<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I forwarded this to Ron Chidgey and hope he will respond.<div><br></div><div>Ron</div><div><br><div><div>On Mar 14, 2012, at 12:42 AM, James Oddino wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I have not read all the comments regarding weight increase proposals but Michael Harrison articulated the best reason to increase the weight limit in some private emails we shared not long ago. Excuse me if this has been covered in this thread. In the old days all the top pilots designed and built their own airplanes. Now only those with access to expensive tooling and equipment to produce composite models can build an electric powered airplane to meet the weight requirements. The current, arbitrary limit stifles development. Throw out the weight limit. What purpose does it serve?<div><br></div><div>Also I seem to remember that in the late 60s and early 70s the FAI requirement was specified in terms of wing loading (Kg/Dm) and the area included the wing and the stab. And I believe the requirement was a minimum meaning that heavier was okay. RVP, is Ron Chidgey still around? He could probably tell us the straight scoop. I'm too old to remember the details.</div><div><br></div><div>Jim </div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Mar 13, 2012, at 9:13 PM, John Gayer wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Peter,<br>
On behalf of the rules committee I would like to thank you for your
many well-reasoned, thoughtful and thought-provoking posts. The one
below goes far beyond the current rules cycle and addresses areas
that are key to the future of pattern and the NSRCA. I would like to
hear more ideas about the direction we should take, both from you
and from others on this list. <br>
John Gayer<br>
NSRCA Treasurer<br>
Rules Committee member<br>
<br>
<br>
On 3/13/2012 1:42 PM, Peter Vogel wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:CAGBB6kLirDrtnQ9z5jSdgr5utEfzzRz9z=8F5B4s_mFrPybq2A@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">Taking a lesson from our former CEO (Steve Bennett,
protege of Jack Welch) -- whenever there's a heated argument about
a proposal, it is very rarely the proposal itself that is the
source of the argument, rather, what people are disagreeing about
is WHAT they are solving for (the "big Y") and the dozen or so
variables their perspective believes influence the Y (the little
X's) -- if you can agree on the big Y before you even start
talking about the little X's you think will move the lever and
then share your knowledge that leads to the things you think will
move the needle and everyone else does the same, then there is
rarely argument and you will reach a shared understanding of the
tactics and strategy that will move you forward. And, of course,
all the Big Y's are in pursuit of "True North" which is what the
organization as a whole exists to achieve (in the case of a
company, it can be as simple as "maximum return for shareholders"
in the case of the company I work for it's Best-in-class results
for all three stakeholders (shareholders, customers, employees).
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>So, let's start with the NSRCA itself, why do we exist, and
what are we solving for? I think I heard someone say "to
support US participation in international competition" -- I'll
go with that one for a moment...</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Last I checked, FAI-level performance doesn't reside latent
in the fetus waiting to be activated when a child first touches
the sticks on a transmitter and delivers a phenom-level
performance. It might happen, but I believe even Andrew Jesky
spent over a decade in pursuit of the goal of winning the
precision competition at Tucson and similarly in pursuit of a
slot on the US world F3A team... In short, talent is developed
-- that means brought up through progressive levels of
competition where a decent showing is possible for the person's
current skill level, or at least that they feel they are making
progress toward a successful showing. If taking home wood isn't
a least a back-of-the-mind goal in the lower levels, that's a
rare circumstance (I admit, for me the starting goal was to not
get all zeroes and to improve my overall flying -- but I've been
bitten by the competitive bug and now I *want* to do well,
though I recognize I'm still probably years away from being near
the top of the podium in sportsman given limitations on the
amount of practice I can fit into my life). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So, proposed Big Y number 1 -- Promote and Support classes
that allow talent to be identified and developed to ultimately
lead to success in FAI. -- Probably needs some word smithing,
but I think it adequately explains why 401, etc. exist. In any
well-formed development program, you want to see a strong funnel
of "newbies" coming in to the bottom classes while people "leak"
in the boundaries between classes for various reasons (hitting a
talent plateau, discovering the opposite sex, lack of funds,
other commitments more important, lack/loss of practice
facilities, etc.) Some leakage is organic and unavoidable,
other leakage is manageable, some is reversable (i.e. many
people come back to the hobby after the, to quote Inga from <i>Young
Frankenstein</i>, "Sweet Mystery of Life", is no longer shiny
and new, still fun, but not the only thing to live for).
