I was looking at the RCP forum and found this one to be a bit confusing...
Summary: Remove the incentive to fly untested and often unsafe models in craftsmanship events by making damage cumulative. Crashing the model and flying a model that has been patched together and looks terrible will no longer be rewarded. The exception is models that undergo a catastrophic failure, damage will not include damage done by the catastrophic failure.
Logic: It has become an accepted strategy in many craftsmanship events to fly untested and often unsafe models in craftsmanship events. As damage is not cumulative, any damage from a first flight crash is not counted against the modeler on a subsequent reflight, allowing badly damaged models to place using this strategy. This is harmful as it goes against the spirit of the rules to produce nicely crafted flyable models; it encourages unsafe rockets to be flown and encourages disposable models that can not be entered competitively again.
Effect: Craftsmanship events strategy will have to change, models will not be able to be flown, "re-kitted", put back together and reflown without penalty. Test flying will be encouraged and unsafe models will not fly as frequently.
No records are kept in craftsmanship events, so no effect on NAR records.
Wording: Add the following rule as number 50.15, 51.6, 52.8, 53.15, 54.8, 55.8, 56.8, P57.9:
Damage shall be judged cumulatively with each flight, assessed from the judged condition of the model to the condition presented to the judge post-flight. The only exception to this is damage caused in the course of a catastrophic failure under rule 11.5, in which case such damage shall not be counted against the flight points.
My question begins with the first line; what incentive can there be to fly untested/unsafe rockets that crash?
Rule 3.7 states that models my fly in a stable manner.
Rule 3.5 states that models must have a suitable recovery system.
Rule 9.3 states that models my fly in a stable manner or be disqualified.
Rule 11.4 states that the CD can disqualify and contestant from an event
or meet if he/she fails to practice or observe reasonable safety measures...
Rule 11.5 states that if a rocket crashes because it was not stable, the flight is not official.
Rules 50.1, 53.11, 54.5, 55.4, and 56.6 all state that failure of a rocket to fly in a safe and stable manner means disqualification from the event.
It seems to me that if a rocket is "Unsafe" and crashes, it should be removed from competition. AND if it has flown once and CRASHED, then the RSO should boot the model from any other events - or at least impound it [Rule 9.10]
So, I'm asking the contest-types with far more experience than I - "What the futz, Gus?" What is going on int the craftsmanship events?