[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Tue Mar 13 11:42:39 AKDT 2012

Taking a lesson from our former CEO (Steve Bennett, protege of Jack Welch)
-- whenever there's a heated argument about a proposal, it is very rarely
the proposal itself that is the source of the argument, rather, what people
are disagreeing about is WHAT they are solving for (the "big Y") and the
dozen or so variables their perspective believes influence the Y (the
little X's) -- if you can agree on the big Y before you even start talking
about the little X's you think will move the lever and then share your
knowledge that leads to the things you think will move the needle and
everyone else does the same, then there is rarely argument and you will
reach a shared understanding of the tactics and strategy that will move you
forward.   And, of course, all the Big Y's are in pursuit of "True North"
which is what the organization as a whole exists to achieve (in the case of
a company, it can be as simple as "maximum return for shareholders" in the
case of the company I work for it's Best-in-class results for all three
stakeholders (shareholders, customers, employees).

So, let's start with the NSRCA itself, why do we exist, and what are we
solving for?  I think I heard someone say "to support US participation in
international competition" -- I'll go with that one for a moment...

Last I checked, FAI-level performance doesn't reside latent in the fetus
waiting to be activated when a child first touches the sticks on a
transmitter and delivers a phenom-level performance.  It might happen, but
I believe even Andrew Jesky spent over a decade in pursuit of the goal of
winning the precision competition at Tucson and similarly in pursuit of a
slot on the US world F3A team...  In short, talent is developed -- that
means brought up through progressive levels of competition where a decent
showing is possible for the person's current skill level, or at least that
they feel they are making progress toward a successful showing.  If taking
home wood isn't a least a back-of-the-mind goal in the lower levels, that's
a rare circumstance (I admit, for me the starting goal was to not get all
zeroes and to improve my overall flying -- but I've been bitten by the
competitive bug and now I *want* to do well, though I recognize I'm still
probably years away from being near the top of the podium in sportsman
given limitations on the amount of practice I can fit into my life).

So, proposed Big Y number 1 -- Promote and Support classes that allow
talent to be identified and developed to ultimately lead to success in FAI.
-- Probably needs some word smithing, but I think it adequately explains
why 401, etc. exist.  In any well-formed development program, you want to
see a strong funnel of "newbies" coming in to the bottom classes while
people "leak" in the boundaries between classes for various reasons
(hitting a talent plateau, discovering the opposite sex, lack of funds,
other commitments more important, lack/loss of practice facilities, etc.)
 Some leakage is organic and unavoidable, other leakage is manageable, some
is reversable (i.e. many people come back to the hobby after the, to quote
Inga from *Young Frankenstein*, "Sweet Mystery of Life", is no longer shiny
and new, still fun, but not the only thing to live for).  Controlling the
controllable leakage would be one of the X's to solve for here, as would
the "development" of talent (read: training and coaching that goes beyond
the high-wing trainer) and, arguably most importantly, bringing new blood
into the lower classes.

I think a lot of the weight argument relates to a lack of clarity about
what we were solving for with that proposal:
    Some think it relates to making the lower classes more accessible --
I'm willing to buy that, to a point, in that getting a 2m bird to make
weight can be challenging and expensive, creating a barrier to entry into
the lower classes.  (as you progress through the classes, the possibility
of sponsorships, etc. increase, making cost less of a concern -- I'll talk
about sponsorship later...)  But the argument can be made that at the lower
classes you are actually probably a lot less willing to put an expensive 2m
11lb (or 11+lb) plane at risk and so you'll "fly what you brung" which is
probably a smaller plane (47" Osiris, 48" Vanquish, 62" Osiris, Wind50,
hand-me-down Kaos, etc.) where making weight isn't even a vague concern.
    Some think it relates to aligning ourselves with the international
community -- I believe that was even one of the reasons for the change
documented in the proposal, someone did the research and found that a
number of other countries' development classes allow for 5500 grams (which
is only a 10% variance from the FAI standard) and, I believe, there was/is
some evidence for higher development class participation in those countries
than in the US.  We all know correlation is not causation, so whether the
increased weight limit is the reason for the higher participation or
whether there are other environmental factors (i.e. BMFA's 'B' and 'C'
certificate training programs that take people beyond flying a circuit with
a high wing trainer) is obviously debatable.

