[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement system
Scott McHarg
scmcharg at gmail.com
Mon Feb 13 20:24:37 AKST 2012
Dave,
Now it's my turn to be lost. You are backing up everything that this
new proposal is about. I don't understand the argument or even if there is
one.
Scott
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net> wrote:
> I can assure you that AMA could care less about advancement points – never
> have and never will! ****
>
> There used to be a place on the back of your AMA card to record
> advancement points and for the CD at each contest to sign the. But those
> records never went to AMA or anywhere else except in your wallet! And most
> CDs were too busy after a contest to bother with signing the card. It was
> strictly a voluntary deal if you cared to bother with it. Most were
> probably like me and kept up with them for the first year but pretty soon
> you figured out nobody cared.****
>
> Dave****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Scott McHarg
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 14, 2012 12:09 AM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement system****
>
> ** **
>
> The purpose for this rule is to allow you to fly in the class you are most
> comfortable. What "points" are in place currently and what purpose do they
> serve? Well, there's AMA points which serve the purpose of figuring out
> when it is "recommended" the competitor should move up, again not
> mandatory, and if your district supports points, there are those. What
> prevents sand baggers now? You don't have to move up so, effectively, you
> could stay in Intermediate or Advanced the rest of your life as it is now.
> If we remove the " "recommended" equation, it would stand to reason that
> truly as far as the AMA is concerned, there are no points necessary any
> more. The proposal says "If any points for any reason are to be awarded to
> a contestant, the contestant may only accrue points in the contestant’s
> minimum class." This takes care of any AMA points that the AMA may choose
> to implement or any points that may come from other sources.****
>
> Scott****
>
> On Feb 13, 2012 10:48 PM, "Jon Lowe" <jonlowe at aol.com> wrote:****
>
> 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 <verne at twmi.rr.com> ****
>
> *To:* 'General pattern discussion' <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 <k6xyz at sbcglobal.net> ****
>
> *To:* 'General pattern discussion' <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****
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
> signature database 6881 (20120213) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> 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****
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20120214/d607b9b5/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list