Well then start preparing that proposal for the next rules cycle which should be coming soon.

Tim,

I think the issue is that the penalty isn't what you want it to be, but I don't see how you can say it isn't defined. Here is the quote from the rule book under section 4. Weight falls under 4.3, so it is VERY clear, and I verified this with the AMA before the NATS when we had this discussion. It applies to ALL classes. The finals are specified, simply to indicate how it is handled if a plane in the finals fails weight. But the CD has the discretion to disqualify a pilot for ANY of the rules in seciton 4. Including length. So, the penalty is very well defined. It even defines how to handle it if the plane was underweight, then had to be repaired. I'm not real sure how this isn't clear. If you fail weight at ANY time, you are DQ'd. Period, just like length.

I QUOTE: "Failure to comply with the following could result in disqualification of the contestant’s plane by the Contest Director (CD)."

Actually the more I read it, the more clear it is. If it doesn't specify a % penalty, then it means disqualification, just like using illegal devices such as gyro's and such. It lists them as prohibited, just as it says "No model may weigh more than 5000 grams gross, excluding fuel, ready for takeoff. Electric models are weighed with batteries. In Sportsman, Intermediate and Advanced an allowance of 115 grams is permitted. No model may have a wingspan or total length longer than two (2) meters (78.74 inches).

All of these are grounds for disqualification. I think what you want is a % penalty, as opposed to disqualification, but your argument that it isn't specified is incorrect. Under your argument, there is no defined penalty for anything, including gyro's, mis identifcation or anything else, when it clearly states they are grounds for disqualification. Here is the link I've been getting this from for anyone interested.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/2...erobatics1.pdf



Arch

.
Can you tell I have two kids in AP classes? . . .
.
The weight discussion is like driving by a train wreck. . . I KNOW I shouldn't look, but . . . .
.

There’s a lot of discussion and energy focused on changing/doing away with AMA rules which from my personal experience are rarely and inconsistently enforced. I've competed in over 60+ NSRCA district 6 local contest since the early nineties and have not witnessed the weight rule and for that matter sound and size rules enforced. In addition I've attended 9-10 Nationals since 98 and recall less than half having my plane weighed or measured for size or sound. This year 2011 we had a courteous weighing opportunity (thanks Brett for staying late for me) but no official weights and measures were taken that I was aware of and I was a Masters finalist.

Personally I feel the current AMA rules are good even though AMA Masters does not have a weight allowance. It just means I need to pay more attention to detail when building and with equipment selection. To me that’s part of the challenge. I am also supportive of AMA rules being very similar to FAI to reduce confusion, especially judging rules (*another topic in of its self to me). This helps prepare those who wish move on and compete under the international rules.

I’m just saying...there should be additional energy focused towards consistent enforcement of said rules, weight, size and sound. This is especially the case at the Nationals. Whatever the AMA rules are how does one know other competitors are in compliance not to mentioned reward those who do the extra effort to comply.

*having two different judging standards AMA vs. FAI sporting code is a bigger issue than weight in my mind. Food for thought – Do FAI pilots judge AMA pilots using absolute AMA standards and vice-verse? I’m just saying…I've been part of many judging conversations were the judging standards AMA vs. FAI are crossed and misapplied.

Glen,

This year was the first year I can remember we didn't weigh for the finals, although myself and several others did, but Rusty didn't get the word out and the people who normally do it weren't there. This year we couldn't even find judges for the Masters finals, must less any other help due to the worlds. I think this year was a bad example as every other year, we are weighed, as well as Intermediate and Advanced who weren't this year. I don't think this year is a fair year to judge that due to the lack of help at the NATS.

I think Glen's point about building to a standard is the key. Not every rule can be enforced at all times, but if you know what it is, then most will take the time to ensure they are within the rules. I KNOW at no point has my plane ever been checked for a gyro or anything else. That doesn't mean people don't understand not to use them. I have no issue with the rules, and I understand that logistically it would be a NIGHTMARE to enforce on every plane on every flight at the NATS like they do at the worlds. But keeping the rules means most will try to be within the rules and the ones that are over, usually know they aren't going to get weighed as they aren't in contention anyway. I do NOT see what the problem with the current rules are.

Arch

I have to agree with Mastertech. The rules do not disqualify the pilot. Just the model that was overweight. And since we do not know when that model was overweight until it is weighed, no scores can be DQ'd. The pilot just cannot use that model. But he is not DQ'd and can continue the contest with a model that meets the spec's.

I'm really glad I saw these comments because I had never looked at it in that way.