When I voted yes on the weight issue I did so in full knowledge that we
already have a 115g allowance in Intermediate and Advanced as well as a
"fly what you brung" convention in sportsman.  My thinking was that in
today's global community, people move from country to country a lot (as
director of training at my local field I recently signed off two recent
european transplants to fly solo at our field, my brother and his family
have lived in Indonesia and the UK for most of my nephew's lives, having
only just now returned to the states after 16 years as expats) and so we
make it easier for people who may have competed at their equivalent of
Intermediate and Advanced or Masters to compete in US competitions with the
planes they moved with them.  I saw no likely harm in the change because
there's plenty of incentive to "keep it light" to improve the flying
characteristics (except in the windiest conditions), the other restrictions
regarding size, voltage, and sound create further barriers to significant
weight increase if you want to be competitive.  So for people who, like me,
read the rules carefully before getting into competition (My AMA# was on
the right wing at my first competition, no one had to tell me I needed it)
the weight will be one less barrier to considering competition.   I also
thought it would encourage a degree of "casual" competitors for whom
pattern is not the end-all-be-all of their participation in RC but they
have a self-designed bird that competes well but isn't a classic pattern
ship.  "casual" competition at the local level is, I believe, part of what
it takes to create the "critical mass" that makes a competition viable for
the club to host, and for participants to feel that the sport isn't dying
off (similar to church attendance, there's a certain level above which
growth is easier because people believe in the viability of the church).
 In short, I saw several positives and no negatives to the change, so I
voted yes.  Does it mean I'm going to go out and campaign a 5500g plane?
 No, it's not going to change what I do -- my Vanquish makes weight easily
and will continue to do so even if I have to repair the LG 3 more times and
I expect the 2M Osiris will be similar when I get it later this summer.

I promised I'd talk about sponsorship -- this is peripheral to the weight
issue, but something the NSRCA should think about if development of talent
within pattern is truly something we believe we should be solving for -- I
know there are some sponsored pilots here in D7, but it is my impression
that they are sponsored because they rose in the ranks at a time when 3D
didn't exist and so pattern carried the "WOW" and was one of the premier
competition classes in the US.  I don't think I've ever seen, at least here
in D7, a manufacturer rep (as opposed to sponsored pilot) at a pattern
event, that says to me that pattern at the local level, at least, isn't a
"feeder" for manufacturers to find local pilots to represent their brand
well at their club field or local competitions.  Contrast that with any
local huckfest or strongly attended fun fly (which is mostly 3D stuff and
foam wing combat these days) and you'll see at least one other reason that
I think we don't draw the new blood that pattern probably once did.  I
"grew up" watching the pattern guys and their tuned pipes and fast birds
(mostly in magazines since I lived in backwater Los Alamos, NM until I was
in college in TX) and they were almost gods to me with their JR and Futaba
shirts.   Where's the sponsor talent (which includes piloting, but also
helping others with their setups, coaching, etc. talent) identification in
pattern these days?  If pattern were *visibly* supported by the
manufacturers more, I think we'd also see an influx to our branch of the
hobby.

'Nuff said.

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com> wrote:

