[NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing

[Derek Koopowitz]

What you talkin' about Willis?  LOL  One of me is more than I can take!!

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Chris Moon <cjm767driver at hotmail.com> wrote:

>  I'm with you on that Chris. I would honestly pay $200+ no problem if that
> would solve some of the issues.  I guess the question is, where is the
> balance line between an open entry national event and a country club type $$
> event where only those willing to part with the big money will enter?  I
> don't have any idea.  The current method relies on volunteers and you can
> only ask so much from volunteers before they are no longer volunteers - they
> are at home instead.  And I consider someone who is getting a few $$ per
> hour compensation to be essentially a volunteer.
>
> People like Derek who are willing to volunteer is awesome but we can't base
> the event's success on the expectation of having lots of Derek clones
> willing to help in all of these areas every year.  Plus lots of Derek clones
> might be too much for some to take...  :)
>
> Chris
>
>
> 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><derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
> * wrote:
>
>
> From: Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com><derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><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<http://mc/compose?to=jlkonn@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<http://mc/compose?to=derekkoopowitz@gmail.com>
>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<http://mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@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<http://mc/compose?to=jlkonn@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<http://mc/compose?to=cjm767driver@hotmail.com>
>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<http://mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@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 <http://mc/compose?to=dkrev@shaw.ca>
>> <dkrev at shaw.ca> <http://mc/compose?to=dkrev@shaw.ca>* wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: dkrev at shaw.ca <http://mc/compose?to=dkrev@shaw.ca> <dkrev at shaw.ca><http://mc/compose?to=dkrev@shaw.ca>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing
>> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><http://mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@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<http:///mc/compose?to=johnfuqua@embarqmail.com>
>> >
>>
>> Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:35:25
>> To: 'General pattern discussion'<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<http:///mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@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<http:///mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org>
>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<http:///mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@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<http:///mc/compose?to=lightfoot@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:///mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org>
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<http:///mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org>
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<http:///mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org>
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <http://mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@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://mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org>
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<http://mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@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://mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090804/cfc6a248/attachment.html>