about 4 years ago...both with other interests, work and family duties after doing most of the heavy lifting to get that organization off the ground. It took almost 4 years to build it into a growing and vibrant group.

As founders, we had learned along the way that one of the greatest barriers to entry to RC Combat was the complexity of the rules. Accordingly, we had worked very hard to help make them more simple while we were there. We had also learned that creativity and variety in the designs of the pilots' choice of scale aircraft grew scale combat rapidly. Accordingly, we softened the perameters and eliminated the approved aircraft list, preferring rather to define the class as a fighter or attack aircraft with fixed forward firing guns. The results were astounding and a record number of events and participants resulted year after year in those days.

Recently, I spoke by phone to one of my old friends in RCCA who was a major contributor to the building of that organization. I was deeply saddened to learn that he and several other key people, who (like us) had hosted many events logged tens of thousands of miles behind the wheel, and worked very hard to make it an inclusive fellowship as well as a place that fostered simple and understandable friendly competition, had left RCCA. He referenced recent rules changes and a less participatory environment between members and their leadership, a fragmentation of classes, and (among other issues) policies within the rules that implies an undercurrent of mistrust and fosters resentment between pilots (i.e. engine buyback rules, appeals processes, etc.).

So today, I went back to the RCCA website (for the first time in many months) to check this out and immediately noticed that (unlike when we were driving the bus) most of the website is now member-password protected. Back in the founding days, it was considered pretty edgy to even limit to members access to the Soapbox (members forum). And for as long as MadWags and I served, that area and an interactive forum section between officers was as far as access limits went.

One of the few sections not password protected now (along with a procedures and protocol section listing who in the membership can talk to whom about what - and the disciplinary procedures for talking to the wrong person about the wrong thing) was these new scale rules. I surfed there and found them to be longer, more complex, and considerably more limiting than they ever were before we had initially started whittling the old copious 704 rules down to grow interest in the sport (in the mid-1990s). I also found there in the rules an entirely new section containing a list of "approved aircraft"...which did not contain many of the aircraft that I recall inspecting and approving when I was a CD of such contests in the '90s. I scanned around and found the imfamous engine buyback clause along with lengthy RPM specs similar to those that pretty much killed broad participation in pylon racing almost decade earlier.

Back in the old days, I recall lengthy and exhasperating debates on these same issues as well as the infinite possible ways cuts could be scored, most of which were tabled as cooler heads (bent on growing RC Combat) prevailed. But to my surprise, when I surfed back over to see what my friends who left cited as now killing the sport, sure enough, they were pretty much all there in the new 2005 RCCA scale rules.

A cursory read of the calendar of 2005 RCCA combat events indicates that the number of overall events (and especially scale) is considerably down from 5 or 6 years ago. And I am told this is a trend. After reading these scale rules from a former CD's perspective, I would hate to have to try to enforce them in terms of their sheer volume, and the potential antipathy amongst the participants that would be fostered from being under obligation to do so.

I will not go into the details of who, how and why as they were expressed to me. Suffice to say, a growing list of ex-RCCAers (good people, good CDs, and good pilots) all seem to agree that it has become what we had all initially worked so hard to prevent...an exclusive highly technical SIG with an increasingly complex set of rules driven by those trying (by means of technicality) to cut the better pilots down to size. Truly sad.

I would be interested in hearing from any current RCCA members' take on this, unless of course that would constitute a violation of RCCA procedures and protocol which might result in disciplinary action against them by RCCA.

[MadWags]

And many of us feel the same way!

[Britbrat]

It appears that RCCA has imported the newest crop of "planners" from MAAC.

