[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement system

Mon Feb 13 20:05:00 AKST 2012

Jon, you beat me to this points, I was trying to type when I saw your post.

IMO, there aren’t any sandbaggers anywhere, Nats or otherwise. I’ve been doing this for over 40 years and I’ve never seen one.

Advancement rules are totally un necessary and discourage people from flying in the class they are best prepared for or interested in. We need to encourage people to move back classes when they want to or should from a skill standpoint. Otherwise, they just quit, or go fly IMAA or something.

The up and comers will advance as fast as they can anyway.

Dave

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 11:48 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement system

Ok, now I'm confused.  We are talking about the AMA rule book changes here for class progression, not how NSRCA district points are calculated.  Let's keep the discussion separate.  AMA and the rule book should care less how districts calculate points.  And there isn't even an NSRCA standard for that.  Various districts have various rules on calculating points.  

Now that we are back on the topic of AMA rules, how does the proposed rule prevent someone regularly flying masters from "declaring" that their minimum class will be advanced, and flying that at the Nats?  And what "points" is the proposed rule talking about?  If it is NSRCA district points, then it shouldn't be in the AMA rule book.  

In its current form, I can't support this change.  It mixes apples and oranges, and does nothing to prevent sandbaggers at the Nats.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon, Feb 13, 2012 10:09 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement system

Dave,
   What regulations?  You simply pick a minimum class that, if you're already competing, may be one class lower than what you fly now or any higher class than what you fly now.  You pick your minimum class at the beginning of the year because a baseline must be established for your district championship points.  You can't expect the DVP to chase around what class you're flying this contest in and then that contest in.  Your minimum class is the only class that you get points in.  If you fly a higher class for one, two or however many contest, your points don't count.  That's it!  Where are the rules that restrict you with this one?  You don't have to stay in a class if it's too low for you, you just don't get to compete for District Championship if it's not your minimum class for that year.  We have to keep track of a class for your points.  That's the only reason for any of it.  Peer pressure is going to take care of the sand baggers so we should be good to go.  We will maintain a database that allows you to select your minimum class.  The DVP's will have access to it as well as everyone else to see what the minimum class is.  This is really as straight forward as it gets.  The best part about the whole thing is that you get to try out a higher class before committing to it for the next year as your minimum class.

Scott

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net> wrote:

+1 for what Arch said!

We’ve beat the weight and safety issues all to pieces, how about some discussion of the advancement system?

I’m for getting rid of the system altogether but what do others feel about the committee proposal.

In my mind it kind of lets you fly whatever class you want but with a lot of unnecessary regulations that just like the present system has no one to keep up with the process.  Why do we need it? Why all the rules to let you fly what you want? Why do you need to stay in a class after the first contest – Why not after the third one?

Dave Burton

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Archie Stafford
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 8:40 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming Switch

People at local clubs taxi out and back all the time. Are you suggesting every flight should be done this way even for local sport flyers?  At some point you cant regulate everything. Did we become Congress or something?  One more example of trying to figure out how to have a rule for everything. While we are at it, lets put the judges in cages just for that one pilot that lands to close to the judges. I am all for verifying fail safe and such, but I don't think we have to require device on top of device to fix things. Wait til your caller goes to pull out the arming plug and doesn't pull straight out and cracks your fuse. Most arming plugs are as hard to remove as the battery connections. I am all for safety, but it needs to be the responsibility of the pilot. 

Arch

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 13, 2012, at 8:29 PM, "Ron Hansen" <rcpilot at wowway.com> wrote:

Perhaps the solution is simple.  Prior to takeoff, it is the caller’s responsibility to hold the airplane once the batteries are connected and not release the airplane until it is set down on the runway.  After landing, the pilot does not taxi back but rather the caller retrieves the airplane and does not let go of it until the batteries are disconnected by the pilot.  The CDs should remind the pilots of this procedure during the pilot briefing at the beginning of each day.

I don’t believe this needs to be in AMA or NSRCA rules but rather instructions that the NSRCA passes down to the CDs.

When I started flying pattern in D4 the pilots never taxied back.  Now-a-days, it seems like pilots taxi back more often than not. I think D4 needs to get back to the practice of having the callers retrieve the airplanes!!

Ron

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Del
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 7:29 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming Switch

Howdy Verne.. 

    For me to convert would cost mucho dinero 4 sure. Not sure I have enough years left of flying to justify that.  

    We are enjoying a mild winter here..` Hope you are blessed with the same.. 

        Del 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Verne Koester <mailto:verne at twmi.rr.com>  

To: 'General pattern discussion' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 7:08 PM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming Switch

Hi Del. You might want to price out some glow fuel before you commit to that!

Verne

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Del
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 6:55 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming Switch

I'm with you Dave.. When I killed the throttle on my glow I knew it always stop running and stayed stopped and safe for all.. How quick some that abandoned glow for the latest rage never discussed the tradeoffs they were truly accepting.. I always figured if "E" power was all its was being claimed to be it would be cheaper and more viable than glow.  After reading all of this thread it seems the exact opposite it. When I return to competition it will be with the safe glow go juice or not at all. 

