[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
John Gayer
jgghome at comcast.net
Fri Mar 16 20:15:53 AKDT 2012
Dave, any flights at a legal weight will be scored.
On 3/16/2012 9:20 PM, Dave Burton wrote:
>
> Ok I understand. In effect the overweight planes will be DQ after
> flight rather than before with no opportunity to make weight for the
> flight. I assume any rounds he flies with a legal weight will be
> scored either before or after the DQ? Correct?
>
> *From:*nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Archie Stafford
> *Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2012 11:13 PM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
>
> Dave,
>
> The planes will not be weighted until the completion of a flight so we
> would have no way to know the weight until after the round.
>
> This is not pro-testable as it has been published well in advance.
> Next year the ED can do it anyway he chooses.
>
> Arch
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Mar 16, 2012, at 10:08 PM, "Dave Burton" <burtona at atmc.net
> <mailto:burtona at atmc.net>> wrote:
>
> Arch,
>
> How about the impact on other pilots, and especially those
> judging, and other workers having to work for someone who's
> results won't count. I think I'd probably resent being asked to
> spend my time at the Nats judging a pilot when his flights won't
> be included in the results.
>
> How is this process supported in the rules? Would not ignoring of
> the rules be subject to a protest too?
>
> I really doubt you'll have anyone show up and fly under these
> circumstances but if you do and you allow them to fly you are
> letting them take up the time that could better be used on" legal"
> contestants.
>
> Dave
>
> *From:*nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Archie Stafford
> *Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2012 9:55 PM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
>
> Hey, all I did was decide to enforce an existing rule. Actually, I
> didn't have to say a thing except for how it was going to be
> enforced. Frankly, if I had the number of people available to
> strictly enforce every rule, I would. If nothing else my
> decision has at least sparked the debate about the rule. It has
> never made sense to me to never enforce it. Personally I think it
> needs to be left alone, but others don't. Even this year, no one
> is saying you can't fly a heavy airplane. You just wont get to
> keep the scores for that round. I seriously doubt someone with a
> real shot at winning would show up with a heavy airplane anyway.
> People can even have their tear sheets for the round. It just wont
> be listed in the results.
>
> Arch
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Mar 16, 2012, at 9:48 PM, John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net
> <mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>> wrote:
>
> Point taken about having to serve notice that you are going to
> enforce a rule at a local contest. Note that Arch had to do
> that for the Nats this year and such a clatter did arise....
>
>
> On 3/16/2012 6:53 PM, Dave Burton wrote:
>
> John, one issue about waive a rule notification in really
> bothers me in your suggestion. Having to post in advance 30
> days that a CD will enforce a rule is counter to any other
> process I've seen.
>
> It becoming clear -eliminating the max weight rule is the only
> system that really works. LOL
>
> *From:*nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf
> Of *John Gayer
> *Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2012 8:20 PM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
>
> This won't work very well, in my opinion. Who is going to the
> Nats if they start out 5-10% behind? This does nothing to
> increase attendance and is detrimental to operation of local
> contests. All it takes is an unhappy pilot feeling he was
> home-towned protesting vociferously about the heavy airplane
> that just beat him and demanding a weight check that might
> reverse the first and second places.
>
> IF the CD denies the protest, you've lost a pilot. If you do a
> weight check and it fails, then you've lost a different pilot.
> To prevent this, a CD must waive the weight rules on his
> sanction which is not normally done now, although it should
> be. So extra work and/or hassle for the CD and extra work for
> scorekeeper/scorekeeping systems. For what gain? A rule that
> will not be enforced locally and will keep pilots away from
> the Nats just as much as no weight allowance at all.
>
> At the very least, preface the rule proposal with something like:
> This weight rule will be enforced at the Nats. If a CD
> chooses to include this rule at a local contest, he must
> publicize that fact appropriately to all potential attendees
> at least 30 days prior to the contest.
>
> At a local contest, this officially leaves us with no weight
> rule at all in AMA classes. That's probably OK as we could
> reject on size if needed. Personally I would only turn someone
> away if they brought a 42% Extra to fly in Masters and maybe
> not even then...
>
> Cheers
> John
>
>
> On 3/15/2012 7:54 AM, ronlock at comcast.net
> <mailto:ronlock at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Here is a copy of another proposal for consideration by the
> Contest Board along with the others that have been submitted.
>
> This one does not disqualify a model for not meeting weight
> limits. It imposes a score penalty, but still allows the
>
> model to participate.
>
> Ron Lockhart
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto: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/20120317/0f3b57cd/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list