[NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals

Tue Apr 24 10:00:18 AKDT 2012

In a phrase... What he said :)

Mark Atwood
Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124 
Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com  |  www.paragon-inc.com

On Apr 24, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Verne Koester wrote:

Thanks Del, I just want everyone to understand that getting past the first round doesn’t make a proposal a sure thing. It should be obvious for example that 13-7 and 13-9 can’t both pass because they both cover essentially the same thing and they conflict. Maybe the best proposal is a cross-proposal that takes the best parts of both or maybe neither one will pass or maybe one of them is fine as is. What I’m suggesting is that everyone who cares about these things go over all the proposals with a fine toothed comb and tweak where necessary. That’s what the CB will be and has been doing. Most of us don’t participate in the public forums regarding rules, but I’m confident that we’re all paying attention to what’s said there.

Verne

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Del R
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 1:25 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals

Hi Verne..

Thanks for taking the time to share your insight into that part of the process as a refresher for some but 1st time info for others. Show one of your best qualities, that you truly care.. 

    Del
----- Original Message -----
From: Verne Koester
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals

Hi Jon,
As a member of the CB, I’ve never been real crazy about the way the rules proposal system works but it is what it is. Many proposals are passed through the initial phase because they have some redeeming value that merits discussion and to allow cross proposals to “fix” flaws that are noticed under close scrutiny. The misnomer in the process is that each member of the CB will vote the same way in the second or final phase as it stands. It’s important for those most concerned with the proposals to openly discuss the proposals that pass the first phase and apply tweaks in the form of cross proposals if deemed necessary. Sometimes the CB will take on this task based on discussions that occur within the CB, but not always. The important thing to remember is that passing the first phase doesn’t necessarily make it a sure thing in the final vote.

I can’t speak for the rest of the CB, but I’ll give you an example of problems I have with proposals in just one area. Proposals 13-7 and 13-9 call for an airplane to have the motor disconnected from the batteries before it leaves the runway after a flight. That means the caller will have to disarm the plane unassisted while it’s on the runway immediately following a flight. Do we really want the delays that’ll cause? What happens if the caller just gets to the plane and the pilot on the other line calls a dead stick? Now the caller is in harm’s way while he’s disarming the plane, particularly if he can’t hear everyone yelling for him to get off the runway. If he does hear everyone, scoops up the plane and gets off the runway while the plane is still armed, what then? In one of the proposals, that’s a direct violation. In the other one, it’s implied. Since no penalty is prescribed for either of the proposals, what does a CD do about the violation? And this is just one problem I see. There are others.

Having said all of this against my better judgment, I don’t intend to and won’t debate the proposals publicly, I’ll be plenty busy doing that within the CB. I just wanted everyone to understand how the process works.

These are the sorts of things the CB will be discussing between the first and second phase and trust me when I tell you there will be a lot of discussion on all the proposals that were passed through to the second phase. We also pay attention to the forum discussions.

Verne Koester

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 10:24 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals

Thanks Mark.  Glad to see the board took a hard look at the proposals.

The proposal 13-4 on telemetry will require a cross proposal to fix the wording as noted here in the last few days on engine vs. motor, take out the stuff about the CD's discretion, or defeated altogether.  No CD is going to be an expert on every transmitter's programming capabilities, downlink system, and motor/engine management system.  There is a protest system to be used to define whether something is legal or not.  Hopefully, this whole mess will be defeated by the CB.

As I read Mike Plummer's proposal 13-7 on battery disconnect, anyone who doesn't have an external arming plug would have to leave their canopy off, have a clear canopy, or have a peep hole to show the batteries are disconnected. Correct?  I'm not sure that even an external arming plug would meet the letter of this rule, since you couldn't see that the batteries are not directly connected inside the airplane, bypassing the arming plug.  And if we decide that presence of an arming plug is a "visible indication", someone who doesn't have one will have to leave their canopy off even when no batteries are installed, because there is no way to verify they are not installed and disconnected.  I guess the way this is worded, the canopy would have to be off from the time the fuselage is taken out of the car until right before it is carried or taxied to the runway.  Looks like another case of unintended consequences.