[Patch]

It sure does. I'm not even sure if I will even fly combat anymore. maybe in "scrambles' but these rules and land after midairs crap has got to stop. this is the biggest *uck up they have yet persued. opens too many windows for definitions of what a mid air is. My definition is: it doesn't fly anymore, or do so in a controlled manner. Now I hear "well a wing tap isn't a mid air...blah...blah...blah... who's deciding? the guy 10 points behind you? what a bunch of BS. oh yeah, level playing field.......I'm a scale purist, but you can scale any wing up to 40" reguardless and on and on....
maybe I should just go buy a kite......they'd probably want to pass rules on the thickness of my string and such though. what the hell are these people thinking??? I like the way you guys made. simple.

could you imagine if these guys were in charge of making rules for NASCAR? these guys would ruin the annual derby car rally of the boy scouts! I think that they are secretly girl scouts

I don't even want to talk about it anymore. what a bunch of

[Patch]

#1,
have you and MadWags posted your thoughts in the RCCA forum? I sure wish you would.

[MrRepublican]

MrRepublican said:

I would be interested in hearing from any current RCCA members' take on this, unless of course that would constitute a violation of RCCA procedures and protocol which might result in disciplinary action against them by RCCA.

Apparently, it is forbidden to discuss these things. My, how things have changed since we were there.

No offense intended when I say this, Britbrat...

The movement we successfully quelled in the early days was driven by a group of mostly retirement aged individuals, many of whom were incapable of flying combat successfully due to physical constraints. They constantly attempted to politicize the organization and exhert their own inexperienced influence with longer and longer lists of procedures to try to shape the sport into something that they would be capable of winning (with their own dwindling abilities and inadequate skill sets). This same group went out of their way to make younger pilots feel unwelcome, and lord their supposed "authority by seniority" over them while MadWags and I were trying to take the sport into more of ma family-oriented father-son (or daughter) direction. It appears that that same element has now taken over the now shriveling scale segment. Truly sad.

[Britbrat]

Hell, I'm past retirement age and every flight is a combat.

The concept of dumbing-down air combat so that the weaklings can win is quite exciting -- imagine the frustration of those young punks when they get their wings waxed by guys like me (come on Patch -- I'm gonna gitcha). Their juvenile angst alone is worth the change in the rules.

Then there are the fairy combat classes that you could import from Canada -- designed specifically to avoid undue aggression. Exciting stuff.

[MrRepublican]

Patch said:

#1,
have you and MadWags posted your thoughts in the RCCA forum? I sure wish you would.

Alas, we are no longer members of the organization we started years ago. Hence (unlike the days when we were there) non-members have no access to post on the forums on that web site, much less any access to the "history of combat" section written by the former webmaster (what would be necessary to hide from non-members there?). It was MadWags who actually personally obtained AMA acceptance of RCCA as a SIG (and was its first president), myself who filled out the application forms and coordinated the massive lobbying effort aimed at AMA (and subsequently CDed more RCCA contests during my tenure than any other CD), and both of us who CDed the very first NATs, which was safety-incident free and was a resounding success. And at the time, Wisconsin had 30some members leading the nation in the number of RCCA members and contests annually.

But please, feel free (if you are a member) to paste my comments there. Based on access limitation at their website, I suspect that the current leadership might take exception to them and perhaps even question their veracity as well as the credibility of the author if they perceive the truth to be a threat, but I have nothing to hide and frankly hate to see the direction the sport took after our departure...so perhaps this would help them to understand the nature of the problems they are facing...problems we made a herculean effort to resolve while we were there. And perhaps they would not consider a little organizational soul--searching on the basis of a founder to be a threat. Who knows? I guess it couldn't hurt, and I certainly have nothing to lose. Hopefully they don't either.

In that case if they wish to correspond with me, I would be happy to give them the benefit of our experience, if they want to make their organization the vibrant and growing entity in the hobby that it once was.

[MrRepublican]

Are (or were?) either of you guys RCCA members? Also, if so, how many RCCA members are there in Canada (that you know of for sure)?

[Lightning]

Mark, according to the RCCA web-site there is a grand total of three Canadian members, down from around 15. Jason (Patch), our old buddy Victor Cherneski (who seems to have disappeared off the face of the Earth) and nice-guy Bob Byrnes who just wants to fly combat and not argue with anybody (OK with me!!)
As to the RCCA website, it was my understanding that anyone can sign onto the Forum - it's the soapbox and other member areas that are limited.
I totally agree with you on the politics - my appetite for competition has faded this year, I'll probably just stick close to home, fly for the fun of it and to He!! with the points race and bureaucratic BS!

