R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
 

The results from the Initial vote on Rules Proposals is up on the AMA website. Here is what Failed,

RCA 13-1 Lachowski - This was a proposal to increase the weight to 5200 grams.

RCA 13-5 McHarg - This was the NSRCA approved proposal to increase the weight to 5500 grams.

RCA 13-9 McHarg - This was the Safety proposal that eventually used the F3A wording that batteries must not be connected until just before flying and must be disconnected immediately after landing.

Here is what Passed,

RCA 13-2 McHarg - The NSRCA approved Classiification system that made it easier to move down in class.

RCA 13-4 McHarg - The NSRCA approved Equipment Rule.

RCA 13-6 Lockhart - This rule submitted by a Contest Board member puts in defined penalties for being over the weight limit.

RCA 13-7 Plummer - This rule retains the wording in a previously submitted NSRCA proposal that would require the break in the power to an electric model has to be visual to an observer. Thought we worked that one out here but I guess the CB thought differently.

RCA 13-8 McHarg - The safety proposal requiring the throttle Fail-Safe be set properly.

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
 

So one proposer was on the Contest Board.

What were the affiliations of the other proposers?

Regards,

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
 

I guess the point to be made is that the only proposals regarding weight that have passed lately have only been the ones made by CB members. Every other one has been voted down in the Initial vote, not even giving time during the contest season to discuss them.

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
 

.
So do I gotta drill a hole in my plane for a stupid arming plug or not?
.<br type="_moz"/>

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
 

Not yet. This was the Initial Vote. There will be more process before the Final Vote.

I found it very interesting that the CB voted down the NSRCA proposal adopting the F3A wording that had been discussed at great length, yet passed the one that had the wording that so many had objections. Seems like a real disconnect.

Also, for you F3A fliers, you should be aware of one thing. If this proposal passes, you will be required to follow these rules just like every other contestant. F3A is not a separate event, it is another class flown at our sanctioned contests. If passed, you will also have to meet this proposal.

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
 

Another alternative is just to ignore it as we do several other rules. You only have to pay attention if you go to the NATS (And even there it may not be enforced)!
Dave

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
 

I really don't like that alternative. IMO if there are rules in the rulebook that are predominately ignored, then they should be removed. Rules that are only for one contest a year should be avoided.

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
 

I agree. What's been your success in getting the meaningless stuff removed? Mine's been zero over years I've attempted it.
Dave

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
 

Only slightly better! I got the wing LE radius rule removed.

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
 

If anyone is interested, here is the initial vote. Speaking for myself, I am blown away, honestly, after all the stuff we went through that the CB voted initially to accept RC 13-7 vs. RC 13-9. I 100% understand that the CB is not necessarily there to give us what we want but to preserve pattern as appropriate but I'm still rather shocked. It is only the initial vote and we have a long ways to go. I'm confident that our CB will do what is in the best interest of pattern as a whole.<div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 15px;">Proposal Number<span style="white-space: pre; "> </span>YES<span style="white-space: pre; "> </span>NO<span style="white-space: pre; "> </span>PASS/FAIL</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 15px;">RCA 13-1 Lachowski<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>3<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>8<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>FAIL</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 15px;">RCA 13-2 McHarg<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>8<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>3<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>PASS</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 15px;">RCA 13-4 McHarg<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>9<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>2<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>PASS</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 15px; ">RCA 13-5 McHarg</span><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre; "> </span><span style="font-size: 15px; ">5</span><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre; "> </span><span style="font-size: 15px; ">6</span><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre; "> </span><span style="font-size: 15px; ">FAIL</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 15px; ">RCA 13-6 Lockhart</span><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre; "> </span><span style="font-size: 15px; ">9</span><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre; "> </span><span style="font-size: 15px; ">1</span><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre; "> </span><span style="font-size: 15px; ">PASS</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 15px; ">RCA 13-7 Plummer<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 15px; ">9</span><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre; "> </span><span style="font-size: 15px; ">2</span><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre; "> </span><span style="font-size: 15px; ">PASS</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 15px; ">RCA 13-8 McHarg</span><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre; "> </span><span style="font-size: 15px; ">10</span><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre; "> </span><span style="font-size: 15px; ">1</span><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre; "> </span><span style="font-size: 15px; ">PASS</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 15px; ">RCA 13-9 McHarg<span style="white-space:pre"> </span> </span><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre; "> </span><span style="font-size: 15px; ">3</span><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre; "> </span><span style="font-size: 15px; ">8</span><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre; "> </span><span style="font-size: 15px; ">FAIL</span></p>

</p></div>

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
 

As I understand the process, eliminating a proposal at this stage indicates that the Contest Board considers a proposal unworhty of any further discussion or consideration at their level.
That is to say while the CB is willing to consider proposals that affect the legal weight for AMA classes, they will not even consider a proposal that increases the weight for AMA classes. I would like to see a justification of that position.
Same goes for the arming plug. There are two proposals- the NSRCA proposal which is similar to the FAI current position and the other similar to the original NSRCA proposal that met with opposition but did pass on the NSRCA rules survey. Looks like more pre-judgement to me. Of course the CB may have discussed all these proposals ad nauseum before taking the vote.

