[NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing

Mon Aug 3 19:39:05 AKDT 2009

09SO - RC Soaring
            Total Registrants - 146

			Event #NameOpenSeniorJunior

			441HL Thermal Soaring3811

			442Thermal Soaring Two Meter4611

			444Thermal Soaring Unlimited10433

			445F3B Thermal Soaring000

			446F3H Cross Country Soaring000

			456F3J4520

			460RES Function (RES)7113

			461Nostalgia (NOS)2100

Chris          

--- On Mon, 8/3/09, Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net> wrote:

From: Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 8:32 PM

Maybe Tony Stillman can tell us.  I didn't see the number of entrants posted for Soaring.  Waiting for thermals is a personal problem; we don't get to wait for less wind.

Ron VP

On Aug 3, 2009, at 10:05 PM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

> I don't know much about the Soaring event. If I were to hazard a guess, it would be 1- more pilots and 2- waiting for thermals is less predictable
> 
> MattK
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Mon, Aug 3, 2009 10:55 pm
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing
> 
> 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 > EXIS TS 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090804/50812e02/attachment.html>