RCC-09-10 – Remove size class 1/2A

Forum for AMA Contest Board rules change proposal discussion

Moderator: hbartel

Post Reply
Lou Melancon
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2001 5:16 pm
Contact:

RCC-09-10 – Remove size class 1/2A

Post by Lou Melancon »

<b>RCC-09-10 – Remove size class 1/2A from Open RC Combat rules (Event 755) as it has not been flown for over five (5) years. </b>
Delete “Open 1/2Aâ€
rccrpilot
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:37 am
Location: USA

Post by rccrpilot »

Sounds OK to me.
montague
Posts: 1639
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 3:24 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by montague »

I actually don't see a reason to remove the class. There have been some people playing around some some 1/2A combat, using the open rules and some experimental limited rules. It seems to have died out a bit recently, but I can't say for sure. But just because there haven't been NPS contests, doesn't mean it's not flown.

I don't think having the extra class dilutes anything in this case, unlike 2105.
Hat Trick
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 6:58 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Hat Trick »

I'm pretty neutral. The 1/2 A that has been flown is basically a limited 1/2 A. There are some screaming 1/2 A engines as Lee demonstrated at the Nats once but there has never been an event that I know of.
Lou Melancon
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2001 5:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Lou Melancon »

To all,
I suggested to several folks who were considering asking for the RCCA class to be added to the AMA rule book that they should take the classes out that weren't being flown when they asked to add a new class.

I am leaning towards voting to remove events that are not flown. My thinking is that we don't need competition regulations for events that have no competition.
montague
Posts: 1639
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 3:24 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by montague »

I'll vote for this change in the first round, and I'm not opposed to it, I'm just not sure if it's necessary is all.

I don't disagree with the concept of keeping excess, unused things out of the rules and removing deadweight, but in this case, the only place it shows up is in the chart of class and engine size in the open rules. (unlike the 2105 rules that are all through the scale class rulebook).

Still, we can vote yes in the first round and see if there is any push-back from the pilots out there. If we get no response, then there's no reason not to go foward with the change.
Lou Melancon
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2001 5:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Lou Melancon »

Kirk,
I think that is a very good approach.
montague
Posts: 1639
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 3:24 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by montague »

yeah, personally, I don't see any proposals that are so out there as to be worth voting down in the first round. I will wind up voting "yes" in the first round on all of them, I think.

Then we can see what kind of reactions are out there, and what we get in the way of cross proposals. Since we have the final vote later, there's no harm in going through the process, and I think all the proposals have plenty enough merit to be worth the process. (even if I'm not sure how I'll vote in the final vote yet).

Also, I like that the AMA will make the rules changes more public than we can ourselves on this form, etc. That gives more time and more chances for more input from pilots both RCCA members and non-RCCA members.
pinoy
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2003 7:09 am
Location: Philippines

Post by pinoy »

I agree to remove a class if it is not being flown for more than three years, in this case five years.
Hat Trick
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 6:58 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Hat Trick »

votes due 12-15!

I agree
User avatar
Which_way_is_up
Posts: 1637
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 8:54 am
Location: Dallas, Texas

Post by Which_way_is_up »

Yes
Post Reply

Return to “AMA Contest Board”