RCP Cycle 2014-2015
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 https://www.nar.org/pinkbook/ the cycle for proposed changes runs on a one year cycle. A dedicated online RCP Forum for proposals to be reviewed, commented on, and finally voted on is available for all NAR members.
Thirteen proposals were received, reviewed, and voted on in 2015.
Proposals required a 66% vote for the proposal to be passed. Two proposals met that criterion, and will become a part of the pink book effective for the new contest year July 1, 2015, but they will have no bearing on NARAM-57.
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: https://www.nar.org/contest-flying/us-model-rocket-sporting-code/us-model-rocket-sporting-code-rules-revision-process-form/
Jim Filler
NAR RRC
Contest Board
Schedule
February 15, 2015 – Comment period open
April 15, 2015 – Comments period is closed
May 1, 2015 – Ballots published
June 1, 2015 – Deadline to submit your ballot
June 15, 2015 – Voting results published in the NAR Homepage News Section
July 1, 2015 – RCPs that pass go into effect for the new contest year and have no effect on NARAM-57
A summary of results is here.
RCP# 2014-01 Reduce Meet Weighting Factors Click Here to view comments on this RCP
Submitted by: Glenn Feveryear NAR 24931
Brief summary of the proposed change:
Reduce the Total Weighting Factors for Section thru Regional Meet classifications.
State logic and intent of change:
It is increasingly difficult to attract competitors to meets that contain the number of events necessary to take full advantage of the available points. Clubs sometimes resort to hosting meets without a full cadre of events just to keep some amount of competition going. For all kinds of reasons our building/preparation time, the amount of time we can afford to allocate to travel or simply being able to spend a whole day or two at a meet is becoming limited. Likewise, the time available to A & B Divisioners, that we hope to attract to and retain in competition, is being fought for by other social and recreational activities. This proposal is an effort to reduce the number of events at meets, to help accommodate the time pressures we are all facing and especially those with families, and to make it easier for small clubs to host meets with only one or two events while offering the maximum in available points for the meet class. This proposal reduces regional and open meet Total Weighting Factors by 25% (about 1-2 events) and section and local meet Total Weighting Factors by 20% (about 2 events).
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records:
None
Exact wording for rule revision as it should appear:
Section 6.6 Weighting Factor
| Event Type | Total Weighting Factors |
| Section Meet | 32 |
| Local Meet | 32 |
| Open Meet | 45 |
| Regional Meet | 60 |
Voting Results: Total – 93 Yes – 56 No – 37 Fails 60.2%
RCP# 2014-02 Revise R&D Scoring Click Here to View comments on this RCP
Submitted by: Matt Steele NAR 22961
Brief summary of the proposed change:
Revise R&D Scoring
State logic and intent of change:
This revision is designed to better define how R&D is judged, using criteria and a scoring system similar to how most science fairs are currently judged. The current rules are vague, and have not been updated in a long time. This approach also demonstrates the relative importance of the oral presentation in the final score.
Effect: This change eliminates the random nature of previous R&D results, and replaces it with a proven structure that should determine the best projects, regardless of who is judging. With the change, objective criteria are provided to the contestants, helping to improve future projects and reduce misunderstandings.
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records:
None
Exact wording for rule revision as it should appear:
63.13 Judging Criteria
Research and Development competition shall be judged and points assigned as follows:
Objectives & Hypothesis or Problem Statement: 0-20 points
Design & Procedures or Engineering process: 0-20 points
Data & Results or Problem Solution: 0-20 points
Analysis & Conclusions or Project Evaluation: 0-20 points
Oral Presentation: 0-10 points
Report Presentation: 0-10 points
The entry with the highest number of points is the winner. Judges shall use the latest revision of the “R&D Judging Rubric” sheet to score the entries. The judges shall supply a copy of their final judging sheet to the competitor after judging is complete and places are announced.
Scoring Rubric (click to view full size):
Voting Results: Total – 89 Yes – 29 No – 60 Fails 32.5%
RCP# 2014-03 Increase Protest Fee Click Here to view comments on this RCP
Submitted by: Matt Steele NAR 22961
Brief summary of the proposed change:
Increase protest fee to $20
State logic and intent of change:
Protests in competition are a serious headache for the contest director and contest board. They should not be submitted under frivolous circumstances. Raising the fee from $5.00 to $20.00 would help eliminate worthless protests and make contestants “put their money where their mouth is”.
