[NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals

[Del R]

One can imagine all the various interpretations various CD's could choose to go with. Don't hurt attendance so let anything fly over the other extreme to be a real hard nose and sorry if some get offended. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: richard wallace 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 1:04 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals


  Leaving an interpretation like this to CD discretion is a horrible copout, and is totally inappropriate. 
  I'd there's going to be a rule it must be understandable on its own, without the need for CD intervention. 
  If a rule can't do that then it probly shouldn't be a rule...


  On Apr 22, 2012 9:03 PM, "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

    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



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/20120423/5c7ba25f/attachment.html>