[NSRCA-discussion] Noise - Overfly - and Different AerobaticModel Types

[Ed Alt]

Bob:
Pardon the pun, but IMAC learning from Pattern has fallen on deaf ears in some cases.  I know from a friend and former BOD member that often when he tried to get them to apply a lesson previously learned in Pattern, he was shooed away with a "IMAC isn't Pattern" scolding.  This involved topics such as re-establishing box boundaries to help control the noise footprint.  

Here's the thing with IMAC:  It's charter says something about copying full scale IAC.  Some people apply that too literally and it tends to result in blind adoption of things like the elimination of 75 degree box markers.  Well heck, they can do that in IAC because they station boundary judges at the edges and rear of the box!  Any volunteers to stand in the muddy bank of the Delware River this fall when our club runs another SA contest?  Probably not.

Some things just don't translate properly when applied to model aviation, but the AMA SA rules have been sharply influenced in recent years by a "do it the IAC way" mindset in the IMAC SIG.  This, along with careless sequence design may well be contributing to fields being are lost at higher rates than they otherwise might. Yeah, its their event and they can have it their way, but as Dean illustrated with a recent real world example, it can cross over and affect ours. A little more responsibility re. how to intelligently control the noise footprint seems to be in order.

Ed

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bob Richards 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 7:35 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Noise - Overfly - and Different AerobaticModel Types


  Dean,

  Right on point. I've been involved with a flying field lost due to noise, and was also involved in a successful fight to keep a field open after neighbor's complaints. Better to be reasonably quiet in the first place. Once you have upset the neighbors to the point that they start to complain, their "threshold of pain" becomes much lower. Once they have made up their minds they don't like you, they probably never will like you again, regardless of what you do.

  The one - maybe the only - big negative that I see with IMAC is the noise level along with the noise footprint.  But, you know, 20 years ago you could say the same thing about pattern. I just hope the guys in IMAC (and giant scale in general) can learn from the mistakes made in pattern --  BEFORE flying fields are lost for both camps!

  Bob R.


  Dean Pappas <d.pappas at kodeos.com> wrote:
    Hi Dave,
    What I hope we are saying here, is that being smart and making our aerobatic planes quiet is good for the continued survival of both events. Of course, if flyers with large, loud, and far-away 40% planes lose all our practice fields and practice sites ...

    This is just how the West Windsor contest in Jersey became a "first annual and only ever" event.
    Sadly, I have to say that two or three IMACers joined the club, and within a few months, we had no Pattern Contest, a 6:00 P.M. weekday curfew on wet power, and neighbors who are now very aware of our existence. Being noticed ain't always a good thing! Smart noise abatement programs are aimed at preventing that first complaint. Once it happens, it's almost too late.
    ..............................



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


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060303/889b424f/attachment.html