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records:
Reduced number of protests from “Pink Book Lawyers”.
Exact wording for rule revision as it should appear:
Revise to read:
12.1 Protests
Protests will be considered only when presented in writing to the Contest Jury no later than one hour after the end of the competition, and when accompanied by $20.00 in cash.
Voting Results: Total – 95 Yes – 66 No – 29 Passes 69.4%
RCP# 2014-04 Recording Altimeters Click Here to view comments on this RCP
Click Here to View Comments and Comment on this RCP
Submitted by: Matt Steele NAR 22961
Brief summary of the proposed change:
Require the use of recording altimeters for competition flights
State logic and intent of change:
Eliminate the majority of altimeter anomalies. There have been documented instances where altimeters have displayed results that did not reflect the correct results. By plotting out the flight data, these anomalies can be quickly identified and the improper results thrown out. Right now, there is no recourse but to accept the bad result. I personally have seen two of these instances in the past year. The FAI requires the use of recording altimeters for this very reason. This would also ensure that any records set with an altimeter would count; currently the problem is recognized to the point that records cannot be set with non-recording altimeters.
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records:
This will restrict the number of altimeters approved for contest flights, but will eliminate highly inaccurate results
Exact wording for rule revision as it should appear:
14.10 Electronic Altimeters add the following:
NAR contest flights will only use a recording altimeter. After the flight, the altimeter data will be downloaded by the contestant and reviewed by a contest official (RSO, CD, or member of the contest jury). If it is shown that a sudden peak in altitude is attributable to the ejection event or a flight anomaly, that peak will not be used to determine the recorded altitude. The maximum altitude excluding the anomalous peaks will be reported.
Voting Results: Total – 89 Yes – 46 No – 43 Fails 51.7%
RCP# 2014-05 Combine A & B Division Click Here to view comments on this RCP
Submitted by: Matt Steele NAR 22961
Brief summary of the proposed change:
Combine A&B Divisions
State logic and intent of change:
Go to an age structure similar to FAI flying due to the low number of B Division flyers. Last year, only 23 B Division competed prior to NARAM, and only one had flown a full 12 weighing factors. Experience with NAR and FAI competition suggests that A Divisioners can compete on an even basis with B Divisioners.
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records:
Rule change would be delayed 2 years to “grandfather” most current B Division flyers. Records would be combined between A&B with the higher score remaining the record and the other officially retired.
Exact wording for rule revision as it should appear:
Effective July 1, 2016
8.2 Age Division
The Competition Divisions are as given in the following schedule:
| Junior Division | 7 – 18 years old |
| Senior Division | 19 years old and older |
| T Division | Registered NAR Teams |
Voting Results: Total – 97 Yes – 34 No – 63 Fails 35.1%
RCP# 2014-06 Reduce R&D Weight Factor Click Here to view comments on this RCP
Submitted by: Matt Steele NAR 22961
Brief summary of the proposed change:
Reduce R&D WF
State logic and intent of change:
The R&D weighing factor (36) is too high in comparison to Scale (32). More skill and hours can be put into a nice scale model than into most R&D projects, and the Weighing Factor for the event should reflect that.
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records:
None
Wording: 63.12
| Weighting Factor | 34 |
Voting Results: Total – 84 Yes – 39 No – 45 Fails 46.4%
RCP# 2014-08 Standardized Events Click Here to view comments on this RCP
Submitted by: Matt Steele NAR 22961
Brief summary of the proposed change:
Standardized Events
State logic and intent of change:
Limit the number of events by flying only a mix of certain standard events combined with some “wild card” events. This follows the logic that other countries have used to increase participation.
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records:
Eliminates the need for so many models to compete in a contest year.
Exact wording for rule revision as it should appear:
6.6.1 Standard Events:
No less than 50% of the meet weighing factor shall consist of any combination of the following events:
- 1/2A Parachute Duration (including multi-round and FAI)
- A Parachute Duration (including multi-round and FAI)
- 1/2A Streamer Duration (including multi-round and FAI)
- A Streamer Duration (including multi-round and FAI)
- B Streamer Duration (including multi-round and FAI)
- A Boost Glide Duration (including multi-round and FAI)
- A Rocket Glide Duration (including multi-round and FAI)
- A Helicopter Duration (including multi-round and FAI)
- B Eggloft Duration
- C Eggloft Duration
- C Eggloft Altitude
- Predicted Duration
- Predicted Altitude
- Sport Scale
- Scale
- Concept Scale
- Classic Model
- Spot Landing
- Fragile Precision Payload
- Dual Fragile Precision Payload
Voting Results: Total – 90 Yes – 25 No – 65 Fails 27.8%
RCP# 2014-11 Limit Mission Points Click Here to view comments on this RCP
Submitted by: Brian Guzek
Brief summary of the proposed change:
Limit mission points awarded to scale models to audible or visual effects.
