Name: Steve Foster
Brief Summary of the Proposed Change: Disqualification of craftsmanship models that are missing significant components.
State Logic and Intent of Change: The spirit of craftsmanship entries is that the entries must fly as judged, however entries have been allowed to fly with significant changes for some flights (most always from a severely damaged first flight).
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records: None
Exact wording for the rule revision as it should appear (include section#): 51.11/52.10/55.5/56.4 replace with this rule Flight: An entry that does not make a safe, stable flight must be disqualified. Any flight including re-flights that are missing significant component(s) (i.e.; booster pods, fins, transitions, escape towers, payload sections, nose cones), must be disqualified. Any flight including re-fights may fly missing small surface details (i.e. non-functional lugs, antennas, landing pads/wheels, etc.), this will be scored as damage.
Also add rule 53.3.1: Flight: An entry that does not make a safe, stable flight must be disqualified. Scale altitude entries missing any items will receive an altitude score of 0 (zero).
6 Comments on RCP# 2019-04
I support this proposal. A scale (or scale altitude) model should fly in the same configuration as submitted for static judging.
There is the potential for some haziness regarding what qualifies as a "significant component". However, Scale is a judging event, and the judges will need to make the determination of "significant" versus "minor".
Regarding the revision of 51.11, 52.10. 55.5 and 56.4: It is not clear to me how the second and third sentence are to be scored. Will the disqualification be for parts shed/separated during flight that should have otherwise stayed attached or does this disqualify an entry that attempts a re-flight with parts missing as a result of the first flight? If the model makes a safe and stable flight but sheds components in a way that is not ruled as a safety hazard can this be assessed as damage points? Regarding Scale Altitude: I do not see where shedding of parts in flight, if not ruled as a safety hazard would be detrimental to an altitude attempt and thus would necessitate the negation of the altitude score. Certainly if parts that shed were ruled as a safety hazard then a disqualification would be in order.
Glenn, shedding parts could certainly reduce drag and weight, giving that entry and unfair advantage.
The confusing aspect of this rule change for me is that, as I read it, you must fly a second time (without significant parts) to be disqualified. If the judges know they will disqualify it for, say a missing booster pod, why can't they tell the modeler before they fly? Â If you are going down this route, wouldn't it make more sense to have a way for judges to evaluate a repaired flight attempt before launching it? What objective criteria would they use?
Also, the decision of what is a significant part is very subjective. If a Space X Falcon is missing a landing pad, is that a significant part? Some would say that is one of the most distinctive parts of that design. If a clear plastic fin is missing but replaced with a balsa fin, the functionality is the same but the visual impact can be huge.Â
I hope there are some clarifying suggestion put forth on this one. Â