[NSRCA-discussion] Rules change proposals

Tue Apr 24 12:05:07 AKDT 2012

I don't see a lot of "new" rules (other than the physical disconnect, which
I'd prefer to have more flexibility in it, requiring only that for a plane
to runaway unexpectedly multiple systems must simultaneously fail, which
would allow me to continue using the pin flag switch I love). What I see
are well-intentioned modifications to existing rules, some of which are
necessary to allow for modern radio & other electronic equipment (Futaba,
Graupner, and Multiplex latest systems all have telemetry integrated into
the receiver and transmitters, so there's always a minimal amount of
bi-directional communication going on) similarly Hackers latest motors and
speed controllers have integrated sensors, some have telemetry data (that
works with Multiplex + other radios), etc.  So the rule against data coming
from the plane to the transmitter must be modified to keep up with
technological advances in the broader hobby (if you don't care or don't
want to use telemetry, fine, but don't exclude those of us who want battery
and radio signal data with a warning enabled just because you personally
are hide bound) -- it offers no competitive advantage, but it could save a
significant investment if something goes wrong...

Peter+

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Whodaddy Whodaddy <whodaddy10 at gmail.com>wrote:

> To the contest board .... Do we actually need any new rules ???
>  Is there a rash of cheating out there???
> Are we crashing through the pits with out of control airplanes on such a
> regular basis..
>
> Do the people that we fly with week in and week out  have a uncontrollable
> desire to win using various methods of subterfuge ..
> Or are the people you are around like the ones I fly with .. Want to do
> there best and improve on there own Merritt ..
> Everyone knows this end of the hobby is about your skills flying against
> the other guys skills..
>
> Those if any using illegal methods to win will soon get bored and shed
> themselves  of us.. If there are any
>
>
> I am amazed at the desire to try to do something about something that
> isn't even something in the first place...
>
> I know the board just sorts it out and doesn't necasarrly  invent the
> proposals..
>
> Good luck fellas
>
> Gary
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 24, 2012, at 1:00 PM, Mark Atwood <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:
>
> 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 <verne at twmi.rr.com>****
> *To:* 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>****
> *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.****
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>

-- 
Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training
Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20120424/13d40659/attachment.html>