State logic and intent of change:
At recent NARAMs, several competitors have included in their scale models various electronic devices designed to “simulate” telemetry or other functions of the vehicle modeled. The intent of a scale model is to display maximum craftsmanship in the build and showmanship during flight.
These devices add little if any value on either of these points.
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records:
No effect on records. Small change to judging criteria, but no increase or decrease in time or difficulty in running a meet or judging a scale event.
Exact wording for rule revision as it should appear:
Sections 50.13.1, 53.13.1, 55.6.1
Mission points are awarded for appropriate and scale-like operation of the model during flight. All operations must be either visual or audible in nature. Examples include, but are not limited to, staging, clustering, gliding, spin, drop-away boosters. Any such operation must comply fully with the safety standards set forth in this NAR Sporting Code. If it does not, the entry shall be disqualified. The RSO is the only official who may judge the safety qualities of the operation.
Voting Results: Total – 84 Yes – 49 No – 35 Fails 58.3%
RCP# 2014-12 Super Regional Click Here to view comments on this RCP
Submitted by: Ryan Coleman NAR #59361
Brief summary of the proposed change:
To incentivize contestants to hold and attend large meets by creating a sanctioned class of meet larger than a regional, dubbed the Super-Regional. It may take many clubs working together to put on such a meet, but the additional points available by flying one of these meets will outweigh the maximum number of regular Contest Year points currently available to contestants.
Effect on Current Competition & NAR Records:
Currently, the way to maximize pre-NARAM points in to attend 4 regionals, however beyond the minimum of 10 competitors there is little incentive to attract additional competitors. In the 2012-2013 Contest Year, 29 of the 46 regionals held had only 10 or 11 competitors, only 2 had more than 20. By encouraging clubs to host larger competitions through additional available points, we can hope to grow NAR Competition.
Currently, the maximum CF*WF number is 960. Adding a Super-Regional meet with a CF of 4 and total WF of 100 yields the following possibilities for contestants:
4 Regionals = 4 * 3 * 80 = 960 (old maximum)
3 Super-Regionals = 3 * 4 * 100 = 1200 (new maximum, though hard to achieve)
2 Super-Regionals + 1 Regional + 1 Local meet = 2 * 4 * 100 + 1 * 3 * 80 + 1 * 1 * 40 = 1080
2 Super-Regionals + 2 Open Meets = 2 * 4 * 100 + 2 * 2 * 60 = 1040
1 Super-Regional + 2 Regionals + 1 Open Meet = 1 * 4 * 100 + 2 * 3 * 80 + 1 * 2 * 60 = 1000
1 Super-Regional + 4 Open Meets = 1 * 4 * 100 + 4 * 2 * 60 = 880
This is just a sample of the possibilities.
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records:
There will be no effect on records.
Exact wording for rule revision as it should appear:
Add Section 6.3.7 Super-Regional
A Super-Regional meet must meet all the conditions of the Regional Meet plus the following additional restrictions:
- a) No fewer than 20 contestants must be present
- b) At least two flying days must be scheduled for the competition, with a minimum of 12 hours of flying time available overall.
Super-Regional Meets have a Contest Factor of 4.
In Section 6.6, add an entry for the Super-Regional, giving it a Total Weighting Factor of 100.
In Section 6.8, change the following sentence: “Application for sanction of a model rocket competition shall be made to the NAR Regional Contest Board at least thirty days in advance of the date of the competition, on the standard form Application for a Contest Sanction, which is available from the NAR Regional Contest Board.” to
“Application for sanction of a model rocket competition shall be made to the NAR Regional Contest Board at least thirty days in advance of the date of the competition, on the standard form Application for a Contest Sanction, which is available from the NAR Regional Contest Board. Super-Regional Meets must be sanctioned at least sixty days in advance of the date of the competition.”
And change this part “The thirty-day advance notice requirement may be waived at the discretion of the NAR Regional Contest Board.” to “The thirty-day advance notice requirement may be waived at the discretion of the NAR Regional Contest Board. The sixty-day notice requirement for Super-Regional meets may be waived only at the discretion of the NAR Contest Board Chair.”
