FAI Weight Thread

[Earl Haury]

The NO (Not Observed) score notation is in the F3A rules (5.1.8 Marking) In essence, the wording requires a judge to use this when he/she didn't observe the maneuver for some reason. Scoring will then enter the average score of the other judges in place of the NO.

Seems to make sense - makes the best of a bad situation. Should probably be added to the AMA rules also, as it is typically used at the Nats in all classes. 

Earl
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: vicenterc at comcast.net 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org ; discussion at nsrca.org 
  Cc: Bob Pastorello 
  Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 8:18 AM
  Subject: Re: FAI Weight Thread


  Bob,

  I think you are right.  It is not in the rulebook.  However, if a judge for any reason can not see the manuever and gives NO of OI is not a zero.  I think they just repeat the score of the other judge.  Am I right?

  Vince

    -------------- Original message -------------- 

    THat "Not Observed" thing is NOT in any AMA rulebook.  I had this discussion/debate with some pretty high-power dudes last season.
        It ain't in there.

    Bob Pastorello
    NSRCA 199  AMA 46373
    rcaerobob at cox.net
    www.rcaerobats.net


      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: John Pavlick 
      To: discussion at nsrca.org 
      Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 8:54 PM
      Subject: RE: FAI Weight Thread


      As long as you don't inhale...   Hey - that got pres. Clinton off the hook.   Along those lines of thinking - why do maneuvers that judges don't see get scored as "N.O." or 0. I thought every maneuver started as a 10, and got downgraded due to "observed" imperfections. If you didn't see it - how can you downgrade it to a 0? 
      John Pavlick
      http://www.idseng.com
        


       -----Original Message-----
      From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of tomc at buyrc.com
      Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 9:45 PM
      To: discussion at nsrca.org
      Subject: RE: FAI Weight Thread


        So, based on the info in this thread, I guess it is legal to remove the battery before weighing a non-electric plane. That would solve our problems.




------------------------------------------------------------------------

        From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Galligan
        Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 4:38 PM
        To: discussion at nsrca.org
        Subject: Re: FAI Weight Thread



        Matt,



        I'll bet there are more pattern planes out there over 11lbs then most would admit.  So if you don't go to the Nats what should it matter? I haven't seen the weight/2 meter rule enforced yet at a contest other then the NATS.   I'll be one to fess up that I (had) an 11+lb guppy.   I am working diligently to get it under 11lbs ONLY because there is some faint POSSIBILITY that I MIGHT get to go to the NATS this year.  AND it flies better lighter.



        Wayne G.

          ----- Original Message ----- 

          From: Rcmaster199 at aol.com 

          To: discussion at nsrca.org 

          Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 6:00 PM

          Subject: Re: FAI Weight Thread



          In a message dated 2/23/2005 6:50:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, jivey61 at bellsouth.net writes:

            Ken
            By necessity the planes will have to get bigger or they will fly like Eric says(jello on a plate). I liked that one.

            Jim Ivey

          Jimmy I agree with you here. My Enigma pattern design is 11 3/4 pounds and is almost 13 pounds wet. It flies like a hippo in a tuttu. The OS 160 is plenty of power but the plane simply isn't as nimble as what we are used to



          Matt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050224/bf430ee6/attachment-0001.html