[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Sun Mar 18 12:25:58 AKDT 2012

Dave,
Sounds like if "Lighter Flies Better" is a fact, then the guy who can make
weight with a 2 M Airframe
has an advantage over that poor glow buggar who has to fly 85% of the
sequence overfweight.....hmmm

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net> wrote:

> George,****
>
> Yours is an interesting post. In an environment where we are all flying
> the same power systems I think you would be spot on. However, what I’d like
> to see is a change that accounts for the fact that glow planes must make
> 5Kg without fuel and electric must make 5Kg with fuel. In order for
> comparable planes to comply with the weight it’s necessary for electric to
> use more hi-tech and expensive components, lighter less durable building
> techniques, more expensive and lighter accessories, etc. thus increasing
> the cost. Almost every glow 2M plane takes off above 5Kg and flies at above
> 5Kg the entire sequence. I know there are exceptions but I think it’s
> generally true.  I know I could choose to fly glow and not have an issue.
> However I want the advantages of electric without having to pay a
> significant cost penalty to do so. Let’s fix the inequity of this in the
> AMA classes.****
>
> Dave Burton****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *George Kennie
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 18, 2012 1:41 PM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals****
>
> ** **
>
>  ****
>
> 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****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>
>
>  ****
>
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net> wrote:****
>
> “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****
>
>  ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20120318/8c1822d2/attachment.html>