Voting Results: Total – 89 Yes – 33 No – 56 Fails 37.1%
RCP# 2014-13 NAR Website Mandatory Meet Posting Click Here to view comments on this RCP
Submitted by: Ryan Coleman NAR #59361
Brief summary of the proposed change:
Logic & Intent: Increase the fairness of competition by requiring all meets to be posted to the NAR website for at least 21 days prior to the competition (giving the NAR RCBCs time to sanction the meet at least 30 days beforehand).
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records:
Competitors will have a single place to check for meets in their area. The NAR website does not suffer printing delays and can be updated to include all meets easily, but only if CDs are required to submit meets. There will be no effect on records.
Exact wording for rule revision as it should appear:
Add the following paragraph to Section 6.8:
“All NAR Competitions must be posted to the NAR Launch Calendar on the NAR website at least 21 days prior to the meet start.
Voting Results: Total – 85 Yes – 57 No – 28 Passes 67.1%
RCP# 2014-14 Variable Event Scoring based on number of competitors Click Here to view comments on this RCP
Submitted by: Ryan Coleman NAR #59361
Brief summary of the proposed change:
Logic & Intent: The current scoring system does not reward competitors for recruiting additional contestants. Change the scoring system from the static 10 points for 1st, 6 points for 2nd, etc. to one where contestants score more points if they achieve a better score than many other competitors. Keep a small bonus in place for 1st place as winning the event should still be appropriately rewarded.
This also avoids the “fifth place” problem, where many competitors see that their score cannot be improved to above 4th place (in a multi-round event for instance) so they quit flying. In this system, getting 5th is much better than getting last, however in the current system they are equivalent.
The scoring system is 1 point for flight points, an additional point for every 3 competitors bested (either higher or lower, depending on the event), and an additional bonus 2 points for placing 1st. As before, disqualifications are worth 0 points. Sample tables below:
2 competitors:
1st: 3 points
2nd: 1 point
3 competitors:
1st: 3 points
2nd & 3rd: 1 point each
4 competitors:
1st: 4 points
2nd through 4th: 1 point each
10 competitors:
1st: 5 points
2nd through 4th: 3 points each
5th through 7th: 2 points each
8th through 10th: 1 point each
20 competitors:
1st: 9 points
2nd: 7 points
3rd through 5th: 6 points each
6th through 8th: 5 points each
9th through 11th: 4 points each
12th through 14th: 3 points each
15th through 17th: 2 points each
18th through 20th: 1 point each
20 competitors, 5 disqualifications:
1st: 9 points
2nd: 7 points
3rd through 5th: 6 points each
6th through 8th: 5 points each
9th through 11th: 4 points each
12th through 14th: 3 points each
15th: 2 points
16th-20th (disqualified): 0 points
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records:
Competitions will be incentivized to grow rather than remain small. Recruiting additional contestants will lead to an increase in points for everyone, never a decrease. No change to records.
Exact wording for rule revision as it should appear:
Rule 13.1 to be replaced with the following: Competition points shall be awarded to each contestant on the basis of the following schedule:
0 points per event for disqualification.
1 point per event for making at least one qualified, official flight (flight points).
Additional 1 point per event for every 3 contestants whose score is bettered (scored higher or lower, depending on the event).
Additional 3 points per event for placing 1st (besting all other contestants’ scores).
Note that “Track Lost”, “Track Not Closed”, and “No Return”, if not disqualified for other reasons, may not place in an event, but still receive flight points.
Voting Results: Total – 93 Yes – 10 No – 83 Fails 10.8%
RCP# 2014-15 Raise requirement for a division from 2 competitors to 3 Click Here to view comments on this RCP
Submitted by: Ryan Coleman NAR #59361
Brief summary of the proposed change:
Logic & Intent: The current scoring system requires just 2 competitors per division and event. This incentivizes small meets where the number of competitors is low. Raise this number to 3 and current contestants will need to recruit more contestants to fill their divisions at their contests.
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records:
Competition divisions will get bigger by necessity and more contestants will be recruited to rocketry.
