Kurt - As long as I've been flying IFF there have been records set in SCLG
that also counted as records in UCLG. My own Cat 1 records were set this
way. Some of he older Cat 1 and Cat 2 records were set this way. As far as
I'm concerned if you break two records with a legal model then you own the
records. Why would it be any other way?
On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 3:27 PM, Kurt Krempetz krempetz_at_yahoo.com
[Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I pretty much agree with both Mike and Josh.
>
> For #2: it will pretty much make indoor--> "provisional" I don't
> think indoor and the people that compete in indoor should be downgraded to
> "provisional". I also don't understand how this rule reduces effort or
> work, actually I think it will increases the effort and work for the AMA,
> Contest Directors, Contest Boards, etc.
>
> For #1: I think the proposal is poorly written. I feel the example
> given in the proposal should not be allowed, but the proposal as written
> prevents things that I think should be allowed. I have no problem with
> someone setting multiple records with the same model in different events (I
> am assume the model meets the requirement of each event) but one flight (or
> multiple flights) should only qualify for one event standing/record.
>
> Here is an example using two events which I am very familiar with.
> .
> A standard catapult glider (Event 218) also meets the requirements of a
> unlimited catapult glider(Event 219). These events used a two flight total
> for scoring/records. So there is nothing wrong with flying a Standard
> glider in Unlimited. But I am not in favor of someone using the same two
> flights to post scores in both events or use the same two flights to set
> a records in both events which I believe the current rules allow. I
> have no problems with someone using the same model and having 4 different
> flights to win both events and be given records in both events.
>
>
> So I encourage the contest board to vote "NO" on both proposals as
> written. If proposal #1 was rewritten, I might change my opinion.
>
> Cheers,
> Kurt
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* "Mike and Marelet Kirda mkirda_at_sbcglobal.net
> [Indoor_Construction]" <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
> *To:* "Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com" <Indoor_Construction_at_
> yahoogroups.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 7, 2018 12:23 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Indoor_Construction] AMA General Rules Proposals that
> will affect AMA Indoor
>
>
> Greetings.
>
> So I am not privy to the rationale behind either one of these two rules
> proposals.
>
> Any rules change should be made to rectify a problem with the existing
> rules.
>
> For #1, I don't understand the problem. If a model that meets two sets of
> rules is flown and breaks a record in those two events, then the record is
> broken in both events. I don't see any harm in this, so it doesn't make
> much sense to me why this proposal even exists.
>
> For #2, the proposal as written will take a sledgehammer to the indoor
> events. An easy loophole would be to have ten people just sign up for every
> event each year and keep all the events as is.
>
> If I have to guess the rationale behind proposal #2, it would be that
> indoor has too many events and too few participants and this popularity
> contest is a way to cull that number of events down.
>
> Let's say that I even agree with this assessment: that we need to cull the
> number of events in Indoor.
> The real question then is: Is this the right way to go about it?
>
> To answer that question, I would say No.
>
> Careful consideration and extensive consultation with the existing indoor
> fliers is what is needed.
> Local clubs fly events that appeal to them, however not all local fliers
> attend the NATS.
> Why this is would be a discussion for another day. But the lack of fliers
> at the national contest determining what can be flown locally is sort of
> backwards.
>
> Either way, I would urge the contest board to vote NO on both proposals.
> At the same time, I would urge them to figure out how to:
> 1) Increase participation at the NATS, and to
> 2) Begin consultation with local clubs to see if culling any indoor events
> makes sense.
>
> Regards.
> Mike Kirda
>
>
> On Sunday, January 7, 2018 1:28 AM, "Don Slusarczyk don_at_slusarczyk.com
> [Indoor_Construction]" <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Dear Indoor Community,
>
> I want to point out to the indoor community two AMA general rule proposals
> that will have a direct effect AMA indoor records and AMA Indoor events.
> Both proposals are listed here.
> http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/ruleproposals/indoorff.aspx
>
> These are listed under Indoor as they are changes to the AMA general rules
> which apply to all models so Indoor is included.
>
> *IFF 19-01*
> This will eliminate allowing one flight to set two national records at one
> time. As a Junior I set records with one flight with a model fitting two
> classes, such as EZB and Int Stick, 65cm F1D and Hand Launch Stick. This
> practice would no longer be allowed. Only one class record could be flown
> for at a time.
>
> *IFF 19-02*
> This will take AMA events that do not received 10 entries at the Indoor
> Nats during a 2 year rules cycle and reduce those events from official AMA
> events to AMA "provisional" status which means national records are no
> longer kept. After two more years, if still below 10 entries then the event
> is deleted from the rule book.
>
> I feel these are important proposals that must be reviewed by the Indoor
> community before the March 15, 2018 rules proposal deadline. .
> -
> Don Slusarczyk
> Indoor Contest Board Chairman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sun Jan 07 2018 - 21:06:26 CET