[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposals

Fri Feb 24 07:30:11 AKST 2017

Yeah I remember the Biplane rule at the TOC

________________________________
From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on behalf of John Fuqua via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 4:09 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposals

Bonuses work until they don’t.   Way back  in the TOC days  Mr. Bill wanted big biplanes.   So a bonus for biplanes was created.    After a couple of TOC’s everybody was flying biplanes.   Pilots could not afford to give up the bonus and have a chance of winning.

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Mike Murphy via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 9:28 AM
To: 'W Anthony Abdullah'; 'General pattern discussion'; 'Keith Hoard'
Cc: ronlock at comcast.net
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposals

Would a penalty result in smaller, lighter, more fragile, more expensive, more specialized planes?

Would everyone else have to have one of these planes in order to get the bonus points?

Mike M.

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of W Anthony Abdullah via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 9:44 AM
To: Keith Hoard <klhoard at outlook.com<mailto:klhoard at outlook.com>>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
Cc: ronlock at comcast.net<mailto:ronlock at comcast.net>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposals

In that case the punishment is not for having a "legal" wingspan, but for having an overweight plane. At least that's how I understood it.

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:41 AM, Keith Hoard via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:

Because rules, Randy.

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Randy Forbus via NSRCA-discussion<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 6:35
To: ronlock at comcast.net<mailto:ronlock at comcast.net>; General pattern discussion<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposals

Im not sure I agree with a penalty, because why do you have to punish a person who has a 2 meter plane.

________________________________

From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>> on behalf of ronlock--- via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 1:32 PM
To: Anthony Romano; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposals

I support these ideas.   It could be the specific numbers would need adjustment as we get experience with them..

Our noise rule specifies a percent handicap and works well.

Ron Lockhart

On February 24, 2017 at 7:09 AM Anthony Romano via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:

  After all of the perpetual comments on the list about the weight limit and other technical rules why not change these to a score penalty instead of disqualification? This way if comes to an event with an overweight or oversize or loud airplane they get a 2% score penalty and aren't told to go home.

The other big complaint is the perceived intimidation factor of flying smaller airplanes. In an effort to reduce that anxiety I am thinking about proposing a bonus to raw scores for Sportsman and Intermediate based on wing span. Planes with a span under 55" would receive a 4% bonus and under span 65" would receive a 2% bonus. It should be possible to input this during registration to automate the process.

The numbers I have picked are somewhat arbitrary but the idea is people can show up with a variety of aircraft and either be rewarded for trying in the entry classes or compete without the expense and effort of complying to the comply to the current standards.

Anthony

_______________________________________________
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<mailto: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/20170224/79a63088/attachment.html>