From 2010 records listing these records were apparently set with the same
model and same flights:
Cat 1:
LPP and OPP JR. held by David Rigotti
LPP and OPP Sr. held by Don Deloach
HLS and EZB Sr. held by Doug Schaefer
Cabin and Manhattan Sr. held by Don Deloach
SCLG and UCLG Jr. held by Michaela Brown
SCLG and UCLG Sr. held by Elizabeth Brown
Cat 2:
HLS and F1D Jr. held by Doug Schaefer
IS and EZB Jr. held by Joshua Merseal
OPP and PP Sr. held by David Rigotti
At this point I got tired of looking.
On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 5:39 PM, Kurt Krempetz krempetz_at_yahoo.com
[Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> First, I agree the rules allow times set in SCLG can also count as
> records for UCLG. I am not trying to imply anything you did was not within
> the rules. I have always been very impressed with your WIF7 and these
> records and I congratulate you for setting them, it was a special model,
> had lots of new concepts that worked well and I currently use some of these
> concepts on my models. Also, I am not aware of another model that had
> or currently holds records in both SCLG and UCLG. other than your WIF7.
> It was a very impressive accomplishment.
>
> The reason I think I would like this changed is that I find it
> "strange" that the record has the same times for both events and someone
> that not familiar with the situation would question this. It could also be
> one lucky flight, that either had great air, flew inside girders or??? I
> guess I think giving someone two records for some lucky flight isn't
> "right", giving them one record is fine and all that flight deserves.
> So, this does not apply to your situation, you and I know that you could
> have put two more flights in, or use two other flights that you had with
> WIF7 and still have both records. It would be very unlikely both records
> will have exactly the same times, so in my mind it doesn't look
> "strange".
>
> I don't have strong feeling about changing this, that is why I
> didn't put in a proposal to change it. But I would not object if someone
> else who felt it strongly about it made a proposal to not allow this, but
> the way the current proposal is written I can not endorse. Josh also
> post about FAI rules which give merit for keeping the rules as they are.
>
> Cheers,
> Kurt
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* "William Gowen wdgowen_at_gmail.com [Indoor_Construction]" <
> Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
> *To:* "Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com" <Indoor_Construction_at_
> yahoogroups.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 7, 2018 3:06 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Indoor_Construction] AMA General Rules Proposals that
> will affect AMA Indoor
>
>
> 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
> <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>>
> *To:* "Indoor_Construction_at_ yahoogroups.com
> <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>" <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
> <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
> <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 - 23:18:54 CET