SPAM Re: Rules Survey

Tue Feb 8 14:19:21 AKST 2005

I think in this case Chuck needs to be more careful in purchasing his
airplane in the first place.  I have no problems with being lenient on the
rules to get the person hooked in Sportsman, but I do believe that when you
start having a National Championship, then everyone needs to be playing by
the same rules.  I think is someone wants to move up to Intermediate then
they are already interested in pattern.  And if they are careful and ask the
right questions, then they will be able to find a slightly used pattern
plane that is legal.

I also believe that take offs and landings in the AMA classes should be
scored.  They are both maneuvers that need to be executed well to be
considered a successful flight.  

Arch

  _____  

From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Gray E Fowler
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 4:26 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: RE: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey

Here comes the dreaded weight debate again.... 

Consider this-Anyone in the upper level classes would not be too smart to
have a plane heavier than it needs to be.  But, lets pretend there is a hot
new Sportsman named uh lets see..... Chuck. Chuck tears up 401 after 3
contests, and he is flying his best airplane that most FAI guys would
consider a toy (and I do not mean the "foamie toys" pictured in last months
Model Aviation being held by  a guy named "Chuck")  and so moving up to
Intermediate halfway thru his first season, last 3 contests were quite a
challenge, BUT he places in 402 anyway! 
In the off season, he saves his pennies, keeps his wife happy and gets a
used REAL pattern plane, built by someone who has a slight heavy hand, and
alas it weighs 11.5 lbs. Now this here Chuck is good and pumped up and I
would place money that this theoretical person could place at the NATS, but
his plane is over weight!!!!! one more ! 

Sorry Chuck, even though you are flying at a disadvantage, we will not let
you play at the NATS........Oh unless you can spend $2k more on another
plane. 

The story you have just read is about to be true, once we do not let Chuck
fly at this years NATS. But at least the French FAI rule makers are happy. 

Consider a weight change. It does not need to be across the board and for
the life of me I cannot imagine why it needs to align with FAI.  Chuck will
have a 5Kg plane BY THE TIME HE REACHES FAI-and the French can be happy
then.

Gray Fowler
Principal Chemical Engineer
Composites Engineering 

"Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> 
Sent by: discussion-request at nsrca.org 
02/08/2005 01:47 PM 
Please respond to discussion 

        To:        <discussion at nsrca.org> 
        cc:         
        Subject:        RE: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey

I have to agree 100% with Dave on this one.  I'd also like to add that in
addition to raising the cost...it doesn't acheive the objective.  Any and
all sports that have limitations of this type (Sailing comes to mind with
complex formulas that define the class of boat) ALWAYS have one critical
limiting factor.  For us it USE to be the engine.  We had a weight
restriction...but it was meaningless because you couldn't approach it with
the power options that we had. 

Now, with unlimited engine size...weight, and in some cases size, has become
the constraining factor. 

In all cases...there are always those with the talent and money to take the
rules to the limit.  We will always be chasing them, and trying to acheive
what they acheive.   It's great to say that raising the weight limit will
allow more "stock" models to compete...   But my bet is that someone
creative and talented will make use of that rule in a way that others can't
easily follow...and will again have competitive advantage.    And as Dave so
aptly pointed out...it will cost the rest of us more money. 

Steve Maxwell has made the best suggestion to date.   I for one have NEVER
seen a sportsman pilot denied admission to an event based on the weight of
their plane.  Size, yes (we turned away a few 30% planes for safety reasons)
but never just on weight.  In fact...I've never seen ANYONE weight a plane
at any event other than the Nat's finals.   So I think we could EASILY
acheive the objective with a simple statement that alters the current
"intent" from one where the CD CAN change the rule...to one that implies the
CD USUALLY changes the rule.   

I dont recall Steve's language, but it was simple and to the point so I'll
paraphrase... " CD's often/usually alter (or wave) the weight restriction
for the sportsman class...please contact them for details".   

-Mark 
-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On
Behalf Of DaveL322 at comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 1:01 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: *SPAM* Re: Rules Survey

Buddy, 

Deliberately segregating FAI and AMA is counterproductive.  We need all the
pattern fliers we can get, and we need a common target for the limited
number of manufacturers and suppliers we have.  I would never suggest AMA
pattern rules blindly follow FAI, but there would have to be a huge benefit
to US pattern before I would advocate moving away from the FAI in the US. 

FAI pilots in the US have made many contributions to AMA pattern in the US
and I think most pattern pilots in the US would agree that the FAI pilots
are a resource to all of pattern in the US.  Cutting FAI pilots out of AMA
pattern issues is losing a resource.  And I think you'd have a hard time
doing it in practice - many pilots bounce back and forth between FAI and
Masters - there is no rule against it as they are different systems with
common elements. 

If there is no valid reason to oppose an increase in the weight limit, it
seems strange to me that the majority has repeatedly voted to keep the
weight limit as is.  Anyone who chooses to look at the history of the
"limiting" rules for pattern (weight, size, displacement) can pretty easily
see what the net result has been anytime the limits have been increased.
For those not familiar with the rules history of pattern, the most basic of
points I am alluding to is cost - any increase in the limits results in an
increase in the cost of the average pattern plane - not something that is
productive for our event. 

This list and numerous other publications have contained many ideas,
rationales, and discussions opposed to increasing the weight limit for close
to 20 years (that I know of).  Perhaps you could share your thoughts as to
why those ideas, rationales, and discussions are not valid? 

Regards, 

Dave Lockhart 
DaveL322 at comcast.net 

-------------- Original message -------------- 
In a message dated 2/8/2005 8:02:54 AM Central Standard Time,
donramsey at cox-internet.com writes: 
Ok everyone, here's your chance.  What would you like to see changed in the
regulations for precision aerobatics?  Up the weight limit, change the box,
score takeoff and landings, etc? 

Email me offline at  <mailto:donramsey at cox-internet.com>
donramsey at cox-internet.com with your ideas. 

Don 

Don 
As an after thought it would be interesting for those who oppose a weight
change to state their reasons for opposing it so the benefits to pattern can
be evaluated for each case.  I cannot come up with a valid reason not To
change the rule. It would also be interesting to know if opposition comes
from a specific group. Since this change does not apply to FAI it is my
opinion that votes from those in that group should not be used to sway the
vote in Any NSRCA survey that would effect the submission of an AMA rules
change proposal since these do not apply to FAI rules changes. 
Buddy   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050208/688c3710/attachment-0001.html