I just wish more would understand the real difference between raisinf or eliminating the weight rule in F3A vs AMA.

So, you are saying, if you don't measure the plane until round 4, that any round previous to that the plane was too long counts? Any it CLEARLY states disqualication. If you are disqualifed, then that plane is out of the contest. I don't understand how that is so difficult to understand? Anything that doesnt have a % with it falls under the disqualification category. Maybe I'm missing how this is vague. I also called the AMA and asked this direct question and was told I am interpreting it right. If you want to change how it is interpreted, go for it, but the rule is clear. It doesn't say, any round previous is affected, because disqualification by definition means you can no longer use that plane, and any rounds flown with that plane are not counted. It doesn't specify rounds before that are counted. It says you can be DISQUALIFIED, which means ineligible to win. Just like in the NCAA in football if a player is found ineligible at the end of the season, all the wins with that player previously, even though he was found ineligible at the end of the year, the wins are forfeited. You don't have to catch them before hand.

dis·qual·i·fy (ds-kwl-f)
tr.v. dis·qual·i·fied, dis·qual·i·fy·ing, dis·qual·i·fies
1.
a. To render unqualified or unfit.
b. To declare unqualified or ineligible.
2. To deprive of legal rights, powers, or privileges.



Arch

Here's another quote from the current rules,

"If weight is being enforced then all planes competing in that class must be weighed before the same round (round 1 or otherwise) for a baseline."

I read that as regardless of the Finals, unless all models in the class are weighed, the rule cannot be enforced.

The rules are really very poorly written. It says "Aircraft qualifying for a Final" when in fact the aircraft don not qualify. The pilot does. Last year a finalist in Masters used a borrowed model. Perfectly fine to do, but that model did not qualify for the Finals.

Arch, I don't know who you talked to at the AMA. But the rules are very clear that the model is DQ'd, not the pilot. Since you cannot prove that the model was illegal prior to the check, previous rounds must stay.

The rules regarding the Finals are really poorly written and open to a lot of interpretation. I can read several areas of argument. For instance, the rules say "Only one attempt at making weight will be allowed for a Finals weigh-in prior to the commencement of the Finals". Does that mean one attempt per airplane, or just one attempt? There is no limit to the amount of models that can be used in AMA, so can I keep rolling out models until one makes weight? Or if I weigh my first model and it passes, that's the only one that has to be weighed? What about back-ups? And keep in mind all these rules are under Item 4. Model Aircraft Requirements. That starts with this,

"Failure to comply with the following COULD result in disqualification of the contestant's PLANE by the Contest Director."

Mastertech has an excellent point.

Then, "if we agree" to what Arch reads the rules to mean, we didn't need the Masters finals specific rule on busting weight?

The rule book states the airplane is DQ'd, it does not address the rounds flown already nor can we assume those rounds were flown with an over weight airplane. Reading the rules as written if the airframe is DQ'd then I could pick up my back up and continue flying.

Reading over the rules it is not clear on much of anything in my opinion. Go figure

I plan on making a rule proposal to clarify this subject and hopefully change all the weight wording to be clear cut. With penalties spelled out.

Threads like this involve many people and hopefully will help me submit a proposal that is well thought out and reasonable. Many counsel's makes one wise........... or crazy.

Jury is still out on that one.

Tim

A few years ago when the Judging Committee first discussed the issue of overweight models, I believe the AMA rulebook disqualified the pilot. I don't remember if it was at the discretion of the CD or not.

Anyway, I felt pilot disqualification was harsh and stated so in our JCTeam discussions that ensued. We agreed that the model "should" or "could" be disqualified at the CD's discretion. I believe Don R drafted the rule and I think it passed. I hope Don chimes in with more specifics that I've forgotten. I think we also discussed which rounds were to count, but don't remember the details. Regardless, if it wasn't spelled out in the rule proposal, it isn't law now

Regarding "attempts at weigh-in"....the rule was intended to be once per model. Regarding "number of official models" allowed at a Nats per contestant, I believe it's two.

Agreed it may not have been perfectly worded but the intent was pilot disqualification.

From the proposal:

Rationale:
Creating an allowance for the lower classes provides a degree of flexibility which will encourage participation with a larger variety of aircraft. Retaining the existing 42.56 voltage limitation while raising weight allows the lower class electric competitor to choose from a wider array of less expensive “fuel� alternatives without providing any real advantage over glow powered models.
There is currently no prescribed penalty for failing the size and/or weight requirements. The presumption by most is that a competitor whose model fails these tests will be disqualified. In a recent Nationals, one competitor failed the weight test following an official flight during the Finals. The pilot was not disqualified and the round that had just been flown was not zeroed, essentially removing any reason for the rule to exist.

