[NSRCA-discussion] Weight Rule and Rules Proposals

[Phil S.]

Well-written, Georgie!  We in SPA have been discussing "legal" vs 
"illegal" ariframes for the past /n/ years.  As many of you will 
remember, we in SPA received criticism for not adhering strictly to the 
"build to plans rule".  I have come to the same conclusion about that  
issue as you have about the weight issue in AMA pattern -- the major 
determinant in winning or placing is PRACTICE.  A pilot needs to get to 
know his airplane, with all it's idiosyncrasies, as well as his/her own 
flying peculiarities, so that the only surprises in the air are whatever 
the Wind Gods choose to give us.

My wife is a (retired) pianist.  I remember her playing the same bar or 
two of music over and over and OVER to get evreything just perfect, then 
going back and putting that phrase into context with the whole piece, 
again, over and over.  My flying improved (it really had nowhere else to 
go [ ;-{) ]) when I applied that technique to flying pattern.  The big 
caveat that my late flying partner Ed Hartley and I realized:  practice 
must be done in front of a JUDGE, and requires a critique right after 
the flight, to gain the most improvement.

On 3/18/2012 1:41 PM, George Kennie wrote:
> My understanding is that the 5Kg weight rule was adopted because of 
> the International standard,
> and as part of the copendium, would have no less adherence than any 
> other rule, after all, a rule is
> a rule and by vertue of being a rule becomes a stipulation requiring 
> adherence.
> In spite of the fact that a 2 meter airframe powered by a glow motor 
> appears to have little difficulty
> achieving compliance with the standard and 2 meter airframes powered 
> by an electric motor pose
> additional challenges, this in no way should bring into contest 
> adherence to the standard. "A RULE
> is a RULE !"
> This problem introduces a choice to be rendered on the part of the 
> participant. It would appear that
> the choices become either fiscally based or possibly a downsized 
> effort in order to comply with the
> standard.
> Downsize ???, you say. How can I downsize when all my competition is 
> utilizing full 2 meter airframes?
> Is it possible that someone might compete with a Wind 110 S and 
> actually fly well enough to actually
> place in the upper eschelon in the upper classes?
> Can I remind you that just last year Frakowiak flew a 40 sized 
> Sequence airframe in Master's and
> cleaned everybody's clock. "Oh yeah, but that was Frak" comes the 
> responce.
> Aha !,.......we may just be coming to a newly realized conclusion. 
> "Could it possibly be that I don't fly
> well enough to beat my competition no matter what size airframe I am 
> campaigning?"  " Maybe it doesn't
> have as much to do with the RULE as it does with me. Could it possibly 
> be that I could benefit from
> a more comprehensive practice routine?"
> You can see where I'm going with this I'm sure and that is, all RULES 
> are to be honored and not
> approached from the perspective of " How can I adjust/modify this 
> particular RULE so that what I personally
> am currently unable to do becomes, for me, possible?"
> So the bottom line, for me, becomes, I am the one who needs to adjust 
> and not the RULE to maintain
> balance in the proposed statutes.
> Just some ramblings guys as I see things.
> Georgie
-- 
Phil Spelt, KCRC President
AMA 1294 Scientific Leader Member
SPA 177 Board Member
(865) 435-1476v, (865) 604-0541c

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20120318/5cdf69fe/attachment.html>