Rules Revision Process 2008-2009
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN REVISED DUE TO TYPOS AND SOME LAST MINUTE CHANGES NEEDED FOR CLARIFICATIONS WITHIN THE PROPOSALS.
The RCP process for changing rules in the NAR Sporting Code a.k.a. “The Pink Book” is defined in the sporting code under section “F” of the appendix. The process can be reviewed online at http://www.nar.org/pinkbook/ if you do not have a hard copy of the pink book. The cycle for proposed changes now runs on a one year cycle. The following timeline will complete the current cycle. Eight proposals were received prior to the deadline of June 30, 2008.
Take the time to read the proposals carefully. I also recommend that you discuss the proposals with fellow contest flyers for the pros and cons of the proposals. Some clubs even have discussion at business meetings to allow for opinions to be shared amongst members.
Every member of the NAR has the opportunity to make an official comment on the proposals up for consideration. My preference is for you to forward your comments to me via e-mail, at zog139@yahoo.com or you can forward them hard copy to my home address at:
Jim Filler
NAR Rules Revision Chair
6715 B Overton Circle # 13
Frederick, Md. 21703
You must include your name and NAR# with your comments. I must receive your comments by Feb. 15, 2009. Try to be concise and brief with your comments. Once I have received all comments, they will be published here online for all to see. Details for an upcoming ballot for you to vote will be communicated at some point later. When the proposals are voted on, they will require a 66% vote for the proposal to be passed and become a part of the pink book effective for the new contest year July1, 2009, but they will have no bearing on NARAM-51. I would like to remind everyone that the opportunity for you to submit a RCP is as simple as writing up your idea or submitting it online at the link you can find at: http://www.nar.org/competition/pinkbookrcpform.html
RCP # 2008-801 TOTAL IMPULSE FOR CONTEST EVENTS
Submitted By: David Fitch NAR # 26128
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE:
It is proposed that in Craftsmanship events, or any event in which an impulse limit is not stated, (Scale, Sport Scale, PMC, Spot Landing, etc. ) that competitors be permitted to fly motors or combinations of motors, up to the limits stated in Section 7 of the Model Rocket Safety Code. Namely these limits are: 1500 gram/53 oz. maximum liftoff weight 125 gram total propellant weight (62.5 gram maximum per motor) and 320 Newton second maximum total impulse.
STATE LOGIC AND INTENT OF CHANGE:
Increasing these limits to encompass the limits established in the Model Rocket Safety Code will permit competitors in Craftsmanship or other events where no impulse limit is stated, to fly larger and or more detailed models not possible with the current limits, which are below the Model Rocket Safety Code.
EFFECT, IF ANY, ON CURRENT COMPETITION AND NAR RECORDS
No effect on current records. By increasing the scope of the potential models, it will have a positive effect for Craftsmanship events.
EXACT WORDING FOR RULE REVISION AS IT SHOULD APPEAR:
Sec # 9.1 Total Impulse Limit- No entry in sanctioned competition, in any event where no maximum total impulse level is stated, shall be powered by a single motor containing more than 62.5 grams of propellant, or combination of motors exceeding 125 grams of propellant in total. The maximum Total Impulse Level, in accordance with the Model Rocket Safety Code, shall not exceed 320 Newton-Seconds. The use of high-power motors in NAR Competition is expressly forbidden.
________________________________________________________________________
RCP # 2008-802 EXPLICITLY REQUIRE IN BG & FLEX WING EVENTS THAT ONLY THE GLIDING PORTION NEEDS TO BE RETURNED
Submitted by: Ryan Woebkenberg NAR # 49363
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE:
Explicitly require in BG & FW events that only the gliding portion needs to be returned
STATE LOGIC AND INTENT OF CHANGE:
When I started competition in 1990, it was common at all of the contests including NARAM that I attended that only the gliding portion in the Boost Glider & Flex-Wing glider events needed to be returned, unless there was some need to call impound on the motor pod (fear of motor ejection). I have also been told that in past versions of the pink book it explicitly indicated that only the gliding portion needs to be returned. Somehow recently some contests/NARAM have been requiring pod return as well as glider return. I want to clarify this rule to make it fit what I feel is the most common interpretation, not requiring pod return.
EFFECT, IF ANY, ON CURRENT COMPETITION AND NAR RECORDS
None
EXACT WORDING FOR RULE REVISION AS IT SHOULD APPEAR:
36.1 Boost Glider Duration Competition comprises nine events open to any model rocket, one portion of which returns to the ground in stable, gliding flight supported by aerodynamic lifting surfaces which sustain that portion against gravity. If the entry is staged, the gliding portion must be part of the uppermost stage, and must not be deployed until that stage has burned out. The entry may separate into multiple pieces; only the gliding portion is timed and only the timed gliding portion needs to be returned to satisfy rule 15.10. Models whose gliding surfaces are made of flexible materials (e.g., plastic film or cloth) are prohibited from this event. The purpose of this competition is to achieve the longest flight duration time.
