burtona

My Feedback: (50)

What AMA rules proposals would you like to see passed this cycle?
My list would include:
1. Something to eliminate the weight disparaty between EP and GP
2. Eliminate the mandatory class points and advancement system
3. Eliminate judging take off and landing in all AMA classes.

smcharg

My Feedback: (1)

+1 to #1 and #3. I'd just like to see them take the weight limit all the way out. If you want to have a weight rule, make a minimum weight. A heavier plane does not fly better.

Ryan Smith

My Feedback: (25)

What if I want to fly my 48" Vanquish Mk II in a contest? It weighs 44oz RTF. Will I be disbarred from flying it, or will you just make the weight limit 2 1/2lbs? Poor work around. The max size is two meters; there are plenty of airplanes under that size that are very capable pattern birds. I think you're going to grate more nerves if you make someone fly a two-meter airplane when they either have no need/can't afford one.

I think I've made my stance on the weight issue clear, but it would not hurt my feeling to eliminate the mandatory class points and takeoff/landing judging. I know several people that would be perfectly happy to stay parked in Intermediate or Advanced, as they are not sandbagging and they are well challenged there. Even if you just changed the order of the same manuevers in the sequence every two years, they would have to work hard enough at it. Sometimes, if it's gusty or if there is low-level turbulence, you are working hard enough to try and get your airplane on the ground in one piece, much less trying to eek out a score on the landing. There have been instances where I have seen this with lower class pilots at a contest where they have to make their approach in front of the line to their right (because they were put on the left-hand line to minimize the amount of time they are at full throttle in front of people on takeoff in stiff winds). More than a few judges have been driven out of their chairs, and more than a few pilots have had an out of control airplane land at their feet while they have been in the middle of a flight. It's happened to me before on a Sunday morning before a contest; I had a Focus nudge me on landing because the pilot lost directional control. When I'm actually concentrating, I don't hear my caller, much less anyone yelling heads up.

J Lachowski

My Feedback: (46)

I read these as advancement not being mandatory:

8.2.1: A contestant accumulating or exceeding 100 points and at least 2 years in Intermediate or Advanced class should automatically be advanced.

8.2.2: A contestant may voluntarily move to the next higher class at any time. He/she may also move to the next higher class upon attaining the goals itemized in 8.2.1 at any time during the year but will not be required to do. Any advancement by the contestant should only be made if the contestant feels that he/she is qualified to do so and he/she will not be a safety concern to his/her fellow contestants and contest management.

J Lachowski

My Feedback: (46)

Judging takeoffs and landing should be mandatory through at least Advanced. Funny, we eliminated it before and then concensus was to bring it back again with some minor adjustments ( ie plane 100% stationary eliminated)

I've been flying electric for over five years. I 've had no issue dealing with the weight rule as it stands. Concensus was already taken to make a minor adjustment to the weight rule which I thought was fair.

I for one would like to see a rules cycle without changes. We need to step back and let things settle down for a bit.

jgg215

Joe,
Abolishing the Advancement "system" is what Tim suggested. While moving up is only a recommendation in the current rules, moving down requires a waiver from the AMA. Many drop out rather than apply to the AMA for a waiver when they find themselves committed to a class beyond their ability to be competitive due to time, money, age or just the realization that the skill level required for that higher class is beyond them.
happy new year
John

smcharg

My Feedback: (1)

Ryan,
   You are correct.  My apologies.  There should be no weight limit at all.  I also have no trouble making weight but I spend $100 on a carbon fiber prop that weighs half of what the "other" prop weighs to save 60 grams so that I can put in a redundant battery system that weighs 40 grams.  All this to stay around 4950.  I just don't get why we should have a weight rule.  The 2 meters should be limiting enough.  PLEASE, bring your 15 pound airplane and compete against me. 

jhatton

Adjusting the no telemetry rule to allow for receiver battery voltage etc...

rix

Yes, some flexibility with the weight rule would be a welcome effort. #2 & #3 I agree with as well. Thanks Dave for taking the initiative.

Strat2003

My Feedback: (1)

I don't have a problem with judged takeoffs and landings. We're supposed to be demonstrating control of the airplane and those maneuvers are part of it.
I've flown in some contests where conditions (bumpy or short runways) prompted the CD to instruct "10 or 0" scoring on TO and landing, and I thought that was a reasonable compromise.

Ryan Smith

My Feedback: (25)

Do you need the redundant batteries?