> Jim,
>    I have absolutely no answer for you.  As an offlist discussion between
> you and I, personally I feel 5500g is too much.  When we went to the BoD
> and voted, I honestly and sincerely thought the board was going to turn it
> down.  I would be very happy at 5200-5300g across the board.  I did not
> expect 5500g to pass the board 9 to 1.  The committee felt as a whole that
> 5500g should be stuck to and take to the board as written based on the
> survey results.  There isn't one person to blame at all.  I just felt it
> was a little too high.  Honestly, I don't think there's a snowball's chance
> in heck that it goes through the AMA.  I hope there is some compromise
> between what Joe L. proposed and we proposed.
>
> Regards,
> Scott
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:56 AM, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>wrote:
>
>>  Why not just apply the existing 115g allowance to masters also.****
>>
>> Jim H****
>>
>> ** ******
>>
>> ** ******
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
>> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]*On Behalf Of *Scott McHarg
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 13, 2012 9:45 AM
>> *To:* General pattern discussion
>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
>>
>> ** ******
>>
>> Through Advanced but there are others out there that would compete in
>> Masters who can't because of said limitation. ****
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Dave Lockhart <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
>> wrote:****
>>
>> Ummm….we did ease the weight limit by 115 grams?
>> ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Regards,****
>>
>>
>> Dave L****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
>> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Ronald Van Putte
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:39 AM****
>>
>>
>> *To:* General pattern discussion
>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> For me, it is my reluctance to have what I do driven by someone outside
>> our country.  If we think something is a good idea, we should do it and not
>> worry about whether it is within FAI rules.  Precious few of us will ever
>> compete on the world stage and I don't think the world should influence
>> what we do.  ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> The "world" doesn't even comply with FAI rules.  The FAI rules give a 1%
>> allowance to physical limits because the measuring equipment "might" be in
>> error, no matter how accurate the equipment is.  So, the real FAI limits
>> are 5050 grams, 2.02 meter and even 42.42 volts.****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> The top pilots don't have any problem meeting 5050 grams, 2.02 meters and
>> 42.42 volts, so changing our weight rules won't have any effect on the top
>> pilots' success on the world stage.  However, easing the weight limits
>> would have a dramatic effect on many lower class pilots.****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Ron Van Putte****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> On Mar 13, 2012, at 9:10 AM, Anthony Romano wrote:****
>>
>> ** ******
>>
>> So if FAI drives pattern, why do we want to change the weight rule in the
>> US?
>>
>> Anthony
>>  ****
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:49:14 -0500
>> From: scmcharg at gmail.com
>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
>>
>> Bob,
>>    I think one thing that everyone is either dismissing or not
>> considering is this:  Pattern is not driven by AMA classes.  Pattern is
>> strictly driven by FAI as FAI is worldwide.  If a manufacturer were to
>> develop new technology for the United States AMA class, they would
>> essentially exclude themselves from the rest of the pattern market
>> worldwide.  No manufacturer is going to take advantage of a rule that only
>> effects the AMA classes.  If FAI ever decides to change the rules, that's
>> when you will see a change to pattern as a whole.  Granted, the US is
>> different in that FAI is not "the only" destination class.  In the rest of
>> the world, you are nobody if you are flying the development classes and
>> "may" become somebody once you are in FAI.  The rest of the world "awards"
>> the ability to fly in FAI.  You don't just randomly decide to go fly it.
>> You must earn that right.  So, basically new technology is not going to be
>> developed because of an AMA-only rules change.  AMA has essentially stuck
>> by what FAI has done always as the thought process was everyone wanted to
>> make it to FAI.  That's no so much the case any more.  Dave Lockhart even
>> said in an email to us all that flat out, FAI (or the top guys) drive what
>> even the beginners do and buy and try (simply paraphrased).  That tells us
>> even more so that this would not change the face of pattern.  Sure, there's
>> going to be some extraordinary people here in the US that have the desire
>> to try new things to take advantage of the weight rule.  Will it so
>> severely impact pattern that more change will be necessary?  Doubtful.
>>
>> Just a thought and hopefully to get y'all thinking about that facet as
>> well.
>>
>> With a due respect,
>> Scott
>> ****
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com> wrote:*
>> ***
>>
>> Dave,****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> That shows how much I have been paying attention. I thought all AMA
>> classes were limited to 5kg now. With the 115 gram allowance, I don't see
>> the need for a change. But I still don't see why people are getting so
>> heated up over it.****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> You do bring up a good point about the 4S rule, though. We keep reacting
