[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Sat Mar 17 16:50:31 AKDT 2012

“If we want the weight rule to return in full force and expect it to be enforceable rule, then we need the NSRCA to target a year in the future where zero tolerance will come into effect for AMA Pattern. That way, you achieve the desired result and you provide pilots with enough time to renovate their equipment and focus on compliance when buying or building. This avoids punishing people for flying in a world that was at best a messy "grey zone" created by our own lack of rigor as a special interest group.”

Interesting idea, But NRSCA couldn’t do this even if it wanted to IMO. First, most CDs probably wouldn’t care to measure and weigh, and second, NSRCA has no authority to mandate it. After all it’s still an AMA event, not a NSRCA event.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Ford
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 8:18 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

We are our own worst enemies...we wouldn't be having this conversation if the rules had been enforced as intended by everyone all the time. 

Since we have had different enforcement depending on the CD, depending on the ED, depending on the contest, etc, we now force each successive Nats ED to play "bad guy" in a way that tries to annoy or alienate the least number of people. 

Let's face it, I think that Arch has inherited a "no win" scenario here and we shouldn't put the onus of the solution on his shoulders. 

Today, the difference between a "legal" and an "illegal" plane is limited to how much glue was used or the choice of paint, prop, or brand of battery...it isn't because the heavier plane is packing a game-changing feature that gives it the advantage (I didn't see the contras shut everyone out in 2011, either). If one is looking to disqualify a pilot because they feel they can do so on a technicality fed by years/decades of ambiguity and lack of enforcement, then things are really getting ugly.

The mere fact that we are having this discusion has created a situation where a significant number of pilots are considering not attending the Nats (significant, because last year, there were several who knew they didn't make weight but at the same time knew they were not in the hunt but enjoyed flying at the Nats). 

The solution isn't black and white, nor is it going to be fixed overnight. 

If we want the weight rule to return in full force and expect it to be enforceable rule, then we need the NSRCA to target a year in the future where zero tolerance will come into effect for AMA Pattern. That way, you achieve the desired result and you provide pilots with enough time to renovate their equipment and focus on compliance when buying or building. This avoids punishing people for flying in a world that was at best a messy "grey zone" created by our own lack of rigor as a special interest group.

Just my opinion, and by the way, my planes make weight.

John

--- On Sat, 3/17/12, Del R <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com> wrote:

From: Del R <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Saturday, March 17, 2012, 7:25 PM

HMMMmmm!!!  Why both having rules if they are only occasionally adhered to. In fairness to all honorable contestants, rules should be honored whether PATTERN police are present or not.  I sure would not want to bust my butt spending the buckaroos and committing the time to be legal at any local or regional or national event to know that some can show up to beat up on me because they spent their time practicing, but not flying a legal plane.

I have never understood the desire for some to encourage hollow victories. 

    Del      

----- OriginaI Message ----- 

From: John Gayer <http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jgghome@comcast.net>  

To: General pattern discussion <http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:19 PM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

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 <http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jgghome@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 <http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org>  [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@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 <http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ronlock@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 <http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org> 
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org> 
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org> 
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@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

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@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/20120318/c65c3d19/attachment.html>