Bigger issues--Long as usual from me

[Troy Newman]

An individual proposal from an AMA member doesn't carry the same weight as
the NSRCA proposal.
I know I submitted a Masters Proposal for 2005 and it was discarded in the
initial vote.

Upon asking the reason of the Contest Board Chairman I was told that it was
in competition with the NSRCA proposal. Only one proposal can leave the
initial vote...Therefore it was killed off.

I feel the NSRCA survey doesn't give a good representation of the changes
needed. If you have a choice between 3 items on the survey and none of them
are very good....then we are stuck with something that is not very good. I
was motivated out of the fact that the 3 proposals for sequences in the
survey fell well short, my opinion, of the quality needed for a Destination
and top level National Caliber pilot.

I solicited other Masters pilots with like opinions of the NSRCA survey
sequences in the forming of the sequence. It was flown extensively and
proven that it worked. These Masters pilots were many of the 2002 NATS
Masters Finalists. I also worked with a couple of Advanced pilots moving to
Masters to get their ideas and work out the kinks. Our Sequence was not as
easy as the NSRCA picked version but then it was no more difficult than past
Masters schedules or those of the C-D-E F3A schedules of the late 90's. It
did not include any funny F3A style stuff with rollers or horizontal snap
and roll combos. It was a sequence based on rolling both ways, 8pt, And some
other inventive stuff like a 8 Sided loop for a center maneuver. It tested
the pilots skill and not the amount of power his motor produced. It tested
the pilots skills in precision flying not the age of his equipment.


I digress...
But to think that a single AMA member has equal ground going against the
NSRCA is a joke. It is not the case.
The CB wants to vote <<yes>> or <<no>> not argue which one is a better
solution. This is not a complaint about the people and their agenda's rather
its a flaw I see in the system.

This is for the information of the group. If you believe the individual has
some clout in the AMA process you are mistaken. Only when the NSRCA doesn't
already have its opinion on the table do you have any say. When this happens
you become a complainant.

I don't wish to be a complainant. Instead I want to fly F3A. I enjoy it and
have passion for it. My view of the NSRCA is that is should promote RC
aerobatics. I see it and the AMA both in the regulation mode. They want to
take the control and the power. They want to determine the destiny of the
voyage. The problem I see is we the NSRCA is not promoting RC Aerobatics.
Instead we the SIG are battling for power with the AMA on who controls it!

>From the NSRCA constitution:

"The objective of this society shall be to promote the construction and
competitive flying of radio controlled aerobatic model airplanes. To aid,
insofar as possible, the Academy of Model Aeronautics and other AMA
activities, to further the advancement of model aircraft aerobatics in all
of its phases."

nothing here about regulation. I see the NSRCA as a body to advance the RC
aerobatics in this country. How best do we do this as a SIG...by regulation
to stop people from doing things we don't like...or by teaching and
spreading the word about how great Precision flying is?

Just some things that make you go hmmmmmm


Troy Newman


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ed Miller" <edbon85 at optonline.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: Rule Change cycle and bigger issues


