[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Fri Mar 16 20:28:25 AKDT 2012

Gary,

There was a weight proposal two years ago which resulted in a 115 gram 
allowance for  Intermediate and Advanced. There was already a weight 
proposal submitted this year by Joe with an increase of 200 grams for 
all AMA classes.  Discussions surrounding the weight rule have been 
going on for years and to claim that the NSRCA proposal was made in 
response to Arch's weight checking plan for this year's Nats is 
preposterous.

John

On 3/16/2012 8:30 PM, Whodaddy Whodaddy wrote:
> The cd's have been enforcing the weight rule at the NATS for years 
> this year will be no different just more frequent given the logistics 
> hold up ..don't see how it makes a difference.. Sounds like an 
> inference that we now have a weight change proposition due to an in 
> forcemeat of the rules .. Sounds to me like I might not want to be 
> apart of an organization that is run by such thinking..
>
>
> Gary
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 16, 2012, at 9:19 PM, John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net 
> <mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>> wrote:
>
>> Arch,
>> I certainly was not objecting to you enforcing the weight rule at the 
>> Nats. I'm with  you 100% on that and any other rule enforcement at 
>> the Nats you can afford to do. You have to admit that your decision 
>> to weigh every plane created a lot of "discussion" on this list.
>> Can't see anyone going to the Nats knowing they are going to get just 
>> a tearsheet and a bunch of zeros for their efforts. Again, this is 
>> not to imply you should be doing anything different, just that we 
>> should change the rule to encourage participation in the future.
>> John
>>
>> On 3/16/2012 7:55 PM, Archie Stafford wrote:
>>> 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] *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
>>>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20120317/5a2b6983/attachment.html>