[NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals

Sun Apr 22 19:26:23 AKDT 2012

That last sentence about allowing CD discretion to determine if telemetry info constitutes an unfair advantage seems completely inappropriate.  How would that sound if it were instead referring only to  data logged in the model, i.e., not transmitted?  Or if it were referring to information learned post flight from the LiPo charger about how much battery capacity was used during the flight?  Why not give the CD the discretion to snoop around the pits after your flight while you look at that information from your Eagle Tree logger or your LiPo charger? Or how about policing Spektrum Data Monitor readings captured during the flight?  One might infer from the number of antenna fades if a particular flight was flown further out than other flights. Or how about if the CD is permitted to determine that you gained an unfair advantage because you got feedback from your caller about your flight?  

The intent seems to be that telemetry can be permitted for monitoring safety functions.  If you define the safety functions as things that are required to safely control the model, such as adequate battery voltage, temperatures within safe bounds and so forth, then an in-flight alarm is the one and only mechanism that you can legitimately use.  Or is it?  Would it not be useful to see if you had creeped right up to, but not crossed over to a dangerous temperature when pushing hard to fly a large sequence on a hot windy day? You would need to look at logged telemetry data in that case. Or would it be better to allow to CD to arbitrarily ban that pilot from learning that he would be better off being a little more conservative on the next flight to avoid hitting that dangerous condition? 

This is being made much more complicated than it needs to be!

Ed

From: J N Hiller 
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 11:03 PM
To: General pattern discussion 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals

The last sentence of the proposed replacement paragraph helps control the use of telemetry.

"The final determination of whether or not the use of telemetry information constitutes an unfair advantage is left to the discretion of the CD."

-----Original Message-----
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 7:03 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals

Where a lot of us were, voting against it.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sun, Apr 22, 2012 8:50 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals

You are all correct in that the word "engine" was used inappropriately and we should have used "powerplant".
Where were all you guys when we published and surveyed on this proposal PRIOR to  submitting to the CB???

On 4/22/2012 2:41 PM, James Oddino wrote: 

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

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at 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

_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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/20120423/2179e903/attachment.html>