NSRCA Candidate Rules Proposal Survey is available
 

<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(51,51,255)"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The NSRCA Board of Directors (BoD), in consideration of NSRCA bylaws indicating that the NSRCA should take responsibility for making a consensus statement to the AMA Rules Committee on rules pertaining to Radio Control Aerobatics, has convened a Rules Proposal Committee. The purpose of this committee is to prepare candidate rule proposals for endorsement by the NSRCA BoD. The committee is chaired by Scott McHarg and its members include Jon Carter, John Gayer, Michael McEvilley, and Rick Sweeney.</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">
</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(51,51,255)"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The NSRCA BoD requested the rules committee to craft proposals with a focus on safety and contestant participation concerns. The rules committee was further requested to craft proposals in consideration of the varying and oftentimes conflicting opinions of the individuals that comprise the AMA pattern community, while recognizing that change is warranted. In response to NSRCA BoD direction, the rules committee has developed four (4) candidate proposals for endorsement by the NSRCA BoD. </span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">
</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(51,51,255)"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">In the spirit reflected by the direction of the NSRCA BoD, this survey is offered to provide the AMA pattern community the opportunity to review, consider, and provide feedback by supporting or not supporting each of the candidate proposals to the NSRCA BoD. This survey is not a vote; it is only a means for the NSRCA BoD to gather information to be used in making their final determination of those proposals to be endorsed by the NSRCA. </span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">
</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(51,51,255)"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The NSRCA BoD encourages your support in responding to the survey as the changes are believed to be appropriate for the continued growth and sustainment of AMA pattern. </span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(51,51,255)"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Finally, it should be understood that individual AMA members are free to submit commentary on these proposals to the AMA Contest Board, and are also able to submit individual proposals on the same topics as those endorsed by the NSRCA BoD.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(51,51,255)"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(51,51,255)">This survey will be available until midnight March 1, 2012 and may be taken only once. The survey is available at www.nsrca.us and you must be registered with the website and logged in but being a current member is <u>NOT</u> required. Thank you for your understanding and participation in this rules proposal survey</span>.</p>

RE: NSRCA Candidate Rules Proposal Survey is available
 

You just lost a long time Nats participant with the external arming and disarming requirement. It also creates another failure point. And as a CD, I will never enforce that requirement. As far as failsafe goes, anyone with half a brain will set that up on their radio. What do you do with a person who has a radio that does not have a radio with the failsafe feature?

5500kg's is too high.

RE: NSRCA Candidate Rules Proposal Survey is available
 

Joe,
In answer to your question about "What do you do with a person who has a radio that does not have a radio with the failsafe feature?", we do the exact same thing as the current rules state. We are simply proposing that if you have that feature, you should use it with regards to safety precautions for all those involved and watching.

Regards,
Scott

RE: NSRCA Candidate Rules Proposal Survey is available
 

After reading the proposals and finishing the survey, it comes to mind that some years no rules proposals are really needed. None of these are needed. The 12 pound weight limit would create an expensive nightmare.

Dan

RE: NSRCA Candidate Rules Proposal Survey is available
 

I voted against the change in the advancement system because it didn't go far enough towards eliminating it altogether. I think what's proposed is somewhat better than what we have now but I can't see any purpose or benefit to either of the advancement systems. Both are a solution in search of a problem IMO.
I'm with Joe on opposing the external arming system. I've had a failure that luckely only cost me some minor damage.
I'm OK with the proposal on weight. I'd like to see it eliminated but this will allow those of us who wish to save a few bucks at the expense of a heavier plane with a competitive disadvantage to do so.
Dave Burton

RE: NSRCA Candidate Rules Proposal Survey is available
 

Joe and Dave, I have to agree with both of you! How many more rules and regulations can this "nanny state" handle? Just my humble opinion, Everette

RE: NSRCA Candidate Rules Proposal Survey is available
 

External arming and disarming requirement...should only be required if one cannot get to the batteries without tools (or if it cannot be demonstrated that they can be unplugged in under x seconds.)

I can remove the canopy and unplug just as quickly as someone fiddling with (and trying to get a grip on) an external plug...especially if it's getting hot!

RE: NSRCA Candidate Rules Proposal Survey is available
 

That's why I enjoy my YS170DZ CDI!!!!!!!!;):D

RE: NSRCA Candidate Rules Proposal Survey is available
 

So it's assumed right out of the box that "change is warranted"? Really? WHO assumed this? This is the worst kind of reasoning, wherein a biased party sets up a "straw man" that he can then knock down.

I was seriously planning to attend the Nats for the first time this year, but if ANY of this UNNECESSARY CRAP passes I will not attend.

