Rules Revision Process 2008-2009 - Comments
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://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 had the opportunity to make an official comment on the proposals up for consideration. The comments I have received are included here for you to read and possibly influence your vote on the upcoming ballot.
An upcoming paper ballot for you to vote will be mailed to you soon so keep an eye out for it in you snail mail box. 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 # 2007-801 TOTAL IMPULSE FOR CONTEST EVENTS
Submitted By: David Fitch NAR # 26128
• I do not believe that increasing the impulse limits on events without impulse class will have any detrimental effect on competition and agree with the author's logic in support. I therefore see no reason that this RCP should not be passed in its entirety. Brian J. Guzek
NAR#86418
• I think this is a good idea. It would allow for the larger scale models to be flown more safely while staying within NAR model rocket safety rules. Robert Gustin NAR# 87340
• Pro Statement: Can't see anything wrong with this. It will give a boost, so to speak, to several scale models that always wind up underpowered when completed. Adam Elliott NAR# 62456
___________________________________________________________________________________________
RCP # 2007-802 EXPLICITLY REQUIRE IN BG & FLEX WING EVENTS THAT ONLY THE GLIDING PORTION NEEDS TO BE RETURNED
Submitted by: Ryan Woebkenberg NAR # 49363
• I agree with the author. However, if this RCP passes, I would like to see a revision to rule 17.4 that also states that the model must be returned in its entirety to qualify for a record, as this seems to be in the spirit of 17.4 anyways. Brian J. Guzek NAR#86418
• I think finding and returning a pop pod is generally easier than chasing a glider in a thermal. As part of rule 3.5, returning the pod leads directly to reusability. A pod will usually hit the ground well before a glider, making it the first part to be picked up. I would be concerned that if this rule were adopted that the flying field might become littered with pop pods as they are fairly easy to produce and would become somewhat disposable. Robert Gustin NAR# 87340
• Against Statement: The logic is obvious. However one of the points of competition is to return the MODEL. Yes, there have been (several) cases where the pod on a streamer/chute actually went farther and longer than the glider. Sometimes out of reach, but frequently simply lost because it is hard to watch two parts at the same time. The point and challenge of this competition is to return the MODEL and this includes any boosters or pods. Adam Elliott NAR# 62456
___________________________________________________________________________________________
RCP # 2007-803 SELF PENALIZING RULE CLARIFICATION FOR OPEN SPOT LANDING
Submitted by Chad Ring NAR # 50652
• I don't think this change is necessary. Currently the rules state for OSL "60.7.3 Any type of recovery device allowed, provided it conforms to the provisions of Rule 3.5". To have a 'chute or streamer open as intended is a basic skill required for successful and safe model rocketry. Better to learn with 4 CF points than to have a failure with 36 CF points. Robert Gustin NAR# 87340
___________________________________________________________________________________________
RCP 2008-804 REMOVE REQUIREMENT FOR COPIES OF JUDGING SHEETS TO BE RETURNED TO THE MODELER
Submitted by Chad Ring NAR# 50652
• I like this RCP. I have only ever received copies for 2 events since this rule was adopted and only one from a NARAM. Seems like a lot of extra work for CDs just so a contestant can see what the judges thought of his/her work. I think also having to make copies would slow down the paper work submission to the regional contest chair. Robert Gustin NAR# 87340
• Against Statement: This has long been a point of debate. "How'd I do?" "What were my scores?" “How on Earth do I find out?” These were persistent questions and the reason for the current rule. The rule now states that a COPY of the judging sheet be given to the modeler. The sole benefit of this is so that the modeler can know how his/her model did in each category, not be compared to others. Not everyone can grab their fully charged PDA with Contest Manager at any given time and look up their judging sheet from a model from 4 years ago that they wish to make improvements upon for the next competition. They can go to their cabinet and grab their sheets from all the contests that they've flown from back when all these gizmos were just science fiction. The current rules do not rule out making other copies, just that a copy be given to the modeler. Preferably a copy of the original one with all the notes from the judges. Adam Elliott NAR# 62456
___________________________________________________________________________________________
RCP 2008-805: REMOVE THE PARACHUTE REQUIREMENT FOR PAYLOAD EVENTS
Submitted by: Ryan Woebkenberg NAR # 49363
• I really don't have objection to this RCP. If I can choose to recover an egg or even two eggs with a streamer then I suppose I should be able to do the same for payloads as well. A single contest egg weighs more than two standard payloads. Even G impulse with four payloads is less than two max weight eggs. I wonder.... Should this RCP pass, how long will it be before Ryan makes an RC/Payload flight? Robert Gustin NAR# 87340
• Against Statement: I dunno. Half of the challenge of this event is getting your payload back safely. When streamers are overloaded they can sometimes stream in at even higher velocities than parachutes. But by the same token, I've seen several streamers that have gone much farther than a parachute on the exact same model. However, removing the parachute requirement would make a fundamental shift in this event, changing the way it is done and opening up some unknowns in the safety area. I volunteer a long standing idea of a separate event for parachutes or streamers. Adam Elliott NAR# 62456
___________________________________________________________________________________________
RCP 2008-806 REMOVE THE OPTION TO HAVE MOTOR(S) CHECKED POST FLIGHT.
Submitted by: Chad Ring NAR # 50652
• I agree with this RCP. Closing this loophole is a good idea. It may take some getting used to. I have on many occasions used this rule for cluster flights when time is limited or I absentmindedly installed motors before checking in. Robert Gustin NAR# 87340
• Against Statement: Having and maintaining this option is not a bad idea for more than one reason. Without going into detail about all that, a better solution would be to change other parts of the rules. Such as limiting the number of "official" flights and the last word of Rule 9.5 which smells like a bad typo (from "official" to "qualified"). Both at the same time, you realize. Adam Elliott NAR# 62456
___________________________________________________________________________________________
RCP 2008-807: CLARIFY OFFICIAL FLIGHT REQUIRMENTS
Submitted by: Chad Ring NAR # 50652
• A great idea for a rule change. Many times I've seen examples of what Chad has given and then seen the modeler’s reaction of disbelief and disgust. This will make certain events much easier to get a qualified flight in.
• Pro Statement: Couldn't agree more. Adam Elliott NAR# 62456
___________________________________________________________________________________________
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
• To better be in line with the original concept, I’d say “unflown” would be a better wording. Of course, that doesn’t really solve everything since people could argue over the definition of a “flight.” Do engine tests count if it rises off of the supports into the hold-down’s? How about the Rotary “Roton?” Their prototype flew several miles up and down a test course using rocket powered helicopter blades. What about the shuttle “Enterprise” in the approach and landing tests? That flew by any definition of the word, but not under rocket power. My personal thoughts on what the original concept is a vehicle is first flown when it is launched under its own power and performs an intended mission. That mission might be a simple test flight to see if it is stable, but it was still flying on its own. For rocket powered vehicles, ground tests, drop tests, etc. don’t count. Jack Hagerty NAR# 55105
• Judging by recent heated email group conversation on this particular event I think changing its name is the least of the worries for the NAR members. The name change would certainly be easier to remember correctly.
• Against Statement: Can't argue with Jack for wanting to simplify and broaden the title of this event at the same time. However to a newcomer the attraction of "Science Fiction and Future Scale" is just too appealing to pass up. The X-20 never flew. In fact it was never manufactured beyond a mockup (its own scale model). Indeed this was a true "concept" scale model as opposed to a small craftwork that might actually fly. But it was also a look at the "future" as well as a "fantasy". Adam Elliott NAR# 62456
___________________________________________________________________________________________