4.5: Eligibility of models. Contestants may fly any aircraft which conform to the rules of the class in which they are entered and may share, borrow, repair or interchange aircraft components or complete aircraft as they see fit during the competition, providing the resulting complete aircraft conforms to the equipment requirements as stated in this section, and satisfies the provisions of Paragraphs 4.7.1 and 6.1.

Along with being maybe the longest sentence I've seen, it is the only rule I can see in the regulations that talks about what models you can use. There is no longer any reference that I have seen to just two models allowed.

If you can weigh only once per model for the Finals, if the first one is DQ'd, can you continue to bring more models?

Intent really doesn't matter. How the rule reads is what matters. A competitor cannot know the intent of the rulemaker.

Page 3 of General Information:

Interpretation: There are many precedents to follow in not upholding the letter of the law in rule enforcement! This is frequently necessary if the rule language is inadequate or unclear. However, the intent is usually understood and this should be the determining factor in decisions.

The penalty applying to an overweight plane does appear poorly worded when placed under scrutiny. It looks like the people that worded it knew exacly what they wanted it to mean, but I wasn't there and can only debate the written word.

At least with the noise rules it's fairly clear if the plane fails the test before AND after a flight then that particular flight is zeroed, not all previous flights or the plane/pilot disqualified for the rest of the comp.

Is running a noiser prop on an electric to extract more power/performance any less cheating than slipping in a larger pack for longer lasting grunt?

From reading the debates that pop up from time to time I think in most if not all countries handle this issue with maturity and common sense and if your plane conforms reasonably to the spirit of the rules than you're OK to compete, unless it's Nationally or Internationally significant comp.

Intent is a slippery slope. Hard to tell unless the person making the proposal can describe their intent well enough. And the Director making the decision understands the intent. Get two people to read the same thing and you'll probably get two interpretations of intent. Better to make the written rule clearly understood.

It is quite possible to build a ground-based weigh station for pattern planes, with some plywood and three digital scales (one per wheel). Put it near the judge post for the pilot to roll the plane onto the station and for the judges to compute the weight from the readings from the scales. Seems the weight rule can be forced without hassle.

.
Since the root reason for the weight rule seems to be Money not for any other competitive reason. . . .
.
How about we write up a rules proposal sumthin' along these lines . . . .
.
1) The maximum weight rule is eliminated. . . .
2) The maximum purchase price for any aircraft used in any of the AMA pattern classes shall be $2000.00. Each competitor will maintain a record book of receipts for all components currently installed on his aircraft. Costs of professional building services will be included in this record. Sponsored pilots will record the current retail purchase price of components as the average from three (3) independent retailers for components that are supplied by their sponsor.
a. Value of used components (including complete aircraft purchased from other competitors) will be depreciated at the rate of 20% per year.
b. Value of new components will be recorded at full retail value for the calendar year the component is purchased and then depreciated.
.
.
I'm sure this will require alot more "massaging" . . . but it gets straight to the heart of the matter much more clearly than some nonsensical non-competitive rule.
.
.

.
You forgot to mount a big spring-loaded hammer. 5001 grams and POW!!! . . . Nothing left but balsa splinters and YS parts . . .
.
.

And you could do all of this every year right after you finish with your taxes.

Instead of fighting about what happens when someone brakes the rules, why not flying legal planes?? I dont think is any trouble with today airframes and equipments to be under 5kg

And we are more than happy to test with your plane(s).

Yeah, a fully legal 2M that performs well doesn't have to be expensive. Mine uses traditional building methods without exotic parts, is relatively inexpensive (I only have about $1K invested), and performs well.

Suppose you have on hand the following components you want to use in your next plane to fly Masters Class.
1. Axi 5330 Fai motor.
2. 3 JR 8411 servos and 2 JR 3421SA servos
3. CC 85HV ESC
4. Zippy Highmax 10S 15C 5,000mah batteries
5. APC 20.5 X 14 prop
6. TruTurn FAI lightened backplate spinner

You decide to buy a SebArt Wind S Pro.
Guess what, you will be 4-5 ounces over weight.
Ask me how I know this!

So you decide to buy a Sickle.
Guess what again, you will be 4-5 ounces over weight.
Ask me how I know this too.

Try a CARF Integral!
Same thing!

Maybe others can easily make weight but it was pretty expensive buying lighter stuff to get my planes legal.

Dave Burton