If any of the safety proposals pass, you cannot ignore them like we all do the weight rule at a local contest. If you do and there is an incident, your liability exposure as a club and a CD just went way up. After all, you, as a CD, bent the SAFETY rules and exposed your competitors to increased risk UNNECESSARILY. Or so the legal battle will go.

Relative to safety, at our contest this weekend, we checked failsafe operation. 5 planes out of 14 did not stop the prop(motor) or non-rolling idle(engine).

John Gayer
<br type="_moz" />

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
 

It seems to me if these are to be enforced as AMA safety rules then they should not be specific to only pattern events. Let's take them out of the Pattern specific rules and turn the issue over to AMA for them to consider as general safety rules or part of the Safety Code.
Dave

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
 

.
So a Sportsman drives 400 miles to his first pattern contest and ya send him packin' because he doesn't have an arming plug on his Great Planes Sequence?
.

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
 

No No No Kieth we just remove the props during the contest so no one gets hurt and put them back on after the contest just before we load up and go home..

Gary

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
 

I'm just pointing out potential issues for the club and CD with ignoring safety rules once they are in place.
The rejected "arming rule" the NSRCA proposed would have covered the case of the 400 mile Sportsman.

Perhaps the AMA shold address the arming and disarming of electric motors used for propulsion but they have not -yet.<span style="font-size: 10pt; ">Both the "failsafe" and "arming" proposed rules are specific instructions about safety inspections that need to be performed at RC</span>Aerobatic competitions<span style="font-size: 10pt; ">.</span>

The RC Aerobatic rulebook has eight safety rules including:
<span style="font-size:10.0pt">6.1: </span><span style="font-size: 10pt; ">The CD at an AMA sanctioned event has the authority to perform safety inspections of any equipment and to prevent any participant from using equipment which in the CDs opinion is deemed unsafe.</span>
<p class="MsoNormal">John
<span style="font-size: 10pt; "></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
 

That seems like a reasonable request, speaking for District 1:

- Masters would be mostly impacted (since the development classes already have an increase) and 68.6% of the Master’s pilots that took the NSRCA survey voted against an increase.
- Not a single person from my district contacted me with a desire to have the limit raised; not this cycle or the prior.
- Popular vote aside, while raising the weight limit may decrease cost for some in the short term, I believe it will increase costs in the long term.
- I do not believe raising the weight limit will have an effect on participation at the local or national level.
- What action would we take in the future when people are butting up against the higher limit? Raise it yet again?
- The last rule cycle contained a weight increase for the development classes, give it time.
- I feel it is important to maintain the integrity of the sport which is bounded only by 2m and 5kg.

Scott

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
 

As a CD, I don't like the safety rules proposed. Whatever, happened to personal responsibility? If we end up requiring an external arming device, I for one will terminate our annual contest and terminate my participation in the Nats in pattern.

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
 

Why don't we require everyone who still flies glow to wear leather gloves and use a starter when starting their engine. At some point this can go WAY too far. We deal with a hobby that can be dangerous and other than completely stopping you aren't going to fix everything. I have seen a YS engine fire on its own with NO ONE near after a round. It was in the middle of the compression stroke when stopped and was still hot and it kicked itself over. It didn't stay running, but definitely work up a few people around it. You aren't going to fix everything. We have enough rules, leave them alone,

Arch

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
 

Scott, I for one would like to see the current weight limits we have in Sportsman through Advanced being extended to Masters, as well. I assume some sort of cross proposal would cover that?

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
 

A cross proposal to increase the weight limit would not be considered according to the rules change procedures. Here is what the rule book says about cross proposals:

"Cross Proposals
Cross proposals may be filed by any open class AMA member (as outlined above). Cross proposals are alternate means of accomplishing the objectives of a basic proposal which has passed the initial ballot (see Contest Board Voting section). While there is latitude in allowing alternative proposals, the original objective shall be retained. Cross proposals will not be used to introduce new rules changes or to reintroduce proposals that were defeated in the Initial Ballot. The cross proposal phase takes place in accordance with the schedule shown in exhibit C. The validity of a cross proposal shall be determined by the Chairperson and/or the Contest Board."

