PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL MECHANICS CONTEST CHANGES
Submitted by: Michael Spiess
Submitted by: Todd Coons
Contestants
To be eligible to compete at the
state finals contest, a team must compete in a minimum of three of the following
field days: CSU Chico, Arbuckle, UC
Davis, Modesto JC, West Hill CC, Reedley CC, CSU Fresno or Merced CC.
Only
the top 24 teams, determined mathematically, will be eligible to compete at the
state finals contest. The formula to
calculate the 24 qualifying teams will be:
Weighted Score = (51 – Ranking) + (# of teams – Rank)/5.
There were too many problems at contests limiting participants in this contest. Give all teams the opportunity to compete at State Finals. As in the past if the State Finals location cannot handle the participants find another way that they can. Do not limit any students from completing the season at the State Finals.
Submitted by: Michael Spiess
Issue:
Current
code states “Each school will be made available a list of tools and
equipment to bring to the contest.” and
later states “No unauthorized notes, printed materials, or tools may be used
in any portion of the contest.”
Currently
a wide range of tools are being brought to the contest.
This creates confusion and congestion at the contest.
For example some schools will bring wood working benches to a contest
where tables or sawhorses are provided. These
can take up space making the work area cluttered and unsafe.
Coaches
complain if the list is not specific (“why didn’t you tell use we would NOT
need steel pipe tools?)
A
standardized list of tools would aid coaches and hosts.
It will give each team the same opportunity.
The use of power tools will typically give a significant time advantage
on many projects. The host school can create projects appropriate to the allowed
tools and expect the contestant to be familiar with the proper and safe
operation of the tools.
What
is an unauthorized tool? The code
does not prohibit any tools.
Recommendations:
Strike:
“Each
school will be made available a list of tools and equipment to bring to the
contest.”
Add:
1)
Each contestant (not shared) must have the following equipment:
·
Steel tape
·
#2 Pencil
·
Combination square
·
Safety Glasses
·
Calculator
2)
Each Team (4 contestants) may have only the following equipment:
[Add
list here. The code should list
authorized tools by skill area. Where
possible specifics should be listed (ex. Pipe
dies for ½” and ¾”, or fractional twist drills from 1/8” to ½” by
64ths). If allowed the
specific fixtures should be listed. For
example vise stands, woodworking benches, welding fixtures, etc.
Common arc and gas welding rod should be listed. ]
3)
Host school may modify the list by providing changes to list (additions or
deletions) 30 days prior to the contest.
4) Each contestant will return all team tools to the designated tool area at the end of the rotation. Tools left in the sub contest area may be confiscated for the duration of the contest.
5) Tools must be safe to operate (ex. guards in place). Unsafe tools area may be confiscated for the duration of the contest.
Submitted by: Michael Spiess
Issue:
A high degree of variability exists in electrical project boards as various events around the state. When host schools provides the project boards they must be judged and stripped between rounds. This not only is labor intensive, but also limits the ability of the contestant and coach to review their performance after the contest as is possible with other contest areas such as wood, plumbing, and welding.
Recommendation:
Teams would provide a standardized electrical board that would be suitable for projects using single conductor or NM cable, a variety of devices, and a number of wiring problems. These boards would be standardized in configuration and size as described below. Teams could use these for practice.
Host schools would provide consumable wiring materials (so contestants can take the completed project).
Boards would be required for state finals and recommended for other competitions. As with tools, a team not providing the boards and associated supplies for each contestant would be unable to compete. For their part host institutions would create projects that can be built using theses boards or have the option of providing additional devices.
California Ag Mechanics CDE Electrical Board
Contest Procedure:
Contestants will provide the regulation board.
Host will provide:
Wire nuts
Wire. E.g.; 14 ga. THHN or NM cable
Host will specify the following as part of the contest area instructions:
Location and type of plaster rings to install.
Device location
Wiring circuit description in text (example: Switch will control the lamp, duplex receptacle is always hot), standard electrical plan, or other method.
Project can use one or more of the boxes. Unused boxes or boxes without a device will be covered (by the contestant).
Materials (per board):
½ CC Plywood board (8 per sheet)
4 – 4” sq. Electrical boxes with ½” KO
2- ½” EMT Box connectors
2- ½” PVC Box connectors
8” of ½” EMT
8” of ½” PVC Conduit
4 – Grounding screws installed in the box
3 – Single gang ½” plaster ring
1 – 2 gang ½” plaster ring
1 – 3” round ½” plaster ring
3 – 4” square blank cover
5 – ½” NM cable clamps
1 – Duplex Receptacle
1- Lamp holder with pig tails (must be connectable with wire nuts like common
light fixtures) and mountable in the round plaster ring.
1 – switch
2 – 3 way switches
1 – 4 way switch
Note: Mounting screws must be provided for the plaster rings (#8)
Submitted by: Darol Fishman
Proposal 1
Review
and possibly modify the portion of the Agricultural Mechanics Curricular Code
under Rules, Section II which states “No unauthorized notes, printed
materials, or tools may be used in any portion of the contest. Contestants found
in violation will be disqualified from contest.”
Rationale
There
seems to be some confusion in this area as to what the term “unauthorized”
refers to. Some materials such as
tap drill charts for cold metal, pipe charts for plumbing, and other references
might be deemed by contest officials/personnel to be “unauthorized” because
they aren’t listed on an official document yet they are a standard used in
industry. The intent of the rule is
to eliminate the use of “cheat
sheets” with formulas and other information on them but some clarification
needs to be addressed.
Proposal 2
D.
Optional Area: Cold Metal Fabrication Skills / Tool Sharpening and Maintenance
Skills should be cleaned up to:
a.
include the term “sheetmetal” in the description to also include a
sample listing of tools to include tin snips, handy seamers, protractor and
dividers, etc.
or
b.
add another Optional Area to the Curricular Code titled “Sheetmetal
Skills” with a set of instructions and sample tools unto itself
Rationale
Granted
some of the skills between Cold Metalwork and Sheetmetalwork do overlap, there
is a difference in the types of tools used in this area.
This proposal is to just clarify the language in the Curricular Code to
include Sheetmetal Skills.
Proposal 3
Change the wording in Rules – Section A as follows:
The sponsoring school has the option to include safe work habits
as part of the scorecard. of up to 10% of the total points possible in
that specific skill event. Contestants
will be informed at contest lineup that 25 points will be deducted for
violations such as, but not limited to, not wearing safety glasses, circular saw
misuse, not wearing proper gloves while welding, etc.
After this point deduction on the scoresheet, the sponsoring school
reserves the right to remove any contestant that violates accepted safety
practices that endanger him/herself or others in the contest from that
particular skill area. The student
may continue with the remainder of the contest but will receive no credit/points
for the area where the infractions occurred.
Rationale
With increased scrutiny from risk management agencies, safety in our contests needs to be a top priority. We stand to lose the ability to host such events as this in the event a student is injured while not wearing common personal protective equipment.