[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Sun Mar 18 13:21:29 AKDT 2012

Jato assist??

G

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 18, 2012, at 4:14 PM, "Jay Marshall" <lightfoot at sc.rr.com> wrote:

> Take the opposite approach. All aircraft will be weighed before flight with enough energy on board to complete their class pattern.
> Hydrogen power is not acceptable.
>  
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Whodaddy Whodaddy
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 5:01 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
>  
> If electrics get to heavy we will have to shorten the patterns again so electrics won't run out of fuel.
>  
> G
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Mar 18, 2012, at 3:44 PM, Carl <chv69 at aol.com> wrote:
> 
> Well said Georgie. 
> 
> Carl
>  
> 
> On Mar 18, 2012, at 1:41 PM, George Kennie <geobet4evr at gmail.com> 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
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 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
> To: General pattern discussion
> 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> 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 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/a74f2367/attachment.html>