<div> I don't know much about the Soaring event. If I were to hazard a guess, it would be 1- more pilots and 2- waiting for thermals is less predictable<br>
<br>
MattK<br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Ron Van Putte <vanputte@cox.net><br>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><br>
Sent: Mon, Aug 3, 2009 10:55 pm<br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing<br>
<br>
<div id="AOLMsgPart_0_06179d8d-800f-46dc-a6a1-c51d4e97b88e" style="margin: 0px; font-family: Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Sans-Serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Not too long ago, R/C Aerobatics had five days; the fifth day was a "rain day", just in case. When AMA decided to shorten the Nats, they took away our rain day. I was OK with that, BUT I don't see that the Nats are any shorter and, in looking over the Nats News, I noticed that R/C Soaring has NINE days. What's with that? <br>
<br>
Ron VP <br>
<br>
On Aug 3, 2009, at 9:44 PM, krishlan fitzsimmons wrote: <br>
<br>
> The $100 that we pay for the entry is small potatoes compared to > what we spend on the nats. Think about the time off work, all the > practice leading up, the expenses. I estimate that with the time I > took off work, and everything else that it cost me about (well I > won't say, or I will get crucified on here, lol). Raise my rate to > $200 and pay someone to weigh planes. Pay some judges. Pay some > zero judges. Pay for a few more days so that everyone gets equal > exposure judging. Whatever has to be done to make it fair for all. > Why settle for "well, it's sorta ok the way it is, not perfect, but > ok" when we can change it? I can't understand why people don't want > to make it better. <br>
> <br>
> Chris <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> --- On Mon, 8/3/09, Derek Koopowitz <<a href="mailto:derekkoopowitz@gmail.com">derekkoopowitz@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <br>
> <br>
> From: Derek Koopowitz <<a href="mailto:derekkoopowitz@gmail.com">derekkoopowitz@gmail.com</a>> <br>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing <br>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>> <br>
> Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 7:28 PM <br>
> <br>
> Rules are rules and we should enforce them for everyone - not just > the select few that make the finals. I would bet that the majority > of everyone that attends the Nats is compliant with the rules we > have today. <br>
> <br>
> Chris: I don't have any problems working to process planes - I > think the time would be fun to meet all the attendees and say hi. I > don't normally get to do that and this will give me an opportunity > to meet everyone. I'm also not looking to do this in lieu of my > judging duties either... I view my judging assignment as an > essential part of attending the Nats and look forward to it every > time. If someone is going to cheat by replacing servos or whatever > just to make weight then shame on them... perhaps Chad's solution > is the best one to weigh planes after they fly but that just makes > the logistics even harder I think since we don't have the enclosed > tents to do this and also enough scales etc. for each site. <br>
> <br>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:29 PM, John Konneker <<a href="mailto:jlkonn@hotmail.com">jlkonn@hotmail.com</a>> > wrote: <br>
> Not the point I was trying to make. <br>
> Please reread the last two sentences of my note below. <br>
> ONLY legal planes would make the finals, semifinals and place if > the procedure that has been in place were followed. <br>
> Respectfully, <br>
> JLK <br>
> <br>
> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 17:24:22 -0700 <br>
> From: <a href="mailto:derekkoopowitz@gmail.com">derekkoopowitz@gmail.com</a> <br>
> <br>
> To: <a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a> <br>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing <br>
> <br>
> Then why even bother to have the rules? How about noise and size? > Should we eliminate those rules as well? No one checks weight, size > and noise locally... so why should we bother having a rule for it > and enforcing it at the Nats? <br>
> I don't buy it that attendance will diminish. <br>
> <br>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:16 PM, John Konneker <<a href="mailto:jlkonn@hotmail.com">jlkonn@hotmail.com</a>> > wrote: <br>
> I have to agree with Chris. <br>
> As someone has pointed out there are basically two types that > attend the Nats. <br>
> Those that go to renew friendships and for the social aspects and > those that are trying to win. <br>
> I have been told by more than one pilot attending that they aren't > concerned about their plane <br>
> being overweight since they have no chance of making the finals or > placing and are there for the fun. <br>
> I think you will see an even further decrease in attendance if > everyone gets weighed at checkin. <br>
> The way it has been til now would be fine IF it was followed and > enforced. <br>
> Otherwise it's just more search for the guilty, punish the innocent. <br>
> JLK <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 19:57:03 -0400 <br>
> From: <a href="mailto:cjm767driver@hotmail.com">cjm767driver@hotmail.com</a> <br>
> To: <a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a> <br>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing <br>
> <br>
> I think we are making this more difficult than necessary (not aimed > at anyone in particular - I just jumped in on Chris's response). We > go through the process of weighing the potential winners and > finalists already - why not just mandate that the officials APPLY > the rule that already exists. No lee way or interpretation > necessary. Why weigh and measure if we are going to say "oh never > mind, that's ok" when they fail inspection. If they had applied the > existing rule, this discussion would not be going on. To implement > a new procedure (weighing all at check in) is going to need a bunch > of extra help to do and do we really want to have somebody > inventory EVERY item on the plane too in order to ensure they don't > change props, wheels, rx battery, etc after inspection? Who is > going to volunteer to do that to 100+ airplanes? The current way > has worked just fine and would still be fine IF THE RULE AS IT > EXIS