Proposal 13-8 needs a cross proposal to take out the words "using radio equipment with a failsafe function".  Why restrict it?  While I doubt anyone is using FM/PPM equipment anymore in pattern, in the event there are, there are devices that go between the throttle servo or speed control and the receiver that provide a failsafe function when signal is lost.  Here's an example:  http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=20618.
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Atwood <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tue, Apr 24, 2012 8:20 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals

Already complete.   Proposals 2,4,6,7,8 were passed through for the cross proposal stage.  

Mark Atwood
Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124 
Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com  |  www.paragon-inc.com

On Apr 24, 2012, at 9:15 AM, Dave Burton wrote:

When is the CB initial vote?

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Keith Hoard
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:01 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals

Yup, you gotta store those in separate airtight containers.

Another question for Scott McHarg . . .

If I install both an Arming Plug and a Disarming Plug, are they wired in series or parallel?

Keith Hoard
Collierville, TN
khoard at gmail.com

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com> wrote:
I bought a box of dihedral recently. I had a box of anhedral left over from the 70s (used for stabs back then) and I made the mistake of storing them next to each other. Apparently they cancelled each other out and all I have left now is some crumbled up cardboard.

Bob R.

--- On Mon, 4/23/12, Keith Hoard <khoard at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Keith Hoard <khoard at gmail.com>

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, April 23, 2012, 6:06 PM

The reason I was asking is because I had bought a box of down thrust from Shalimar Hobbies a couple years ago and still have some left over. 

If it's now illegal, I need to return what's left for a partial refund. 

The box of right thrust is still shrink wrapped, but I can't find the receipt. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 23, 2012, at 16:44, Ronald Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net> wrote:
I've just added an arming plug assembly to my Vanquish.  It has the added feature of having the ability to minimize the coriolis acceleration due to precession of the earth and it self adjusts for latitude.

Ron

On Apr 23, 2012, at 4:33 PM, Scott McHarg wrote:

Only if you use a disarming plug and/or bore another hole in the side of your fuse.  I heard something along the lines of the "Hoarder Policy" being written as we speak but only after a survey has been presented.
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Keith Hoard <khoard at gmail.com> wrote:
I just added some down thrust to my plane, is that illegal?

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 23, 2012, at 15:54, James Oddino <joddino at socal.rr.com> wrote:
Scott, I don't want to beat this to death but you must be very careful.  I could interpret this to disallow Contra Drive prop set ups that automatically cancel the effects of spiral slipstream, torque, gyroscopic precession and P-Factor.  What about adding aerodynamic appendages that improve stability and damping?  It is not clear why the aerodynamicist should should be given an advantage over the power management guy or the electronics guy.  I'll never understand why the variable thrust alignment system was disallowed.  

I don't really care what is decided, but if the rule is not well defined it will cause turmoil and new guys thinking about getting into pattern won't like it.

Jim

On Apr 23, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Scott McHarg wrote:

Good Afternoon,
   First, let's agree that "Engine managment" was not a correct term that we derived from the "old days" and we will fix that (per John Fuqua) assuming it passes the initial vote.  Second, let's not lose sight that we are speaking about telemetry and we are speaking of automated functions here, not those that require direct and manual input.  The wording is such that engine management systems that COORDINATE (through telemetry and read: automatically adjust) power output (to maintain a speed or anything that may relate to) with model performance, position, or attitude.  Honestly, this is no different than a gyro correcting attitude and we certainly don't want to allow that.  We simply are trying to allow telemetry that is important for safety and continue to dis-allow anything that automates flying the aircraft.  In my very humble opinion and to answer your question; Yes, I think we do want to outlaw something that makes our models fly better IF it is automated and not pilot-induced.
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:10 AM, James Oddino <joddino at socal.rr.com> wrote:
What does it mean?  Electric motors change the power as a function of the load applied.  For a given throttle setting the motor will draw more current as the model is pulled vertical for instance.  Is the rule trying to prevent that or prevent an improvement in its ability to do that?  Is it trying to outlaw braking or variable pitch props?  

The question we should ask is; do we really want to outlaw anything that might make our models fly better?

9. Engine management systems that coordinate power output with model performance, position, or 
attitude.”

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-- 
Scott A. McHarg
_______________________________________________
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

-- 
Scott A. McHarg
Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure
Bryan Research & Engineering
_______________________________________________
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

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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/20120424/d6248f0b/attachment.html>