FROM:	Jim  Filler, [103310,254]
TO:	Mark Johnson, [76670,1775]
	INTERNET:ZOG43Lyon@aol.com, INTERNET:ZOG43Lyon@aol.com
	Tom Lyon, [74640,407]
DATE:	7/10/97 11:08 PM
Re:	NPRM Comments '97


1997 NPRM COMMENTS 
General comments :
1) This election is INVALID per the NPRM process ! Publication of comments and a 
proper vote are still required.


700130-00
1) What is out of sync.? 
2) This proposal is redundent to commen sense.
3) Safety first 
4) Emmently logical 
5) Good idea.
6) The contents of the code should match the pink book.
7) Safety code is already mentioned. 


700060-00
1) Take out word or
2) Take out the word or
3) Then Sportsmanship after safety
4) Would not ( illegible) yes on after conclusion only, Bu poor results too subjective. 
5) Should prohibit withdrawl once an official flight has been made , period. 
6) Good addition.
7) Time to grow up
8) Wording is such that  Valid cause is still not included and defined as everthing 
other then poor score!
9) No reason to withdraw after the meet. 
10) An excuse can always be made to withdraw before a meet ends. 
11) This is a ggod idea to stop cheating.
12) Its poor sportsmanship to quit because of a low score. 


700080-00
1) It already says so- what isnt clear? 
2) Common sense !
3) Sounds fair.
4) Good clarification
5) Just say  One qualified Flight returned!
6) A DQ should never improve a score
7) This will tell people what they did wrong. 
8) This allows for better contest scoring. 
9) Redundent with rule 15.10 and or event rules.
10) Rule 10.1 and specific rules for various events are not ambiguoous.


700160-00
1)Needs to be more specific
2) Would allow anything to get a qualified flight.
3) Minimal performence standards should be expected. Flights now dqed would 
win places! Large sections would get flight points    
     for mediocre flights. 
4) Too hard to interpret and Id  hate to have a proper flight beat by a bad one. This 
always seems to crop up , usually by someone
who had a potentially event winning flight DQd because it didnt function properly! 
But the whole INTENT of an event is to
require it to work properly.  If Max Missle launches a 4 min. PD bird , which he 
loses, and I launch a 3 min. flight which I lose
and a 1 min. flight which I recover, Max must simply have a low-performance model 
to work properly for the win. O.K. , so his
chute fails to deploy , and it wads upinstead.  He gets maybe 15 seconds versus 
45 or so that he would have had. He still wins ! Id
feel a bit ripped in that scenario - the self-penalizing  is not a factor.
5) A model whos chute doesnt open can no way be considered safe, 
6) Common sense
7) Unnecessary _This is the way contest flights are currently judged or should  be.
8) Models should  work as designed  to be qualified.
9) Unnecessary improper deployment does not DQ a flight. 
10) I.E. should be E.G.
11) Ive lost rockets before and had chute failure, its embarrising enough without 
being cut from competition. 
12) Strongly  Against  !
13) This an excellent idea. 
 14) Sure..... and my Estes Alpha can be a boost glider. 
15) Seems unnecessary.
16) Would allow all pwa rg entries !


700030-00
1) Bring back thermalite, ban all cluster altitude
2) Cant get LEUP
3) All engines should ignite and this is the subject of another proposal.
4) Create new contest category , preserve classic clustering
5) Should not erase records.
6) How will simultaneous be defined? This ai a can of worms better left unopened. 
7) Its about time !
8) Possible new event? Similiar to BG vs. RG.
9) This would greatly reduce design flexibility and participation in the event. 
10) Airstarting should not be allowed.
11) Air-start is staging 
12) Retiring previous records will bring newcomers to cluster rocketry.
 13) Perhaps a seperate event- Modified cluster
14) Greatly against ! ! 
15) Air starts should be allowed. 
16) Removes some of the most creative realistic design possibilities. 
17) We want thermalite !
18) Its part of the event
19) I wouldnt mind that rule, but Im against all records being erased. 
20) I strongly agree with the author McCoythat airstarting is just another form of 
staging. Cluster ignition means all motors ignite
at 
       the same time or not at all.
21) Yes !!


700050-00 
1) Fix is to dump 1995 Rev. to definition of a stage! This is already in CL. Alt. Rules 
and go back to 1988 definition
2) Cant get LEUP
3) Too confusing with 700030-00
4) Airstarting should be expressly forbidded from all events with the exception of 
scale-class events
5)  A DQ should not set up a subsequent winning  flight 
6) Not the intent of this event.
7) Form a new contest category - dont change classic single stage.
8) This asnt supposed to be lumped into Cluster altitude, its a general definition.
9) Single motor rockets should not be made extinct by this rule.
10) Its part of Rocketry ( Leave it) 
11) I feel that is a form of parrellel staging 
12) No !
13) This is the intent of the event , dont stiffle creativity.
14) Airstarting should not be allowed. 
15) Air-start is staging Single stage models should not air start.
16) If 23.06 passed then the existing rule is a contrdiction. 
17) Doesnt help safety or anything else!
18) Use FAI definition of stage. 


700150-00
1) Ban all RC !
2) Is it the 92 or 94 revision?
3) If your model cant max, get a better model. 
4) Need new event set duration RC glider
5) Poorly worded, reword!
6) This is not the Gassaway book ! 
7) Lets see if it works.
8) Should be basic requirement for duration events.
9) 62.3 revision was O.K.   62.5 revision not O.K.
10) Dont encourage poor performance by changing rules. Make a new event.
11) Poorly written.
12) All boost gliders are not created equal and because of variation its still a fair 
contest. 

 
700110-00
1) This rule in effect for NARAM-38
2) Deja Vu 
3) Come on guys, get your act together! This rule already exists. Approved 7/96
4) Place and tropy for trash entries is absurd !
5) Judges should not be forced to reward bad/ incompetent  work
6) Am not in favor of mediocrity.
7) Current method is simply wrong.
8) Witholding places keeps the quality of presentations higher.
9) Take out phrase which repeats  which the judges feel.
10) Sounds like outcome based on education!
11) Air-starting is multi-staging
12) ACedemia should be held to a higher standardthen other events. 
13) Why should they be allowed to withhold? What if you have a lousy judge or a 
biased one? 
14) The judge needs a free hand. 
15) With four or fewer entries, junk should not place. 
16) Very poorly written.
17) A ( illegible) in and all else ( illegible) is not a contest characteristic. 
18) This would mandate that the first 4 reports , no matter how inferior or 
insufficient , receive places. 
19) R&D judges should be able to withhold a place. 
20) Further clarification needed for  this proposal.  
21) R&D unlike any other event requires this flexibility. 


700120-00
1) Make sure the changes get published !
2) Contest board simply need to simply submit formal proposals as needed.  
3) Sound and reasonable
4) This turns the contest board into a  political bureau