I can enjoy all of my anatomy while wiping off that yucky glow residue. <( ;+)~~~*

    Del 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Dave Harmon <mailto:k6xyz at sbcglobal.net>  

To: 'General pattern discussion' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 11:55 PM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming Switch

I understand…no problem…..but in the instances you mention….you just can’t fix stupid….

But yet…..I have yet to see anyone have a discussion on properly setting the failsafe throttle of a glow powered airplane.

This is kind of like some E-flyers that flew glow for years and years and wiped the oil off without a word, then when they convert to electric, wiping the oil off a glow plane is suddenly a big deal….and they kinda go on and on about it.

Dave Harmon

NSRCA 586

K6XYZ[at]sbcglobal[dot]net

Sperry, Ok.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Keith Black
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 9:24 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming Switch

Dave, I wasn't saying an arming pin is mandatory, I've had planes with and without (currently without for weight), though I much prefer with. 

My point (for everyone's consumption not only you) was to be careful trusting the fail safe and the receiver power down behavior because occasionally speed controls do malfunction. They are definitely better now days, but far too often I see guys do things that open the door for disaster (I'm not saying you're doing this), and it's pretty scary. People just don't always appreciate the danger involved. 

For example, I've seen guys finish a flight, turn off their radio and walk to the pits, meanwhile the caller brings back plane and sets it down in pits while pilot walks around talking for minutes with this potentially live plane sitting there still armed. If everything works as it should no one will get hurt, but the potential is there for serious consequences. 

Cheers!

Keith  

On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Dave Harmon <k6xyz at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Hi Keith….

Actually I DID take into account that there IS a possibility that the ESC could fail….but I feel the odds of that happening are as I said, a lot less than someone mishandling a transmitter.

How about just plugging the battery in and putting the canopy on within the 3 minute starting period??

The airplane should not have to just sit there plugged in and ready to go like a fueled up glow powered airplane….

After landing someone picks up the model and turns off the radio switch….if the helper picks up the airplane and the ESC malfunctions he has ahold of it.

I understand your and others concerns but I just don’t think the external plug thing is necessary.  

I just don’t see the need to have a battery in the plane unless it is manually restrained and going to be flown within the next 3 minutes.

I don’t mean to imply that I plug in the battery without straddling the fuselage….I do!

Dave Harmon

NSRCA 586

K6XYZ[at]sbcglobal[dot]net

Sperry, Ok.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Keith Black
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 4:29 PM

To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming Switch

Dave, you're points are correct, but you're not taking into account a malfunction of the speed controller itself. They have been know to malfunction, so the safest approach, as Earl suggests, is to assume that anytime the battery is connected to the controller the motor may go to full throttle. Until you unplug the battery the thing is hot and dangerous regardless of your fail safe or switches on the transmitter. 

Regarding pulling the disconnect (whether under canopy or via external arming pin), step over the model between wings and stab (just like we used to run up the glow models) and reach down to pull the plug. If it goes full throttle the back of your legs will stop forward momentum.

I see far too often that people switch off their radios with the plane in a potential dangerous position. This is putting a lot of trust in the technology when it's not necessary. When I retrieve my model,  transmitter in hand or not, I make sure it is pointed away from people or property.

Keith 

On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Dave Harmon <k6xyz at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

+1 on that.

Rather than having a disconnect, I think ensuring that the fail safe function of the radio is set properly is the way to go.

Generally…with today’s 2.4g radios…..not 72mhz PCM radios….I trust the electronics more than someone holding the transmitter. 

Besides….with a disconnect it would be my luck to rip the side of the fuselage off and start a fire that way………or not being able to let go of a full throttle model to pull the disconnect….in this case just turn off the transmitter and/or have an external radio switch and turn off the receiver.

The ESC will shut off the motor when the ESC loses the pulse from the receiver…even if the failsafe is NOT configured correctly.

Everyone already knows this….or should know it…. but it’s a good thing to mention anyway…..

Dave Harmon

NSRCA 586

K6XYZ[at]sbcglobal[dot]net

Sperry, Ok.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Keith Hoard
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 1:44 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Arming Switch

I'd rather not cut a hole in my plane in the first place, or add another point of failure to the system. . . .

Keith Hoard
Collierville, TN
khoard at gmail.com

On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Ronald Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net> wrote:

You can mount a female Deans connector in a piece of thin plywood, use Pacer Pro Zap to glue the Deans connector to the plywood and, after cutting an appropriate hole in the side of the fuselage, glue the assembly inside the fuselage.  Use a male Deans connector with the leads soldered together as an arming plug.

Or you can buy a SharpRC SafeArm (http://www.sharprc.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=43)

Being cheap, I do the former.

Ron Van Putte

On Feb 12, 2012, at 11:55 AM, Ron Hansen wrote:

What are the available arming switch options?

Thanks

Ron

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 6877 (20120211) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/> 

_______________________________________________
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

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 6881 (20120213) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/> 

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 6881 (20120213) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/> 

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 6881 (20120213) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/> 

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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/20120214/9f6098f5/attachment.html>