I started flying Pattern because I thought it was a haven for Serious R/C Pilots who were up to any challenge. No doubt, for the most part that is still true, but I can't tell you how dismaying it is to see how many whiners and complainers populate the ranks.

It all started out with a couple of guys complaining that their models are a couple ounces over 11lbs, so now we're supposed to accept the proposition that these same guys will not be back complaining that their models are a couple ounces over 12 lbs??

Didn't ANY of you complainers look at a freakin' rule book when you started flying Pattern?

All My Humble Opinion, of course.[&o][&o][&o]

RE: NSRCA Candidate Rules Proposal Survey is available
 

.
I do not think that an external arming plug is of any use to enhance safety.
.
If the motor is running and the plane is loose, you are not going to be able to get to the arming plug if you are in front of the plane .
.
You are also not going to be able to get to the arming plug if you're behind the plane and the motor is running.
.
That only leaves the situation where you already have a solid hold on the plane and it is in your control. If the plane is in your control, then there is no need for the arming plug whether the motor is running or not. Try this next time you're at the field, hold onto your buddies 2M electric, have him run it up to full power and let me know which hand you're going to let loose to reach forward and pull that external plug.
.
If they are looking for a "visual confirmation" that the ESC is not powered, then I will leave the canopy off the plane so you can see there are no batteries inside.
.
As for the "failsafe" section of the proposal, don't all ESC's shut down when they lose a valid signal from the throttle channel? I know Castle ESC's do.
.
.
Slightly Off Topic - Am I the only one that has noticed that RCU has become nearly unuseable due to slow refresh times? Perhaps we should move our arguin' over to "ArrSeeGroups" F3A Forum? Does everyone here have an account over there?
.

RE: NSRCA Candidate Rules Proposal Survey is available
 

A Men, Bob! Now, why don't you tell them how you really feel.......Never forget, bureaucrats are not happy unless they are screwing up something! Now, if you don't believe that, just ask the Catholic Church! Just my humble opinion, Again! Everette

RE: NSRCA Candidate Rules Proposal Survey is available
 

Several comments

1. Arming switches. They can be a point of failure in the air and several existing types are a mod to a Dean switch with max current around 65A. They could be current limiting for motors drawing more current than 65A.

2. There is no weight saving by removing the thin plastic wraps from a ESC. Such type of wrap could be broken due to wears from the cable ties. Why the proposal so specific to ESC?

3. 500g weight increase probably is excessive and unreasonablly high and could completely change the game for this hobby. New designs (e.g. wings with larger areas) could come out to take the advantage. Now do we want to upgrade to the new design?

RE: NSRCA Candidate Rules Proposal Survey is available
 

.
Scott,

   Can you make the proposals available for viewing for guys that have already taken the survey?
<br type="_moz"/>

RE: NSRCA Candidate Rules Proposal Survey is available
 

I haven't read it, I'm not going to the Nats, and after reading the diatribe from some of these select Pattern guys, I don't care.
Still trying to get half a brain so I can figure out how to program my radio...
Chris...

RE: NSRCA Candidate Rules Proposal Survey is available
 

Why are the rules in need of modification... For the last four years as a DVP I fought against such radical ideas born of good people with good intentions all though slightly out of touch with the mainstream pattern flyers.. OMG 12lb weight limit "really". lets just go and fly IMAC..."


g

RE: NSRCA Candidate Rules Proposal Survey is available
 

[link=http://nsrca.us/images/stories/survey/Advancement%20Proposal_Final.pdf]Advancement[/link]
[link=http://nsrca.us/images/stories/survey/Equipment%20Proposal_Final.pdf]Equipment[/link]
[link=http://nsrca.us/images/stories/survey/Safety%20Rule%20Proposal_Final.pdf]Safety[/link]
[link=http://nsrca.us/images/stories/survey/Weight%20Limit%20Proposal_Final.pdf]Weight Limit[/link]

RE: NSRCA Candidate Rules Proposal Survey is available
 

Let me ask someone a simple question based on the fact that I do not have access to the NSRCA site (and don't think for a minute that I didn't try) so therefore I was not able to respond to the survey. Why weren't the proposed rule changes posted, somewhere accessible, in their entirety so EVERYONE had a chance to read them prior to taking the survey? Please don't tell me this is another "Nancy Pelosi deal" ie,___"we'll pass it and then read it"! Also, based on whose name is at the bottom of each proposed change, was Scott the sponsor of each of these changes? Now, I don't claim to be the smartest person in the world but, we cannot continue to make changes for the sake of change or like Gary said "lets just go and fly IMAC"! And some of you folks wonder why membership in the NSRCA and the number of participants in pattern competition has decreased over the last few years. WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!__There is nothing else I can say, Everette

RE: NSRCA Candidate Rules Proposal Survey is available
 

so we are to cut holes in the fuse some where so you can disconnect the batteries?

