[NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing

Ron Van Putte vanputte at cox.net
Mon Aug 3 18:55:09 AKDT 2009 

Not too long ago, R/C Aerobatics had five days; the fifth day was a  
"rain day", just in case.  When AMA decided to shorten the Nats, they  
took away our rain day.  I was OK with that, BUT I don't see that the  
Nats are any shorter and, in looking over the Nats News, I noticed  
that R/C Soaring has NINE days.  What's with that?

Ron VP

On Aug 3, 2009, at 9:44 PM, krishlan fitzsimmons wrote:

> The $100 that we pay for the entry is small potatoes compared to  
> what we spend on the nats. Think about the time off work, all the  
> practice leading up, the expenses. I estimate that with the time I  
> took off work, and everything else that it cost me about (well I  
> won't say, or I will get crucified on here, lol). Raise my rate to  
> $200 and pay someone to weigh planes. Pay some judges. Pay some  
> zero judges. Pay for a few more days so that everyone gets equal  
> exposure judging. Whatever has to be done to make it fair for all.  
> Why settle for "well, it's sorta ok the way it is, not perfect, but  
> ok" when we can change it? I can't understand why people don't want  
> to make it better.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 8/3/09, Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 7:28 PM
>
> Rules are rules and we should enforce them for everyone - not just  
> the select few that make the finals. I would bet that the majority  
> of everyone that attends the Nats is compliant with the rules we  
> have today.
>
> Chris: I don't have any problems working to process planes - I  
> think the time would be fun to meet all the attendees and say hi. I  
> don't normally get to do that and this will give me an opportunity  
> to meet everyone. I'm also not looking to do this in lieu of my  
> judging duties either... I view my judging assignment as an  
> essential part of attending the Nats and look forward to it every  
> time. If someone is going to cheat by replacing servos or whatever  
> just to make weight then shame on them... perhaps Chad's solution  
> is the best one to weigh planes after they fly but that just makes  
> the logistics even harder I think since we don't have the enclosed  
> tents to do this and also enough scales etc. for each site.
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:29 PM, John Konneker <jlkonn at hotmail.com>  
> wrote:
> Not the point I was trying to make.
> Please reread the last two sentences of my note below.
> ONLY legal planes would make the finals, semifinals and place if  
> the procedure that has been in place were followed.
> Respectfully,
> JLK
>
> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 17:24:22 -0700
> From: derekkoopowitz at gmail.com
>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing
>
> Then why even bother to have the rules? How about noise and size?  
> Should we eliminate those rules as well? No one checks weight, size  
> and noise locally... so why should we bother having a rule for it  
> and enforcing it at the Nats?
> I don't buy it that attendance will diminish.
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:16 PM, John Konneker <jlkonn at hotmail.com>  
> wrote:
> I have to agree with Chris.
> As someone has pointed out there are basically two types that  
> attend the Nats.
> Those that go to renew friendships and for the social aspects and  
> those that are trying to win.
> I have been told by more than one pilot attending that they aren't  
> concerned about their plane
> being overweight since they have no chance of making the finals or  
> placing and are there for the fun.
> I think you will see an even further decrease in attendance if  
> everyone gets weighed at checkin.
> The way it has been til now would be fine IF it was followed and  
> enforced.
> Otherwise it's just more search for the guilty, punish the innocent.
> JLK
>
>
>
> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 19:57:03 -0400
> From: cjm767driver at hotmail.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> 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 <dkrev at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> From: dkrev at shaw.ca <dkrev at shaw.ca>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing
> To: "General pattern discussion" <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>
>
> Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:35:25
> To: 'General pattern discussion'<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
> [mailto: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>  
> 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
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> 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
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list