38.1 Flex-Wing Boost Glider Duration Competition comprises nine events open to any model rocket, one portion of which returns to the ground in stable, gliding flight supported by flexible aerodynamic lifting surfaces which sustain that portion against gravity. If the entry is staged, the gliding portion must be part of the uppermost stage, and must not be deployed until that stage has burned out. The entry may separate into multiple pieces; only the gliding portion is timed and only the timed gliding portion needs to be returned to satisfy rule 15.10. The purpose of this competition is to achieve the longest flight duration time.
________________________________________________________________________
RCP # 2008-803 SELF PENALIZING RULE CLARIFICATION FOR OPEN SPOT LANDING
Submitted by Chad Ring NAR # 50652
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE:
Remove the requirement from Open Spot Landing for full recovery system deployment.
STATE LOGIC AND INTENT OF CHANGE:
Currently rule 60.3 for Open Spot Landing requires “Each entry must deploy its recovery device fully and completely before touching the ground.” This makes sense for PSL or SSL, but Open Spot Landing models are probably not “helped” by a modeler accidentally having a parachute not open all the way. Over the years I have seen many new rocketeers get disqualified from OSL when their common kit model does not fully deploy the parachute. I’d like to see an end to this, at least in OSL
EFFECT, IF ANY, ON CURRENT COMPETITION AND NAR RECORDS
It will make OSL a bit easier for new participants, while clarifying that PSL and SSL must fully deploy their recovery systems. OSL does not have records, so no change in records
EXACT WORDING FOR RULE REVISION AS IT SHOULD APPEAR:
60.3 change to:
Recovery Each entry must comply fully with the provisions of Rule 3.5.
60.7.1 change to:
Parachute Spot Landing
Each entry must fully and completely deploy a parachute, with dimensions no less than 15 centimeters square or 15 centimeters in diameter. Rule 11.9 does not apply to Parachute Spot Landing.
60.7.2 change to:
Streamer Spot Landing
Each entry must fully and completely deploy a streamer with dimensions not less than 25 millimeters by 300 millimeters. Rule 11.9 does not apply to Streamer Spot Landing.
60.7.3 change to:
Open Spot Landing
Any type of recovery device is allowed.
________________________________________________________________________
RCP 2008-804 REMOVE REQUIREMENT FOR COPIES OF JUDGING SHEETS TO BE RETURNED TO THE MODELER
Submitted by Chad Ring NAR# 50652
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE:
Remove the REQUIREMENT for CD’s to provide a copy of the judging sheets in craftsmanship events. Modelers still have the option to request their sheet or the Contest Manager file.
STATE LOGIC AND INTENT OF CHANGE:
Currently all CD’s are required to copy/scan all pages of any judging sheet used at the contest and provide it to its modeler. It is ironic that this rule REQUIRES these judging sheets to be included with the contest results…although there is NO REQUIREMENT for any such ‘contest results’. Further, a person’s judging sheet doesn’t provide any true comparison without the judging sheet for every other entry in competition with it. Much better feedback can be obtained from discussion with the judge(s) and viewing of the models in competition with each other. Further, most CD’s are now using Contest Manager and the info contained there provides a points breakdown by each judging subsection, and a modeler can then compare against all entries for that meet, not just his/her own judging sheet, which will provide a much better overall view of how his/her model compared to the others in the meet. I have found at meets I have CD’d that most flyers don’t care about receiving the copy (even though they were all provided with one because of the requirement) of the sheet, as they have already talked to the judge and compared with other models flown against them. Contest Manger is a sufficient way to provide this information, and will eliminate extra unnecessary work for a CD. A modeler may still request a copy of his sheet if he so chooses, but at something like a NARAM, this will reduce the hundreds of pages to be scanned/copied.
EFFECT, IF ANY, ON CURRENT COMPETITION AND NAR RECORDS
The information is still available at request; no REQUIREMENT for the majority of flyers that have no interest in receiving the paper format. No effect on NAR records.
EXACT WORDING FOR RULE REVISION AS IT SHOULD APPEAR:
Delete the following:
50.11 Delete entire last sentence.
51.4.1 Delete entire section.
52.9 Delete entire section.
53.9 Delete entire last sentence.
54.8 Delete entire section.
55.8 Delete entire section.
63.13 Delete entire section.
________________________________________________________________________
RCP 2008-805: REMOVE THE PARACHUTE REQUIREMENT FOR PAYLOAD EVENTS
Submitted by: Ryan Woebkenberg NAR # 49363
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE:
Allow Payload Altitude models to be recovered by all safe recovery systems.
STATE LOGIC AND INTENT OF CHANGE:
Payload models and payload compartments could be recovered safely with recovery systems other than parachutes. Currently egglofters are allowed to be recovered via streamers or other exotic recovery methods. Requiring parachutes on payload models can make the models more difficult to recover and this is discouraging to new contest rocketry participants. Safe recovery of the payload will still be required.
EFFECT, IF ANY, ON CURRENT COMPETITION AND NAR RECORDS
Contestants will have the option to use a streamer in high wind situations to increase their likelihood of recovering their model.