>> to technology with new rules, and the technology keeps reacting to the
>> rules with new equipment. I guess it is a part of competition that we have
>> to learn to accept. If we accept it, then maybe we can get out of this
>> reactionary cycle.****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Back when they removed the displacement limit, I figured that it would
>> make the engines less expensive. I was wrong. But I also predicted that the
>> weight would then become the limiting factor and the airframe expense would
>> go up. Generally, I think I was right with that one.****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Every time someone suggested that a rules change would result in less
>> expense, it probably hasn't and in fact may have cause more expense in the
>> long run. In fact, I think your earlier statement about every rules change
>> to increase size/weight limits having resulted in more expensive models is
>> generally accurate. I would not have thought so 10 years ago, but I guess
>> history has taught us that lesson.****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> One can argue that leaving the size/weight rules alone can actually
>> decrease the cost. In the manufacturer's eyes, a rules change will obsolete
>> existing equipment. Think about it - in most cases the manufacturers will
>> change their designs to try to take advantage of the rules. They will have
>> to spend more of their money bring new products to the market - an expense
>> that is passed on to the pilot.  If they could stop shooting at a moving
>> target they might start trying to recoup their cost over lots of 1000
>> instead of lots of 100. Maybe. I just hope the domestic manufacturers
>> figure that out before China does. :-)****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Bob R.****
>>
>>
>>
>> --- On *Mon, 3/12/12, Dave Lockhart <DaveL322 at comcast.net>* wrote:****
>>
>>
>> From: Dave Lockhart <DaveL322 at comcast.net>****
>>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals****
>>
>> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>****
>>
>> Date: Monday, March 12, 2012, 6:59 PM****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> The proposed weight change is for all AMA classes.  We already have an
>> allowance of 115 grams for hand-me-downs…..if that is an important aspect,
>> then why not make it 5615 grams for Advanced, Intermediate, and Sportsman?
>> ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> “The fact is that the proposed rule does not exclude any planes that are
>> already legal.”****
>>
>>   ****
>>
>> And the fact is that the 120 4C rule did not exclude 60 2C….but they
>> rapidly became uncompetitive once the competition variety 4Cs were
>> developed.****
>>
>>   ****
>>
>> I see the electric vs glow aspect a completely moot point…..it will all
>> be electric (or close to it) soon enough….even with rules that many feel
>> are biased against electric.****
>>
>>   ****
>>
>> Having the weight limit on the books, and checking it at the NATs is what
>> keeps the playing field level.  Same as having a noise rule keeps the
>> planes quiet, even if it not checked locally.****
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dave L
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   ****
>>
>> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
>> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Bob Richards
>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:22 PM
>> *To:* General pattern discussion
>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Guys,****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> For the life of me, I can't see why everyone is getting bent out of shape
>> over the proposed weight limt rule for the lower classes. It opens up the
>> possibilities for someone wanting to get started in pattern and competing
>> in the lower classes, IMHO. If someone in the upper classes has a plane
>> that is at the weight limit, but is unable to repair the plane without it
>> going over the limit, then it becomes a perfect hand-me-down for someone
>> getting started. ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> The fact is that the proposed rule does not exclude any planes that are
>> already legal. The guys that build light know they should have a better
>> flying plane than one that is heavier. The only reason I can think of that
>> people with light planes can get upset with this rule is that someone with
>> a heavier plane might beat them. ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> OTOH, how often are models weighed at local contests? I never saw it done
>> in the years I flew, but that was before the electrics came on the scene.
>> Tell me, does any CD weigh planes at a local event now? If not, then I am
>> really confused about weight limit discussions where someone says it is
>> ruining things to raise the weight limit, when no one is checking it at
>> local contests anyway. Why all the fuss (one way or the other) about a rule
>> that no one enforces except at the Nats?****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> I really don't have a dog in this hunt. I'm just confused about all the
>> strongly worded comments going back and forth. This, IMHO, does more to
>> turn people off from pattern than any rule change proposal.****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Bob R.****
>>
>>
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>
>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----****
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion%40lists.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*****
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

-- 
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/20120313/a9497c8e/attachment.html>