TS WAS APPLIED. Simple. Let's not make an overly elaborate > witch hunt in response to what happened. <br>
> <br>
> Chris (the other one) <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> krishlan fitzsimmons wrote: <br>
> Where do they weigh at a worlds event? Outside in the wind? <br>
> <br>
> Just curious. <br>
> <br>
> Thx! <br>
> <br>
> Chris <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> --- On Mon, 8/3/09, <a href="mailto:dkrev@shaw.ca">dkrev@shaw.ca</a> <<a href="mailto:dkrev@shaw.ca">dkrev@shaw.ca</a>> wrote: <br>
> <br>
> From: <a href="mailto:dkrev@shaw.ca">dkrev@shaw.ca</a> <<a href="mailto:dkrev@shaw.ca">dkrev@shaw.ca</a>> <br>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing <br>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>> <br>
> Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 12:30 PM <br>
> <br>
> We got weighed after each round at the worlds..... Just saying :-) <br>
> Sent from Dave's Crackberry <br>
> <br>
> -----Original Message----- <br>
> From: John Fuqua <<a href="mailto:johnfuqua@embarqmail.com">johnfuqua@embarqmail.com</a>> <br>
> <br>
> Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:35:25 <br>
> To: 'General pattern discussion'<<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>> <br>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Better be prepared to weigh 4 or 5 sets of batteries with each > competitor as <br>
> well as airplanes. <br>
> <br>
> That's the thing with glow. Only dry weight counts. You can load as > much <br>
> fuel as you wish to any weight! Electric stuck at a fixed max T.O. > Weight. <br>
> <br>
> -----Original Message----- <br>
> From: <a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a> <br>
> [<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org?">mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] On Behalf Of Derek <br>
> Koopowitz <br>
> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 12:37 PM <br>
> To: General pattern discussion <br>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Inspection & Weighing <br>
> <br>
> I don't see an issue with this... we will put a sticker on all items <br>
> including all packs that a competitor will use. If a competitor really <br>
> wants to cheat then they will do it... nothing we can do will stop > that. <br>
> I'm also hoping that random inspections will keep people honest and > the fear <br>
> that if you do fail then you will be disqualified. <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Jay Marshall <<a href="mailto:lightfoot@sc.rr.com">lightfoot@sc.rr.com</a>> > wrote: <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I have some concern that the proposals put forward will really work. <br>
> If the plane is inspected at check-in then there is too much > opportunity to <br>
> change things. In particular, batteries, which are a normally > removable <br>
> item, can be changed to decrease on increase the weight. Do we > "sticker" the <br>
> battery pack? This means the plane must be disassembled for > inspection and <br>
> that only that battery pack can be used. At present fuel tanks can > also be <br>
> under/over filled to adjust ballast for windy conditions. <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> If this is a serious problem, perhaps there are other solutions. <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Planes could be placed in an impound/inspection area immediately <br>
> before a flight and fully fueled. The inspection could happen here and <br>
> shouldn't delay the flow of the contest. <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Another possibility is to adopt a "standard" weight for a battery <br>
> pack, then weigh electric planes empty. The "standard" could change as <br>
> technology changes. <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> As John Pavlick will tell you, all major race winners undergo a <br>
> teardown and inspection. <br>
> <br>
> Jay Marshall <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________ <br>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list <br>
> <a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a> <br>
> <a target="_blank" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________ <br>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list <br>
> <a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a> <br>
> <a target="_blank" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a> <br>
> _______________________________________________ <br>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list <br>
> <a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a> <br>
> <a target="_blank" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________ <br>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list <br>
> <a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a> <br>
> <a target="_blank" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a> <br>
> <br>
> No virus found in this incoming message. <br>
> Checked by AVG - <a target="_blank" href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a> <br>
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.43/2280 - Release Date: > 08/03/09 17:56:00 <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________ <br>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list <br>
> <a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a> <br>
> <a target="_blank" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________ <br>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list <br>
> <a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a> <br>
> <a target="_blank" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________ <br>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list <br>
> <a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a> <br>
> <a target="_blank" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________ <br>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list <br>
> <a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a> <br>
> <a target="_blank" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a> <br>
<br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list <br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a> <br>
<a target="_blank" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a> <br>
</div>
<div id='u8CBE2C79E549287-1548-1128_EN_US' class='aol_ad_footer'> </div>