EXACT WORDING FOR RULE REVISION AS IT SHOULD APPEAR:
25.4 change to:
Models in the competition must be equipped with a recovery device to allow a safe landing under the provisions of Rule 3.5.
________________________________________________________________________
RCP 2008-806 REMOVE THE OPTION TO HAVE MOTOR(S) CHECKED POST FLIGHT.
Submitted by: Chad Ring NAR # 50652
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE:
Remove the part of the rule that allows motors to be checked post flight.
STATE LOGIC AND INTENT OF CHANGE:
Currently rule 9.5 allows a contestant to do the required motor check post flight. If motor cannot be checked post flight, it is unofficial. This has been a long standing loophole in the rules. A contestant could have a great first flight in a duration event with no return, then fly his/her second flight (using the post motor check rule). If it thermals away, no big deal, it doesn’t count now (since motor cannot be examined), and contestant could literally fly several models until he/she gets one back for the return rule. This was never intended to be the case, and this RCP fixes that loophole.
EFFECT, IF ANY, ON CURRENT COMPETITION AND NAR RECORDS
The only effect is that a motor MUST be inspected before flight, just as safety check must be done before flight. No effect on NAR records.
EXACT WORDING FOR RULE REVISION AS IT SHOULD APPEAR:
Delete the following from rule 9.5:
At the request of the contestant, the motor inspection may be postponed until after the flight. However, if it is postponed, the part of the model containing the motor must be returned and the motor class determined by visual inspection. Rule 10.4 shall not apply and if the motor type can not be determined, then the flight is not official.
________________________________________________________________________
RCP 2008-807: CLARIFY OFFICIAL FLIGHT REQUIREMENTS
Submitted by: Chad Ring NAR # 50652
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE:
Clarify what constitutes an official flight attempt, and what is considered a misfire.
STATE LOGIC AND INTENT OF CHANGE:
Currently rule 10.3 says if ANY part of the model leaves the pad after motor ignition, it is an official flight. I have seen BG’s hang on the rod and the motor’s ejection charge blow part of the pod into the air. This then resulted in a DQ for No Glide instead of a misfire. I have also seen a model that hung on the rod during thrust, and the motor’s ejection charge was enough to fling the model into the air, land and qualify. This RCP will define that the model must leave the launcher under the motor’s thrust, and not simply have the ejection charge propel some or all of the model into the air. By adding “under a motor’s thrust phase” to the first sentence of 10.3, it will clarify this issue.
EFFECT, IF ANY, ON CURRENT COMPETITION AND NAR RECORDS
This will eliminate the loophole on what an official flight truly is. No effect on NAR records.
EXACT WORDING FOR RULE REVISION AS IT SHOULD APPEAR:
Sec. 10.3 change to:
Official Flight Requirements
A flight is official if any part of the model leaves the launcher under a motor’s thrust phase; except in the case of a catastrophic failure according to the provisions of Rule 11.5, in which case the flight is not considered to be official. All models that do not leave the launcher subsequent to motor ignition shall not be considered as having made an official flight unless they are disqualified by the RSO for safety reasons. If the power pod or motor of a Boost Glider model disengages and proceeds into the air under power without the glider portion, the attempt shall be considered a disqualified official flight. A model that does not ignite enough motors to be in the proper total impulse class as per Rule 4.6 shall not be considered as having made an official flight unless its flight is disqualified for other reasons.
________________________________________________________________________
RCP 2008-808: CHANGE THE NAME OF “SCIENCE FICTION AND FUTURE SPORT SCALE (AKA “F/F SCALE”) TO “CONCEPT SPORT SCALE”
Submitted by: Jack Hagerty NAR# 55105
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE:
Fiction and Future Sport Scale has been a Pink Book event since 2002. It has proven popular and has been flown at all levels of competition, including NARAM 48. It has been chosen as one of the events for NARAM 51 as well. However, the "F/F" is usually misquoted when talking about the event. Usually one of the "f"s is called "fantasy" and with the "Science" left off it's called any combination of "Fiction/Fantasy," "Future/Fiction," etc. It has also been pointed out that not all F/F prototypes are from fiction or are in the future. For example, one of the more popular prototypes modeled in the event is the X-20 Dyna-Soar, a program that was canceled in 1964.
Discussions of a name change with NAR scale judges and currently active competitors has identified "Concept Scale" as a viable alternative. It is easy to remember (a single word) and covers every conceptual design (by definition) regardless of period or origin.
EFFECT, IF ANY, ON CURRENT COMPETITION AND NAR RECORDS
None.
EXACT WORDING FOR RULE REVISION AS IT SHOULD APPEAR:
56 "Concept Sport Scale Competition"
56.1 Purpose
Concept Sport Scale Competition is a variation of Sport Scale. The purpose of this competition is to product a flying replica of either a fictional or a seriously proposed, but unbuilt rocket vehicle that differs from Sport Scale Competition (Rule 53) only in the nature of the prototype and substantiation data." "