[NSRCA-discussion] Electric/IC ...was ArmingPlug/Receptacle Problem

[billglaze]

Changing rules for conditions/advancement of the sport, and recognizing the 
emergence of new technology is also reasonable.  If we were still using the 
rules that I  flew by when I started, we'd have 3 classes:  Rudder only, 
Class 2, (single channel, anything you can make one channel do, also known 
as Mickey Mouse) and multi-channel.  (just about anything you can cook up 
with a radio.)  Engines were pretty much self-limiting at that time; the 
largest viable engine was the Fox .59, as an example.  And, of course, as 
spelled out in the rules at that time, (both AMA and FCC) we were limited to 
27.255, 435 mc. (UHF) and of course licensed Amateur Radio folks could use 
any frequency on which they were allowed to operate.
Rules should meet the changing conditions of the times, as well as the 
desires of those involved.
Or so I see it.  Of course, people being people, there will always be those 
who desire the rules be enacted that would serve them, and possibly give 
them an edge.  We see that every day; just look at Congress.
Bill
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 10:36 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electric/IC ...was ArmingPlug/Receptacle 
Problem


> Agree ... But were not talking about safety here (the 55 limit).  That 
> would be my only contradiction.
>
> Changing a sport for safety happens all the time.
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Mon Feb 09 22:21:45 2009
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electric/IC ...was Arming Plug/Receptacle 
> Problem
>
> I would suggest that factoring in the REASON for a rule change, could
> grossly change the idea of "ruining" every sport.  Four strikes and you're
> out?  Five downs and out?  55 mph for a national speed limit?  I'd suggest
> that all rules should be continuously looked at in their context. 
> Whimsical
> changes?  No.  favoring somebody or some group?  No.  Rules changed for
> changing conditions?  Yes.   Or so I see it.  Maybe I'm just old school.
> Very, very old school.<G>
> Bill
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 10:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electric/IC ...was Arming Plug/Receptacle
> Problem
>
>
>>
>> Can someone explain to me why we care if the rules favor something?
>> They're the rules.  If I wanted to fly Turbine because I think it's the
>> best option, should they change the rules to accommodate my choice??  I
>> thought we MAKE our choice based on how it fits the rules...not the other
>> way around.   We have always designed our planes to fit the rules, not
>> altered the rules to fit our planes.  Why does this change suddenly
>> because a new power plant is getting close to being viable (it's already
>> there)??   Makes no sense.
>>
>> If new batteries came out that weighed 1/3 as much with twice the
>> capacity, suddenly the rules would grossly "favor" electric...and you 
>> know
>> what?  We would all change, because we pick our equipment to be
>> competitive.
>>
>> Changing the rules ruins almost every game, every sport.  If eliminates
>> the ability to plan.  It limits product selection because manufacturers
>> are even LESS sure of the market.  Old products are obsoleted that much
>> quicker...etc.
>>
>> Ok...I'm done.   Can I fly Turbine pattern now??
>>
>> -Mark
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Richard Strickland" <pamrich47 at hotmail.com>
>> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Monday, February 9, 2009 4:02:59 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electric/IC ...was Arming Plug/Receptacle
>> Problem
>>
>> The rules already favor IC--but we've been down that road...
>> RS
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>