[MrRepublican]

This is most disappointing. At one time (when Wags and I were traveling the country building the SIG) RCCA was a vibrant and spirited fellowship of passionate pilots. Now some 6-10 years later, it appears to have evolved into more to be an exclusive club of cold-blooded competitors and hobby hermits whose entire lives now seem to revolve around winning at all costs in both the arenas of competition and political control of the SIG, rather than to bring as many people together as possible to have as good a time as possible with the sport and the social aspects that go along with it. Oh well, they were good times while they lasted and I would not trade them for the world. But all good things must, I suppose, come to an end. I only wish for those dwindling combat pilots that they could have had a taste of the good old days. And for those who are still around RCCA, an appreciation and comprehension for what we strove for. But alas, some people seem to have been born without that ability.

[ferocious]

I dropped out of RC combat after a couple years. We found that to have a good match and actually line up and get cuts we were flying down at 50 ft, 100 ft. away. Due to eyesight problems, on sunny days he would get all the cuts. On cloudy days I got most of them. I went back to flying control line combat. Fewer crashes and more excitement. Hard to beat hitting the streamer and feeling it go Whap!

[MrRepublican]

Control line carrier provides excitement too while "recreating the...WWII aviation..."

I estimate that before too long, left to its own current devices, RCCA will no doubt have about as many participants.

[ctdahle]

Just like everything else, you organize it a bit so you can have a wider variety of opportunities for competition, then the fun gets edited out by the fun impaired, and pretty soon a shinking number of participants are flying identical, boring airplanes, and the game becomes inaccessable. How many new flyers are getting into CL Stunt, Wakefield, Pylon Racing, Competiton FunFly, Pattern...

Newcomers need events that they can fly with their Ugly Stiks, Four Stars, Kadets, and experienced flyers can participate in for the he!! of it with whatever they brung to the field. Once it requires expensive specialized equipment, the fun goes right out the window.

I'm sorry Mark, that RC Combat has suffered in this way. Competition of any sort can be a lot of fun, but the guys that take it too seriously ruin it for everyone. Even the Boy Scout "Pinewood Derby" has been ruined by this. There are companies dedicated to supplying high tech precision parts for pinewood racers which make the average eleven year old's best efforts a guaranteed last place finisher. See www.a2zhobbies.com/PineCar/Accessories/ for example

[MrRepublican]

Actually, the regulators taking it too seriously is where the problem is. We had all kinds of high-tech stuff going on when we were responsible for the running of the sport and the hobby thrived. We did not succumb to the temptation of engine buy-backs, heavy regulation, and longer and longer rules to supposedly even things out. Reason being...nobody was that serious about the activity and unlike in racing, speed was not an advantage. It was not until the elite few (ex-pylon racers...an already dead sport) got their hooks into the niche (those chosen by AMA to 'clean up the gross injustices' decried by the few sore losers who have gone from sport to sport poisoning the well for others there before liting briefly in our midst to do the same) that the sport began to shrivel up into what you see today. This is what happens when the control of a sport is wrested away from its participants and taken over by those incapable of actually performing it themselves....death.

[ctdahle]

We are on the same page Mark. Regulations are a disease. We need just enough to innoculate us and we need to keep control of them ourselves. Instead we let professional regulators take over. They enjoy nothing more than drafting more rules and regulations. It's a game with them and they cannot fail to beleive that every rule change is vital, necessary and crucial to the continuation of the game, which is not flying model airplanes, or racing sailboats, or playing croquet. The game is called "Watch 'em Squirm" and it is played by writing a new rule to foul up whatever it is that people are doing to have fun today.

[Lightning]

Hello to Mark and company. As a relatively recent RCCA member and combat flyer (4 years and counting) I'd like to throw my 2¢ in here. Two occurrences have dampened my enthusiasm for combat.