RE: NSRCA Candidate Rules Proposal Survey is available
 

The arming plug outside the airplane is no more a point of failure than the same point of failure inside the airplane.

The weight proposal doesn't go far enough. Just delete the weighing requirement.

Advancement. As long as the word "Should" is in it the entire section is a moot point.

Equipment, good proposal.

I wonder why the NSRCA decided to place the voting on the NSRCA site limiting the voting only to NSRCA members.

The poll is likely a useless endeavor anyway as the Dist reps are not bound to vote the wishes of their district anyway.

Tim

RE: NSRCA Candidate Rules Proposal Survey is available
 

You do not want to add one more failure point, period.

More people will consider go back to IMAC if the 12lb rule passes, as the two distinct sports start to converge....

RE: NSRCA Candidate Rules Proposal Survey is available
 

Actually, the one deadstick I ever had with electric pattern was the arming plug flying out of my Sickle when doing a snap roll during practrice at HVRCC. Got the plane down with no damage, and belatedly realized it was my fault for not seating the plug properly. However, I looked at my safely protocols - Tx kill switch, Failsafe and CC ESC boot-up safety - and decided it is enough not to use a separate arming switch on the Spark.

So yes, it is another potential point of failure - and perhaps 3 points - if your arming switch is used in a harness configuration between the battery and ESC.

Are runaway electrics such a big problem as to require another rule? Geez, who knew?

RE: NSRCA Candidate Rules Proposal Survey is available
 

Tim, you do not have to be a member of the NSRCA to vote on the proposals. You DO need to register on the NSRCA website to access and vote on the proposals but membership is not required.

I can not speak for other NSRCA districts, but here in District 7, there is active solicitation or conversation about issues, desires, participation, etc. I would encourage you and anyone else that wants to register on the NSRCA site and vote on these proposals. If you have any issues registering, contact the webmaster to get them resolved. After all, the purpose of the survey is to gain input from all interested parties to move our sport forward so I encourage all to vote.

thanks guys
Woodie (aka Don Atwood)

RE: NSRCA Candidate Rules Proposal Survey is available
 

Thanks Don,

I voted, then logged out of the site and the poll wasn't available any longer. As done I suspect you'll get only a few non-Nsrca members voting.

RE: NSRCA Candidate Rules Proposal Survey is available
 

<p style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: small;"><span new="" times="">Gentlemen,
First off, I'd like to say thank you for your rather "candid" responses to our proposals. I will try to answer the majority of these questions that y'all have posted and hope that this would help with the understanding of our thought process. Second, this committee is not perfect and there is no way in the world to make everyone happy. It is important that we try to make the majority happy and propose rules that make sense and help improve our community.
Secondly, I'd like to just say that personal attacks are ridiculous and unnecessary and will not be tolerated for any reason whether it be by email or in the forums. I'm going to try and address in a general statement some of the concerns that y'all have and have voiced.

Weight
Please make sure to read the logic behind the proposals to understand where we are coming from. I think some of you are missing the point. Precision Aerobatics design and manufacturing is not driven from the United States "Development Classes" nor is it driven from other"development classes" around the world. <u>As long as the weight limit for FAI does not change, there will not be a slew of new,expensive designs for AMA classes in the US</u>. The top flyers will continue to be as light as they can make it. I would also like to say that the 5500 grams has been done in other countries including France, where our world champion hails from, and the pattern world has not ended. This was an attempt at a compromise between those that wanted it abolished and those that wanted no change. The survey is put in place to find out what you want. The results will tell us exactly what the majority wants. If the poll is close to 50% each way, the committee then has time to review its findings and make adjustments where necessary.

