Hi Again District 9 Indoor FFers,
I have gotten precious little feedback on these proposals. Please give
them a read and get back to me with how you'd like me to vote. Ballots
arrive early next week and are due back at AMA by 1 May.
TIA
Don DeLoach
> 19-01 (Proposer: Jerry Murphy)
>
> General Section
>
> SUMMARY:
> AMA General rules page 21 Records Section 3 states:
> When the specifications of a model, the method of timing, and the
> conditions of flight comply with the rules of more than one class or
> category, such model with a single flight (or single series of flights)
> may establish national records in more than one class or category if the
> performance exceeds the existing records. Responsibility for applying
> for national records rests with the flier and Contest Director
>
> EXACT PROPOSED WORDING:
> Page 21 Section 3 Multiple Records
> National records can be established for only a single class or category
> declared in advance before any flights are recorded.
>
> LOGIC BEHIND PROPOSED CHANGE. STATE INTENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE:
> The present rule implies that a competitor could apply the performance
> recorded in one class or category to additional classes or categories as
> well even though the competitor logged no performance in the other class
> or category. An example could be a contestant flying E-36 records a
> total score greater than the winner of AMA A Electric. The contestant
> then tells the contest director to apply his E-36 times to the A
> Electric even though no flights were flown in that class and be declared
> the winner, and a possible National Record as well. This same situation
> could arise in AMA gas and AMA Classic classes or catagories.
>
> EFFECT IF ANY ON CURRENT AMA RECORDS:
> No effect on current records. Any current records currently on the books
> should remain as it will be difficult to determine which of any records
> were set this way.
>
>
>
> GEN 19-02 (Proposer: Don Slusarscyk)
>
> General Section
>
> SUMMARY:
> To allow each individual Contest Board the ability to decide if they
> will continue or discontinue the practice of setting multiple records
> with one flight. This proposal adds paragraph 3.2 to the General Rules
> "Records" section (page 22). Paragraph 3.1 is the current wording and is
> unchanged.
>
> EXACT PROPOSED WORDING:
> 3. Multiple Records
> 3.1. When the specifications of a model, the method of timing, and the
> conditions of flight comply with the rules of more than one class or
> category, such model with a single flight (or single series of flights)
> may establish national records in more than one class or category if the
> performance exceeds the existing records. Responsibility for applying
> for national records rests with the flier and Contest Director.
> 3.2. Individual Contest Boards with record setting classes, by default,
> will permit the setting of multiple records as specified in 3.1.
> Individual Contest Boards may restrict or prohibit the setting
> of multiple records for specific classes or categories by means of the
> Competition Regulations for those classes.
>
> LOGIC BEHIND PROPOSED CHANGE. STATE INTENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE:
> For at least 49 years (based on available published AMA rule books) the
> AMA has allowed a model that fits multiple classes to set multiple
> national records with one flight. This was most importantly true when I
> was a Junior setting my first indoor National records as I was able to
> set multiple records with one flight with a model that fit the rules of
> two classes. Presently there are still standing Indoor FF national
> records that were set in this way and some Indoor FF classes were
> intentionally created to allow this overlap to occur.
>
> Because of a recent General Rules proposal that wants prohibit this long
> standing practice, it has become evident that various modeling
> disciplines may intentionally or unintentionally become affected by such
> a General Rules changes. Due to the way voting is done on a General
> Rules changes, it is possible that a rule change may pass even though
> one specific contest board votes unanimously against the proposal. This
> essentially allows other Contest Boards to alter the rules of a board
> they are not a member of.
>
> This rules proposal allows each affected Contest Board to decide on
> their own if they wish to continue or discontinue the multiple records
> practice based on the needs of their specific sport. This proposal by
> default will keep the rules exactly the same as they have been for 49+
> years. So for those Contest Boards that are content with the multi
> records practice, nothing else further needs to be done after adopting
> this proposal. For those Contest Boards that would prefer to restrict or
> discontinue the multi records practice, this proposal adds a pathway for
> those Contest Boards to make those changes by means of their Competition
> Regulations.
>
> EFFECT IF ANY ON CURRENT AMA RECORDS:
> No effect on current records
>
>
>
> GEN19-03 (Proposed by: Don DeLoach)
>
> General Section
>
> SUMMARY:
> Change requirement in General Rules that AMA Record Trials require only
> one timekeeper for record attempts.
>
> EXACT PROPOSED WORDING:
> Change on page 21 of General Rules from "The CD must satisfy himself
> that every applicable AMA regulation has been complied with. Where a
> record is established at a record trial and involves a timed flight, the
> record time must be the average of times recorded by two (2) timers
> holding valid AMA licenses. The record applicant and the CD may not
> serve as timers."
>
> to
>
> "The CD must satisfy himself that every applicable AMA regulation has
> been complied with. Where a record is established at a record trial and
> involves a timed flight, the record time must be recorded by any single
> timekeeper who holds an AMA license. The record applicant and the CD may
> not serve as timers."
>
> LOGIC BEHIND PROPOSED CHANGE. STATE INTENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE:
> Currently National Records may be set at any sanctioned A through AAAA
> contest with a single timekeeper, but Record Trials require two
> timekeepers. This is illogical and inconsistent.
>
> EFFECT IF ANY ON CURRENT AMA RECORDS:
> none
>
>
>
> IFF19-03 (Proposed by: Don DeLoach)
>
> SUMMARY:
> Removes 'Builder of Model' requirement for event 227 (P-18). State exact
> wording proposed for the Competition Regulations. List paragraph number
> where applicable. Example: Change "quote present rule book wording" to
> "exact wording required". 25. P-18 Provisional (for event 227) 25.7 The
> 'Builder of the Model' rule (AMA General Rules, section 10 part 6) shall
> not apply to P-18.
>
> LOGIC BEHIND PROPOSED CHANGE. STATE INTENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE:
> The time is right for the AMA Indoor Contest Board to thoughtfully
> consider the Builder of the Model. The simple fact is that a significant
> number of Free Flighters would much rather fly than build. Amid an ever
> changing (and in many cases growing) world of varied model aircraft
> flying, I'm afraid Indoor FF will just continue to shrink unless we try
> some new ideas. In short, we could very well be missing out on
> opportunities to grow Indoor.
>
> My proposal would only eliminate BoM for P-18. This seems like a
> low-risk event in which to gauge interest in non-BoM indoor flying. No
> records would be affected since P-18 is Provisional. I envision clubs
> having a stock of RTF P-18s to lend out to prospective flyers at flying
> events, and even given away. This has been tried with considerable
> success in Outdoor FF since the BoM was dropped wholesale about 10 years
> ago
>
> EFFECT IF ANY ON CURRENT AMA RECORDS:
> none
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Received on Fri Apr 13 2018 - 17:51:17 CEST