Re: Proposal to add High Altitude indoor records

From: William Gowen <wdgowen_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 16:19:32 -0500

I don't have a problem with the logic of this proposal. But it would double
the number of possible national records. As it is now the AMA has a really
hard time keeping up with records listings for all the different model
classes and categories. Having twice as many sounds like a nightmare.

But incompetence shouldn't be a reason to do it or not do it
On Feb 13, 2014 3:57 PM, "Jake Palmer" <82.jake_at_gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> The Cat II building that WMC uses now has speakers hanging from chains
> attached to the ceiling beams. This makes it dangerous to spend a lot of
> time banging on the ceiling, and many models have been lost since they were
> installed. I personally won't fly a full motor on any model that I want to
> take home with me. Should this building also have a separate set of
> records because it doesn't have an unobstructed ceiling?
>
> I think this proposal is unfair to other buildings that have different
> undesirable traits. Site records exist for a reason, and if breaking
> records is what motivates someone they still have that opportunity.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:10 PM, <ykleetx_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> This was recently proposed by Jerry Murphy, long-time freeflighter from
>> Colorado Springs.
>>
>> *Brief summary of the proposed change**. Add a new set of record
>> categories for performance in sites located at higher altitudes .*
>>
>> *These new categories would be based on the same ceiling heights as the
>> current categories except they would apply to sites*
>>
>> *located at elevations of 5,000 feet above sea lever or greater.*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Flying for Record. **National record performances shall be recognized
>> for flights made in each of the following types of buildings:*
>>
>> *Category I Buildings having ceilings less than 8 meters (26' 3").*
>>
>> *Category II Buildings having ceilings between 8 and 15 meters (26' 3" to
>> 49' 2.5").*
>>
>> *Category III Buildings having ceilings between 15 and 30 meters (49'
>> 2.5" to 98' 5").*
>>
>> *Category IV Buildings having ceiling over 30 meters (higher than 98'
>> 5").*
>>
>> *Category I HA ( High Altitude) Buildings located at an elevation of 5000
>> feet above sea level or greater having ceilings less than 8 meters (26'3")*
>>
>> *Category II HA (High Altitude) Buildings located at an elevation of
>> 5,000 feet above sea level or greater having ceilings between 8 meters and
>> 15 meters (26'3" to 19' 2.5")*
>>
>> *Category III HA (High Altitude) Buildings located at an elevation of
>> 5,000 feet above sea level or greater having ceilings between 15 and 30
>> meters (49' 2.5" to 98' 5")*
>>
>> *Category IV HA High Altitude) Buildings located at an elevation of 5,000
>> feet above sea level or greater having ceiling over 30 meters high (98' 5")*
>>
>> *Logic behind proposed change, including alleged shortcomings of the
>> present rules. State intent for future reference.*
>>
>> *There are many very good indoor sites located in the Rocky Mountain West
>> that fail to attract the top level indoor competitors because it is not
>> possible to set records at the altitude of these venues. This results in
>> the sanctioning of events conflicting with sanctioned events in these sites
>> resulting in financial losses to the clubs attempting to increase indoor
>> participation in their area. This has a negative impact on the club's
>> ability to be involved with STEM and Science Olympiad programs. The
>> establishing of the new high altitude record categories will create an
>> incentive for current record holders to fly in these events. An another
>> benefit of the addition of these new high altitude record categories is the
>> clubs will benefit from learning form the top competitors who come to try
>> for these new records.*
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Thu Feb 13 2014 - 13:19:33 CET