The most current AC Class Rule is version 1.9 I believe. The process involves teams asking for an RFI to get an interpretation on a design implementation to use legally within the class rule (RFI#70 & #72), or to further clarify specific wording in the rule (i.e. RFI#6).

The AC Class Rule that comes into play here is 15.xx. RFI#6 early on clarified what was manual control vs. electronic control from an electric signal for control surfaces.

NZ RFI'ed (request for interpretation) 3 specific design configurations within (RFI#70), in which, in my opinion, each one leading the MC down the rabbit hole with RFI#70. They received a favorable ruling on the 3rd design, which changed the wording to "control surfaces" which was different than the first 2 design configurations, which specified "daggerboard control". The entire interpretation was focused on the "air gap" which MC ruled was separate from control 15.3.

NZ immediately RFI'ed for ruling on RFI#72 and received ruling the same day as RFI#70. RFI#72 further favored NZ with the legal ruling to questions a,b,c,d, and e. This gave NZ legal authority to manage other control surfaces, ie. wing elements, etc. They also received a favorable ruling for audible signals to headsets based on sensor data.

FYI, MC earlier ruled against Blue Tooth.

Again, NZ played this brilliantly.

Here are the links (will open a new tab to a google cloud document):

AC Class Rule V1.9




USA #1006