Safety
Keith, the statement you made is not what the Safety proposal is for. The Safety proposal, in fact, was suggested more as a pit safety /ready box safety requirement. The arming plug is the only part of these rules proposals that may require some effort and expense on the contestant's part. That is why we broke the two elements into a part A and part B so the contest board could easily remove the part about the arming plug if they prefer. As far as the thought process behind the proposal, have you never come across a plane in the pits with the radio still on? In case of an electric plane that could mean the motor is still hot which is an immediate danger to anyone around the aircraft. Not only does it provide a visual cue to everyone, it certainly protects the caller / person carrying the aircraft back from the flight line. Everyone of us knows that after a flight in a contest, the pilot can easily become distracted because the judges want to speak to us or you're busy getting your equipment packed up for the hike back to the pits. Your airplane is not around you because your caller or helper has gone down the runway to pick up the aircraft. It is too easy to become distracted enough that something gets bumped or the throttle cut on your tx gets flipped. What now? We should not have the mindset that we wait until something happens in order to implement change. I know everyone reading this considers themselves to be a safe pilot. It is not true that everyone is always safe all the time. It usually takes doing at least two things wrong at once to create an incident. We believe this proposal will make it at least three things.</span></span></p><p style="line-height: normal;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: small;"><span new="" times=""> The Failsafe function in your radio will provide a valid signal to the ESC upon loss of the RF link from the transmitter. If you do not actually go through the process of setting up the failsafe, it is quite possible to have a situation where the failsafe will command a full throttle condition. I have seen this occur more than once and one of those times the model shot across the pits, hit the runway bank and took off for a few yards. Luckily, no one was hurt except the model. If a failsafe safety check is performed at the beginning of a local contest, sooner or later you will find a plane that is an accident waiting to happen. By performing a failsafe check(less than 30 seconds even if you have to restart your engine) you will be doing a favor to everyone at the contest and most particularly the individual whose failsafe needed correcting. Not really any hardship on the contestants.</span></span></p><p style="line-height: normal;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: small;"><span new="" times="">Advancement</span></span></p><p style="line-height: normal;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: small;"><span new="" times=""> The intent of the advancement process we put forward is to streamline the process and make it much simpler to move back in class. All changes in class are voluntary with the only restriction being that the base class is a commitment for one year. We consider this a great improvement over the old waiver submission to the AMA to move back in class. Too many times I have seen folks move up in class, find out that for one reason or another that they are over their heads and then drop out rather than ask for a waiver. We hope and believe that this proposal should help. It certainly does not require anyone to move from their present class and makes it possible to test the waters in a higher class without committing to that class.</span></span></p><p style="line-height: normal;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: small;"><span new="" times="">With the exception of the arming switch, none of these proposals <u>require</u> any change to your model or your flying. Except for the weight rule which will probably continue to be unenforced at the local level, all of these proposals should affect how local contests are run as well as the Nats. It is our intention that the changes will promote safety, clarify what is permitted and make it easier to find the right class for your skill level. That is all they are intended to do. </span></span></p><p style="line-height: normal;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: small;"><span new="" times="">Everette, if you are having troubles logging on the NSRCA website, all it takes is a quick e-mail to myself which is posted all over the NSRCA website. I will be glad to make sure you have the ability to take the survey. As far as not posting the proposals, that was a mistake on our part which we have since corrected.My apologies although we did have it corrected in less than 6 hours from the time the survey was announced. This survey, not a vote, is up until the end of the month. No one was expected to vote on it without reading it first. There is no time limit in which you must complete the survey. My name is at the bottom of each proposal to show unity within the committee and decided on by the committee as the Committee Chair and is name only. It does not simply mean I submitted these changes and asked the committee to accept them. In fact, the four others were remarkable in the amount of input they provided and we all had a hand in writing them with information that was obtain from individuals and groups and forums that had nothing to do with the writing process of said proposals. If the NSRCABoD elects to put the NSRCA's name on them or Jim Quinn as the President, that is their right to do so. It was our interpretation of the process that rules should be submitted by individuals and not as a "body" or company. It is certainly open to interpretation.
</span></span></p><p style="line-height: normal;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: small;"><span new="" times="">Tim, the survey is not limited to NSRCA members, period. You simply have to register with the website.Similarly, you must register with the AMA website in order to use some of its functions as well as the RCU forums. This does not imply that you are a dues paying member. Anyone, whether they are a member or not, may take this survey. As far as the district representatives go, being on the board of directors myself I guarantee you that if the survey shows a proposal is not wanted by the community, it will not be presented to the BoD. I also promise you that these DVPs all have your best interest in mind.These DVPs are some of the greatest, unselfish, time-giving, volunteering guys I have ever met. They are here to make sure you are heard and I've seen it from even our President himself. I will stand behind this group of guys with my last breath. If you don't like the way things are going,feel free to run yourself.</span></span></p><p style="line-height: normal;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: small;"><span new="" times=""> We obviously want your input by giving you the survey. If we were trying to hide something, we would have just presented it to the board and asked for a vote and sent it to the AMA.That is obviously not the case as we are even putting it out here on RCU.</span></span></p>

RE: NSRCA Candidate Rules Proposal Survey is available
 

Great, glad you voted Tim. Yes, it is thru that after you take the poll it is no longer available to you. Obviously this is to prevent multiple votes by the same individual. Sadly, it does happen even in our sport... However, links to the content of the survey has been posted here on RCU in this thread in post #16 so you can reference it before or after you vote.

Woodie