Exact wording for rule revision as it should appear:
Change Section 9.6 from “At least two official entries in an event must be passed by the Safety Check Officer and must attempt to make official flights before points can be awarded in the event. This applies also where an event is flown in competition divisions; i.e., two entries for each division. If an event must be flown in combined competition divisions because of insufficient entries, only adjacently entered divisions may have their flight records combined. For this purpose, a Team shall compete in the division of its oldest member.” to
“At least three official entries in an event must be passed by the Safety Check Officer and must attempt to make official flights before points can be awarded in the event. This applies also where an event is flown in competition divisions; i.e., three entries for each division. If an event must be flown in combined competition divisions because of insufficient entries, only adjacently entered divisions may have their flight records combined. For this purpose, a Team shall compete in the division of its oldest member.”
Voting Results: Total – 88 Yes – 18 No – 70 Fails 21.4%
RCP# 2014-17 Failed Mission Points Penalty Click Here to view comments on this RCP
Submitted by: Patrick McCarthy NAR #20148
Brief summary of the proposed change: In Craftsmanship events that feature Mission Points, a failure to perform the designated mission will result in a loss of points. In other words, penalize competitors for failure to achieve their designated “Mission” in events with “Mission Points” Flight Scoring.
Logic and intent of change:
Mission Points are intended to mimic “real world” performance of the prototype. As the Pink Book states, “mission points are awarded for appropriate and scale-like operation of the model during flight.”
In the real world, if a flight suffers some sort of malfunction and cannot perform its mission or an on-board systems breakdown results in a failure to achieve the flight’s goals, the entire flight ends up being designated a “failure.” Mission “failures” in the real world can result in negative consequences such as loss of payment for that flight due to contractual non-performance, not capturing data on unique events (e.g., missing critical scientific data during a solar eclipse), cancellation of follow-on contracts and loss of future business. If scale models are truly intended to be reflections of their real world prototypes, they should suffer the same kinds of ill effects if they do not achieve their mission. The intent of this change is to apply a similar non-performance penalty in events with Mission Points.
Yes, currently the Pink Book allows for judges to deduct some General Flight points due to adverse effects of Mission Point failure. Per the Pink Book (e.g., 53.13.2): “if the general flight performance of the model is adversely affected by the failure of one or more of these [mission point] aspects, points may be deducted from General Flight.” However, due to the higher point totals available from Mission Points (200) vice General Flight (100), competitors can and do take gambles by attempting mission point activities — with no penalty if they do not succeed. Currently there are few negative consequences for failing to achieve a designated mission. (That is other than mission point failures that result in a disqualification on safety grounds.)
The intent of this change is to penalize the competitor for Mission failures other than those that are Safety-related. For example, if their altimeter fails to work, if they do not collect video data from their on-board camera, if their transmitter does not telemeter data as planned, or if all the motors in their cluster do not ignite as intended, then the “mission” has not been performed and there should be a penalty imposed.
Suggested penalty should be equal to the amount of points the Judge would have awarded had the mission facet been successfully completed or the number of points achievable under NAR Mission Point Guidelines, whichever is applicable. For example, if the Judge was going to award five points for each motor in a cluster, failure to ignite one of the motors would result in a five point penalty. If a Judge intended to award 25 points for successful data capture by an altimeter, failure of that altimeter should result in a 25 point penalty.
Mission Point deductions shall also affect the overall total Flight Points as follows: If there are no other Mission Points from which to deduct the penalty, the deduction should be subtracted from the General Flight points. For example, if a model successfully completes a staging operation and scores 20 mission points for that facet, but there is a malfunction of the intended video camera mission (for which the Judge was going to award 25 points), the 25-point penalty should be deducted from the overall Flight Point total (in this case, minus 20 points from Mission and minus five points from General Flight).
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records:
- Places more emphasis on successful performance of mission.
- More closely emulates real world prototype operation.
- Reduces contestant incentive to try riskier flying strategies aimed at garnering mission points.
- No effect on NAR records.
Exact wording for rule revision as it should appear:
Add to the Mission point sections of the following:
- 50.13.1 (Scale)
- 53.13.1 (Sport Scale)
- 55.6.1 (Plastic Model conversion)
(By reference, also affects Scale Altitude, Super Scale, Space Systems, and Concept Scale)
“Failure of a designated mission facet shall result in a deduction of points equal to the maximum achievable points had that particular mission facet succeeded. If the number of deducted penalty points is greater than the total Mission points already awarded for other mission activities, the penalty shall be deducted from General Flight points.”
Voting Results: Total – 89 Yes – 31 No – 58 Fails 34.8%