Since no proposal to increase weight passed the Initial Ballot, there can't be a cross proposal to do that. Dave Lockhart's proposal only defines penalties for not making weight, not increasing weight.

And I'd like to remind jgg215 that the contest board DID entertain raising the weight limit for Sportsman thru Advanced in the last rules cycle, and did just that. They simply declined to FURTHER raise the weight limit during this cycle.

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
 

The weight penalty was proposed by Ron Lockhart who sits on the CB. My belief is that is why there are only 10 votes compared to all the others as he should not be able to vote on his own proposal. <strike>As his proposal reads however, this would eliminate the modest 115g allowance for the lower classes and defeats why they added it in the first place</strike>. (Edited for correctness)

My other concern is that I think some of y'all are misunderstanding what has happened here. The NSRCA listened to you and removed the arming plug requirement from its rule proposal to fall inline with FAI which the CB tends to follow very closely i.e. 5000g. The proposal that was accepted was a copy/paste of the original NSRCA proposal which y'all not only disliked but were pretty upset about. Now, the CB has gone against popular opinion (which, after talking to some folks, they are not required to uphold popular opinion) but have also gone above and beyond by eliminating a proposal which stays exactly inline with FAI and gone to something that will increase the weight in the model with no allowance and introduced a Safety Requirement which, by all rights, should be in the AMA Safety Code if at all. The point here is that we are not arguing that we should have an arming plug but that the CB has decided for us that is a better idea than staying inline with current FAI standards.

As far as the weight issue goes, that's done with in my opinion, it was turned down. <strike>I hope the CB recognizes that Mr. Lockhart's proposal eliminates the weight allowance in the lower classes</strike>. (Edited for correctness) I do think that it's interesting however that the 5500g proposal lost by one vote. Obviously, there was some sort of interest in it.
<br type="_moz" />

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
 

Scott, Some questions about your post I'd like your response on.
1. At least one person in your district asked you for a weight limit increase, he submitted a change proposal to increase it. (Joe L.)
2. What evidence do you have to support your theory about increasing cost in the long term even though cost decrease in the short term?
3. What help will masters class get by giving time to see the effect of raising weight in the lower classes?
4. What do you mean by maintaning the intergrity of the sport? - I don't understand this statement.
Thanks for your response,
Dave

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
 

Dave,

I believe Joe Lachowski is in Ron Lockhart's AMA district. This goes by AMA district, not NSRCA.

Arch

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
 

Thanks Arch,
Sorry Scott, I was thinking NSRCA districts.
Dave

RE: R/C Aerobatics Contest Board Initital Vote
 

[/quote]

The weight penalty was proposed by Ron Lockhart who sits on the CB. My belief is that is why there are only 10 votes compared to all the others as he should not be able to vote on his own proposal. As his proposal reads however, this would eliminate the modest 115g allowance for the lower classes and defeats why they added it in the first place.

My other concern is that I think some of y'all are misunderstanding what has happened here. The NSRCA listened to you and removed the arming plug requirement from its rule proposal to fall inline with FAI which the CB tends to follow very closely i.e. 5000g. The proposal that was accepted was a copy/paste of the original NSRCA proposal which y'all not only disliked but were pretty upset about. Now, the CB has gone against popular opinion (which, after talking to some folks, they are not required to uphold popular opinion) but have also gone above and beyond by eliminating a proposal which stays exactly inline with FAI and gone to something that will increase the weight in the model with no allowance and introduced a Safety Requirement which, by all rights, should be in the AMA Safety Code if at all. The point here is that we are not arguing that we should have an arming plug but that the CB has decided for us that is a better idea than staying inline with current FAI standards.

As far as the weight issue goes, that's done with in my opinion, it was turned down. I hope the CB recognizes that Mr. Lockhart's proposal eliminates the weight allowance in the lower classes. I do think that it's interesting however that the 5500g proposal lost by one vote. Obviously, there was some sort of interest in it.
<br type=''_moz'' />
[/quote]

My bad, I should have said Ron instead of Dave.

Scott, as a NSRCA board member, did you abstain when the NSRCA voted on your proposals? I assume you did if you are asking Ron to do the same.

Ron's proposal is fine as written. It says that the 5% penalty applies "shall be assessed for those models weighing up to 5250 grams." Since the weight limit is 5115 for sportsman thru advanced, they are ok. The 5% would apply if their airplane weighed between 5115 and 5250 grams. Read it again. It does NOT say 5% is imposed if the plane is over 5000 grams.