• The political anti-American BS in Canada that demoralized the Canadian contingent so much that (as I quoted earlier), there are now only three RCCA Canadian members. The issue was a rule change that meant interoperability/reciprocal scoring no longer applied to US & Canadian events. The major rule changes were a requirement to land after a mid-air (even a wing tap), and accrual of penalty points for crossing the lines, even if it was a mid-air impact that caused it. I live within striking distance of Ontario, consider Patch and Thunder as friends, and enjoyed taking part in their events for the first couple of years. Not any more! As an ex-MAAC Canadian this probably hit me harder than most on the US side of the border
  
• Class creep!! I started when there were two primary classes being flown - 2610 Scale and Open B. Since then we have seen the addition of Slow Surviveable Combat (SSC) using the .15s that I'm sure you all remember. Now we have "Limited B" with an RPM limit, a minimum weight and a specified propellor. We also have "2548" scale, with all planes built to size up to a 48" wingsapn, fuse in proportion and .25 engines with the same prop/rpm/weight limits as Limited B. OK, that's 5 classes. Now we have electrics looming which I am quite sure are going to become significant in the near future. And then there is a limited 1/2A class growing too!

So, you are a CD; you want to hold a 2-day event. What classes do you schedule?? There is no way to run all five/six so you pick two or three. 'scuse me Mr CD, you just scheduled one class I fly (as I can't maintain six fleets). I'm not driving 5,6 - 10 hours to fly half the event or less. I'll just stay home where I can fly one day out of two or three at our club events and go home at night. (or after lunch!)
2610 Scale and Open B are still Combat Nats events in Muncie this July. The others are provisional and will be flown after the official classes. I expect to be there for the 2610 and Open B, I may stick around for the 2548 (I have two planes), I may fly Limited B if any of my fleet survives but I sure don't plan to fly SSC. Now do you wonder, politics aside, why participation is waning??

[Patch]

I'd just like to see 2 classes, well maybe 2548 (to keep the "scale freaks" off our backs) but yeah, there getting to be too many classes.

I talked to a couple of people who went along with the "land after mid-air" rule, and after some discussion, they agreed that it wasn't good after all. But too late now. I also talked to some of the exec who refused to even vote on it because they didn't have enough info on it. From what I understand, wank has been seen for what he is and has been pretty much tossed. Also, there are some new developments within MAAC and many of the "old boys club" ties have been severed. I've even had a pleasant phone conversation with one of my old arch rivals, Dennis. My only worry at this point is that by the time we get the combat BS worked out in Canada (we will), the RCCA will have dissolved into something no longer worthy to join.

[MrRepublican]

Perhaps if RCCA develops more class choices and lengthens the rules of each to keep things fair, they could really appeal to a wide variety of combat pilots and find new markets where hitherto none ever existed. And they could develop more provisional events for this large number of combat pilots to participate. More rules and more classes both official and provisional...this seems to be the direction they are heading. I wonder what the average age of their membership is now. It was 26 ten years ago. I'll bet it is more than 10 years older than that now. And statistically we all know what that means. RC aviation in general is aging and shrinking.

[invisible]

This is a pretty depressing thread to read. I just want to comment on Chris' comments on CL Stunt. CL Stunt is alive and well. We have had essentially the same rules since 1957. (No more 5 points for a one minute start, and yes you can use a starter ). We have an active SIG, PAMPA, and put out a pretty nice magazine. PAMPA was organized in the 70's when the Nats went to Hell. The smartest thing done was to introduce skill classes so that one can fly against peers and have fun even if at the limits of ones ability. My big event happens in two weeks, The Vintage Stunt Contest at Tucson. there will be two days of Old Time Stunt, with @ 70 entrants and two days of Classic with a similar number of contestants. Fair number of spectators, some vendors and a bunch of really cool airplanes. We don't fly skill classes in those events, so I'll be down in the middle of the pack and will just have fun.

VSC entrants, with two days of preentry to go are OTS 81, Classic 91.

OK you can have your thread back.