$100.00 is chicken scratch compared to the $3500.00 or so that you doled out for your airplane.

burtona

My Feedback: (50)

At the risk of starting or contributing to an issue as devisive as weight, a couple of my reasons for wanting to eliminate takeoff and landing as judged maneuvers are:
1. We should be judged on aerobatic maneuvers which TO and landing are not. Even full scale and FAI aerobatic competition takeoff and landings are not scored. For the lower classes it would take the pressure off a pilot trying to make a great landing and allow them to concentrate on safely getting the plane on the ground. (And that would apply to all classes in tough landing conditions)
2. From a judging perspective this would lesson the time judges have to watch the plane between flights. It's tiring enough sitting out there and this change would allow a litte break and perhaps time to transcribe note pad scores to a score sheet, or just relax a bit. It's difficult to concentrate on the plane, write scores, count deductions and this change would lessen the work load a little.

Another advantage is that a contest could run a little faster if needed as one pilot could takeoff before the previous pilot has landed. Maybe not ideal but could help finish a round before dark, etc.

cmoulder

Finally, a rule change I can agree with!!!!!!!

Glory be!! I'm not a complete knuckle-dragging Neanderthal Luddite after all!![X(]

JRgraham

My Feedback: (1)

Ryan Iagree with you completely.

And burtona, that makes perfect sense really. If any class's should have take off and landing removed from scoring, it should be the lowest of class's.
Iwould love to see the guys in basic and sportsman have that small bit of relief. Thinking about it, that is generally where those class's have the most mishap's. A lot of the people in the basic and sportsman class's are having enough of a time just getting in that 'crash free' flight, let alone a good score.














*disclaimer*
the above statement was in no way meant to insult the flying skills of the lower class pattern guys, and we apologize for any confusion or discomfort we may have caused.

cmoulder

And not to be contrary just for the heck of it, but the opposite argument could be (and probably has been) made as well.

The lower classes are designed specifically to emphasize the basic skills, of which landing is a very important one, arguably the most important.

Why? When you think about it, outside the occasional dumb-thumb or mid-air, the cause of most airframe stress and damage to models is bad landings. Removing the element from judging only encourages more of the same.

And I'm sure the AMA and its insurance underwriter and our fellow competitors agree that NOTHING is more important than complete control of the model when it is in close proximity to people. That's another one of the things I like about Pattern, a greatly reduced chance of getting hit by an out-of-control model as compared to the average sport flying field.

petec

My Feedback: (58)

Bob you've seen me fly and you still made that comment??????? See you in Conyngham in the Spring.

cmoulder

Pete, as long as you keep your mid-flight battery ejections more than 150 yards out, no problem for me!

And you must be a pretty good pilot to safely land a plane that is THAT tail heavy!

Conyngham, for sure. In short order it has become a rite of Spring.

petec

My Feedback: (58)

The VF3 is now open from firewall to turtleneck like a good electric should be and I am going to pick up paint tomorrow for the touch up. I NEVER want to try and get a plane back like that again.

I'll bring you some goodies to welcome Spring properly.

cmoulder

Glad to hear of that mod! It will spare some grief, no doubt.

smcharg

My Feedback: (1)

I choose to have redundant batteries to protect the $3500 investment so, yes Ido need them. I've seen $5000 rigs go down due to a failed regulator and I'm not willing to take that risk. $100 is chicken scratch in comparison but $100 to save 20 grams to make weight compared to a $12.50 "other prop" that would just slightly push you over the 11 pound limit is a little ridiculous in my opinion. $100 isn't chicken scratch to everyone. Not everyone has a $3500 rig. Some of us may have a $1000 rig. Now you're looking at 10% of the cost of your setup for a prop to save 20 grams. We go to extremes (whether you want to admit it or not) to shave a gram or two here or there to make a weight limit that serves very little purpose simply because a plane that is heavier has no advantage.

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

Taken from the NSRCA Bylaws,

ARTICLE III - OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF SOCIETY

Section 2 - Purpose of the Society

a. Act as a focal point for rules development and progression. Gather intelligence from the AMA precision aerobatics community to provide the basis for AMA rules change proposals.


Doesn't the NSRCA have a Rules Proposal Committee? I have a Committee Charter written in 2005. Is that Committee active and if so who are the members? What has happened to the NSRCA Rules Surveys?

stevemangum

My Feedback: (1)

Allow 12s, helicopters already do this. I think a lot of folks would prefer the higher voltage lower current setup.

Doug Cronkhite

My Feedback: (34)

Allowing 12s would be good from a current standpoint, but might open up a bunch more weight issues. I say this without having looked into it much.

J Lachowski

My Feedback: (46)

Getting a waiver is no big deal. I know of at least one person who did it in the past few years.

rix

I just did it but I have been out for 10 years. I am not sure what the criteria is, but years out must be one of them.