Controlling the controllable leakage would be one of the X's to
solve for here, as would the "development" of talent (read:
training and coaching that goes beyond the high-wing trainer)
and, arguably most importantly, bringing new blood into the
lower classes.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think a lot of the weight argument relates to a lack of
clarity about what we were solving for with that proposal:</div>
<div> Some think it relates to making the lower classes more
accessible -- I'm willing to buy that, to a point, in that
getting a 2m bird to make weight can be challenging and
expensive, creating a barrier to entry into the lower classes.
(as you progress through the classes, the possibility of
sponsorships, etc. increase, making cost less of a concern --
I'll talk about sponsorship later...) But the argument can be
made that at the lower classes you are actually probably a lot
less willing to put an expensive 2m 11lb (or 11+lb) plane at
risk and so you'll "fly what you brung" which is probably a
smaller plane (47" Osiris, 48" Vanquish, 62" Osiris, Wind50,
hand-me-down Kaos, etc.) where making weight isn't even a vague
concern.</div>
<div> Some think it relates to aligning ourselves with the
international community -- I believe that was even one of the
reasons for the change documented in the proposal, someone did
the research and found that a number of other countries'
development classes allow for 5500 grams (which is only a 10%
variance from the FAI standard) and, I believe, there was/is
some evidence for higher development class participation in
those countries than in the US. We all know correlation is not
causation, so whether the increased weight limit is the reason
for the higher participation or whether there are other
environmental factors (i.e. BMFA's 'B' and 'C' certificate
training programs that take people beyond flying a circuit with
a high wing trainer) is obviously debatable.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>When I voted yes on the weight issue I did so in full
knowledge that we already have a 115g allowance in Intermediate
and Advanced as well as a "fly what you brung" convention in
sportsman. My thinking was that in today's global community,
people move from country to country a lot (as director of
training at my local field I recently signed off two recent
european transplants to fly solo at our field, my brother and
his family have lived in Indonesia and the UK for most of my
nephew's lives, having only just now returned to the states
after 16 years as expats) and so we make it easier for people
who may have competed at their equivalent of Intermediate and
Advanced or Masters to compete in US competitions with the
planes they moved with them. I saw no likely harm in the change
because there's plenty of incentive to "keep it light" to
improve the flying characteristics (except in the windiest
conditions), the other restrictions regarding size, voltage, and
sound create further barriers to significant weight increase if
you want to be competitive. So for people who, like me, read
the rules carefully before getting into competition (My AMA# was
on the right wing at my first competition, no one had to tell me
I needed it) the weight will be one less barrier to considering
competition. I also thought it would encourage a degree of
"casual" competitors for whom pattern is not the end-all-be-all
of their participation in RC but they have a self-designed bird
that competes well but isn't a classic pattern ship. "casual"
competition at the local level is, I believe, part of what it
takes to create the "critical mass" that makes a competition
viable for the club to host, and for participants to feel that
the sport isn't dying off (similar to church attendance, there's
a certain level above which growth is easier because people
believe in the viability of the church). In short, I saw
several positives and no negatives to the change, so I voted
yes. Does it mean I'm going to go out and campaign a 5500g
plane? No, it's not going to change what I do -- my Vanquish
makes weight easily and will continue to do so even if I have to
repair the LG 3 more times and I expect the 2M Osiris will be
similar when I get it later this summer.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I promised I'd talk about sponsorship -- this is peripheral
to the weight issue, but something the NSRCA should think about
if development of talent within pattern is truly something we
believe we should be solving for -- I know there are some
sponsored pilots here in D7, but it is my impression that they
are sponsored because they rose in the ranks at a time when 3D
didn't exist and so pattern carried the "WOW" and was one of the
premier competition classes in the US. I don't think I've ever
seen, at least here in D7, a manufacturer rep (as opposed to
sponsored pilot) at a pattern event, that says to me that
pattern at the local level, at least, isn't a "feeder" for
manufacturers to find local pilots to represent their brand well
at their club field or local competitions. Contrast that with
any local huckfest or strongly attended fun fly (which is mostly
3D stuff and foam wing combat these days) and you'll see at
least one other reason that I think we don't draw the new blood
that pattern probably once did. I "grew up" watching the
pattern guys and their tuned pipes and fast birds (mostly in
magazines since I lived in backwater Los Alamos, NM until I was
in college in TX) and they were almost gods to me with their JR
and Futaba shirts. Where's the sponsor talent (which includes
piloting, but also helping others with their setups, coaching,
etc. talent) identification in pattern these days? If pattern
were *visibly* supported by the manufacturers more, I think we'd
also see an influx to our branch of the hobby.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>'Nuff said.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></blockquote></div><br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>