rules change decodeing

[Thomas C. Weedon]

Buddy,
I posted all the rules proposals on October 9th, 2002 on this discussion
list. You should have gotten them then. Therefore you didn't need to wait
for the K-Factor. Just wanted to help out knowing that the K-factor was in
trouble at that time. I think it's fixed now.
Tom
  -----Original Message-----
  From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On
Behalf Of Buddy Brammer
  Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 6:35 PM
  To: discussion at nsrca.org
  Subject: RE: rules change decodeing


  Tom

  I stand corrected for the second time and you are correct.

  Buddy



  >From: "Thomas C. Weedon"
  >Reply-To: discussion at nsrca.org
  >To:
  >Subject: RE: rules change decodeing
  >Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:06:01 -0500
  >
  >Buddy,
  >You forgot the rule change to remove the "No Retract" from Sportsman
Class.
  >Tom W.
  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On
  >Behalf Of Buddy Brammer
  > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 9:31 AM
  > To: discussion at nsrca.org
  > Subject: rules change decodeing
  >
  >
  > If anyone is interested
  > After receiving the latest K-Factor and studying the results of the
rules
  >change request survey and trying to decipher the the results I thought it
  >may be nice to compact the results into a readable and understandable
  >summary. This summary is my interpetation of the results and if I am
wrong
  >please correct me.
  > As a SIG we (NSRCA) are asking AMA to consider the following changes and
  >clarification to the Pattern rules.
  > 1. Remove the maneuever schedules from the rule book and place them in
an
  >Annex
  > 2.Allow the NSRCA to decide what maneuevers should be flown and placed
in
  >the Annex
  > 3. Maneuver schedules used will be decided by a vote of the membership
of
  >the NARCA on a set of proposed schedules.(Who will prepare the set's of
  >proposed schedules has not been deturmined. the vote on question 4 seems
to
  >indicate that the membership does not want the NSRCA board to do it.but
is
  >not conclusive due to the lack of a 60% majority vote.)? The proposed
  >schedules will provide stability in the Sportsman and Intermediate class
  > 4. Any new schedules should be structured as building block schedules,
  >however each proposed schedule should stand on it's own at a set degree
of
  >difficulty reguardless of maneuevers employed
  > 5 The schedules in all classes will potentially change every three
years.
  > 6.Change the Intermediate schedule to include the 45-degree down line
  >positive snap and immelmanturn to the end of the current sequence.
  > 7. Change the masters sequence as approved in question 28.
  > 8. Add the generial defenition in all classes that straight and level
  >flight means flight parallel to the flight line at constant altitude with
  >wings level.
  > 9. Clariify the downgrade system for multi-radii manuevers.
  > 10. Change the downgrade description for spins to allow the pilot to
  >point the plane down after the spin.
  > 11.Add to the spin entry definition to read, stall may occur while still
  >having forward progress relative to the ground .
  > 12. Define the end box spin entry as point of stall.
  > 13 Clarify any downgrades for errors less than 15 degrees.
  > 14 Clarify that centered maneuevers must have the same altitude for
entry
  >and exit if that is a condition of the specific maneuever being
performed.
  > 15. Specify that there it is not a requirement that all manuevers within
a
  >sequence have to be performed at the same top and bottom altitude. ( but
the
  >same top and bottom altitude does apply to individual maneuvers)
  > 16. Clarify that takeoff is a centered maneuver.
  > 17. Clarify that there is a landing zone and landings are only downgrded
  >for centering when outside of the 30 meter landing zone.
  > 18. Define that judging starts 15 meters before comencement of the first
  >manuever after box entry and ends 15 meters after the last manuever
followed
  >by box exit.and that line excursion within the sequence will result in
  >downgrades on the next manuever.
  > 19. Correct the rule book description ie. two rolls.
  > 20. Add an exception to the rules that states that people who have not
  >aquired or cannot aquire the necessary skill level will not be forced to
  >move up. However all others will be forced to move up according to the
point
  >system. except if you are 60 years old or older you can fly any class you
  >want to fly.
  > 21. Allow AMA legal Airplanes to fly in the Sportsman Class.
  >
  > There seems to be a contradiction between the results because of the 60%
  >majority required (Reference Vote results Question 51 and Question 57)
but
  >it seems that we are requesting that the point system will allow a three
  >year moving window and only the current three years point accumilation
will
  >effect a move to the next class?
  >
  > Pardon my poor english and spelling and if I missed an item or if my
  >interpetation is not correct let me know. my eyes and brain are so
scrambled
  >after trying to figure this out that it is entirely possible.
  > Buddy
  >
  >

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
  >--
  > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
  Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20021120/753fec81/attachment.html