[NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing

Mon Aug 3 17:08:52 AKDT 2009

In 2005 I believe there was a penalty applied to a flyer (I think swiss 
maybe) who was overweight on the post flight test. I think it was 3 or 
5% deduction in raw score, but my mind fails to recall the exact #. I 
have no idea how they came to this deduction. I don't think he was over 
by much so hardly fair to DQ him when he obviously passed check in. This 
was before the 1% allowance which would have solved the problem in that 
case.

By weighing the models after the flight, its nearly impossible to cheat. 
It was done this way in France and Argentina and I have based on my 
experience I cannot see how you could get away with cheating on weight 
and not get caught (at least with electric models). I think it would be 
pretty obvious to anyone if a caller started swapping around packs on 
the runway after the flight LOL.

Chad

Verne Koester wrote:
>
> Actually, there’s no penalty prescribed for failing the weight or 
> length test. A fix is already included in a rules proposal.
>
> Verne
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Chris 
> Moon
> *Sent:* Monday, August 03, 2009 7:57 PM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing
>
> I think we are making this more difficult than necessary (not aimed at 
> anyone in particular - I just jumped in on Chris's response). We go 
> through the process of weighing the potential winners and finalists 
> already - why not just mandate that the officials APPLY the rule that 
> already exists. No lee way or interpretation necessary. Why weigh and 
> measure if we are going to say "oh never mind, that's ok" when they 
> fail inspection. If they had applied the existing rule, this 
> discussion would not be going on. To implement a new procedure 
> (weighing all at check in) is going to need a bunch of extra help to 
> do and do we really want to have somebody inventory EVERY item on the 
> plane too in order to ensure they don't change props, wheels, rx 
> battery, etc after inspection? Who is going to volunteer to do that to 
> 100+ airplanes? The current way has worked just fine and would still 
> be fine IF THE RULE AS IT EXISTS WAS APPLIED. Simple. Let's not make 
> an overly elaborate witch hunt in response to what happened.
>
> Chris (the other one)
>
>
> krishlan fitzsimmons wrote:
>
> Where do they weigh at a worlds event? Outside in the wind?
>
> Just curious.
>
> Thx!
>
> /*Chris */
>
>
>
> --- On *Mon, 8/3/09, dkrev at shaw.ca <mailto:dkrev at shaw.ca> 
> /<dkrev at shaw.ca> <mailto:dkrev at shaw.ca>/* wrote:
>
>
> From: dkrev at shaw.ca <mailto:dkrev at shaw.ca> <dkrev at shaw.ca> 
> <mailto:dkrev at shaw.ca>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 12:30 PM
>
> We got weighed after each round at the worlds..... Just saying :-)
> Sent from Dave's Crackberry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Fuqua <johnfuqua at embarqmail.com 
> </mc/compose?to=johnfuqua at embarqmail.com>>
>
> Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:35:25
> To: 'General pattern discussion'<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> </mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing
>
>
> Better be prepared to weigh 4 or 5 sets of batteries with each 
> competitor as
> well as airplanes.
>
> That's the thing with glow. Only dry weight counts. You can load as much
> fuel as you wish to any weight! Electric stuck at a fixed max T.O. Weight.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> </mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> </mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] On Behalf 
> Of Derek
> Koopowitz
> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 12:37 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing
>
> I don't see an issue with this... we will put a sticker on all items
> including all packs that a competitor will use. If a competitor really
> wants to cheat then they will do it... nothing we can do will stop that.
> I'm also hoping that random inspections will keep people honest and 
> the fear
> that if you do fail then you will be disqualified.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Jay Marshall <lightfoot at sc.rr.com 
> </mc/compose?to=lightfoot at sc.rr.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I have some concern that the proposals put forward will really work.
> If the plane is inspected at check-in then there is too much 
> opportunity to
> change things. In particular, batteries, which are a normally removable
> item, can be changed to decrease on increase the weight. Do we 
> "sticker" the
> battery pack? This means the plane must be disassembled for inspection and
> that only that battery pack can be used. At present fuel tanks can also be
> under/over filled to adjust ballast for windy conditions.
>
>
>
> If this is a serious problem, perhaps there are other solutions.
>
>
>
> Planes could be placed in an impound/inspection area immediately
> before a flight and fully fueled. The inspection could happen here and
> shouldn't delay the flow of the contest.
>
>
>
> Another possibility is to adopt a "standard" weight for a battery
> pack, then weigh electric planes empty. The "standard" could change as
> technology changes.
>
>
>
> As John Pavlick will tell you, all major race winners undergo a
> teardown and inspection.
>
> Jay Marshall
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> </mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> </mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> </mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>   
>  
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>   
>  
>  
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> 
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.43/2280 - Release Date: 08/03/09 17:56:00
>  
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-- 
Chad

www.chadnortheast.ca