[NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals

[James Oddino]

No!!!  What the hell is the intent?  It is like the Congress.  The reason they have to pass the bill before they know what is in it, is the fact the actual language is written after it becomes law.  This one sounds like it will cause many, many unintended consequences.

Jim

On Apr 22, 2012, at 2:33 PM, John Fuqua wrote:

> If “engine” was changed to “motor” would that solve the question?   Or should it say “fuel/electric propulsion systems that….”
>  
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 3:52 PM
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals
>  
> Good catch Jim.  The way it is worded, it specifically would exclude motors!
> Jon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Oddino <joddino at socal.rr.com>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Sun, Apr 22, 2012 3:41 pm
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals
> 
> Who wrote the words and what was their intention?  I guarantee it doesn't do what they intended because it doesn't apply to electric powered aircraft that don't have engines.
>  
> I would interpret it to mean something like control line engines that automatically change mixture setting from horizontal to vertical flight.
>  
> I've said it before.  We don't need more rules and regulations, we need fewer.  
>  
> Jim
>  
>  
> On Apr 22, 2012, at 9:49 AM, Peter Vogel wrote:
> 
> 
> Quick question on the "functions not allowed" section of RCA13-4-McHarg:
>  
> 9. Engine management systems that coordinate power output with model performance, position, or 
> attitude.”
>  
> Does that make systems such as the Hacker Senestrol system which ensures a consistent RPM based on throttle position illegal?  I know they were specifically designed for F3A use in Europe and have been popular...
>  
> Peter+
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 9:18 AM, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Attached is a summery of the RC Aerobatics rules change proposals for the
> 2013-14 cycle. I put this together for a presentation at our judging seminar
> yesterday.
> 
> The actual proposals can be viewed at
> http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/ruleproposals/rcaerobatics.aspx
> The initial vote ballots are due at AMA headquarters May 1 2012.
> Contact your AMA district contest board representative with your concerns
> and preferences regarding these proposed changes immediately as time is
> short. Here is a link to the contest board members.
> http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/cbmembers.aspx
> 
> I pause before sending this fearing I may not have it all correct. If I'm in
> error just delete it and accept my apology.
> Jim Hiller
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> 
>  
> --
> Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training
> Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark
> <~WRD000.jpg>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120423/4ed42e20/attachment.html>