> Eric writes:
> "In my mind I see a major disconnect between AMA contest boards and the
> value of SIG's/societies. Dave Brown and many contest board members
continue
> to state the validity of any ONE AMA member submitting a proposal. They
also
> state that any individual proposal has equal value to that of any NSRCA
> proposal"
>
> Seems to me the system is working as designed. We fly an AMA sanctioned
> event, AMA is the keeper of the rules and the rules are supposed to serve
> the AMA membership. The SIGs are composed of AMA members, so why should an
> individual AMA members proposal not be considered with the same weight or
> value as that of a SIG's ?? To me the AMA is beholding to it's membership,
> not the SIG's. The minute the AMA reduces the weight or value of one of
it's
> members proposal, it affectively has spit on the hand that feeds it.
> Ed M.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henderson,Eric" <Eric.Henderson at gartner.com>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 12:34 PM
> Subject: Rule Change cycle and bigger issues
>
>
> > Let's try this again...
> >
> >   FYI - from AMA site Comp. dept. (NSRCA process and issue at end of
doc)
> >
> > 2002 Rules Change Cycle Information
> >
> > The rules change cycle is a three-year cycle.
> >
> > Year One:  During the first year proposals are accepted and reviewed by
> the
> > appropriate contest board.
> >
> > Year Two:  At  the beginning of the second year,  proposals are first
> > published in the March issue of Model Aviation.  The contest boards then
> do
> > an initial vote on each proposal.  Proposals that do not pass the
initial
> > vote are no longer considered.  The initial vote is completed by a
> postmark
> > deadline of February 28.
> >
> > During March,  the initial votes are tabulated and the results
distributed
> > to all contest board members.  The final wording of all proposals is
also
> > finalized between the contest boards and the original submitter of each
> > proposal. The July issue of Model Aviation contains all of the revised
> > proposals and comments on the proposals are accepted from all open AMA
> > members.
> >
> > During this time period cross proposals are also accepted.  Cross
> proposals
> > are alternate means of accomplishing the objective of a basic proposal
> which
> > has passed the initial ballot.  Although there is a broad latitude in
> > allowing alternative proposals, the original objective of the first
> proposal
> > should be retained.  Cross proposals are accepted until July 15 of year
> two.
> > The November issue of Model Aviation (in members hands in late
September)
> > publishes all cross proposals.  On October 15 the interim vote is sent
to
> > all contest boards.  This vote is to determine which cross proposals
will
> be
> > retained.  The ballots for the interim vote must be returned to AMA HQ
by
> > December 1 of year two.
> >
> > Year Three:  In January of year three, the ballots from the interim vote
> are
> > tabulated.  The final vote on all proposals and cross proposals that
have
> > passed the initial and interim votes are sent to the contest boards by
> > February 28 of year three.  The ballots for the final vote must be
> returned
> > to AMA HQ by April 1 of year three.  The August issue of Model Aviation
> > publishes the final rule revisions.  During the rest of the year AMA HQ
> > generates the manuscript of the new Competition Regulations and sends it
> to
> > the Contest Boards for review.  In September through October the new
> > Competition Regulations are laid out, proof read and sent to the
printer.
> > In November or December of years three the new version of the
Competition
> > Regulations are available for distribution to all AMA members that
request
> a
> > copy.
> >
> > The current rules change cycle began  January 1, 1999.  At that time
basic
> > rules change proposals began to be accepted by AMA HQ.  Proposals were
> > accepted until the postmark date of October 1, 1999.  It is very
important
> > that if, a proposal concerns you,  make comments to your appropriate
> > district contest board member prior to him/her voting on the issue.  The
> > contact information for all contest board members may be found monthly
in
> > Model Aviation or on this web site by clicking the button below.
> >
> >
> > NSRCA Rule change pre-cycle process;-
> >
> > Now you have to add the NSRCA process and insert it in front of the
above.
> Our process is a little bit variable but basically we will try to do
> something like the following, subject to available time.
> >
> > 1. Form a Survey committee to come up with all of the questions we want
to
> ask the membership.
> >
> > 2. Include the accumulated change questions from the NSRCA Judging
> committee.
> >
> > 3. Design any new schedules etc.
> >
> > 4. Assemble and actual survey.
> >
> > 5. Run it by the NSRCA board for verification
> >
> > 6. Print it in K-factor
> >
> > 7. Collect all of the responses and tabulate them. (Last time it was
> approx. 200 x 65 questions [13,000 and cost me multo-bribe money to son
and
> girlfriend - took four evenings])
> >
> > 8. Turn all of the items into written proposals in the AMA format and
> documents. Match the change references to the current AMA book - triple
sign
> each proposal. (30 plus last time)
> >
> > 9. Go to top of this page.
> >
> > The NSRCA process can easily take two-plus years. It is well done,
> democratically processed and has lots of checks and balances built in.
Many
> sub-votes take place to get content sorted out etc. rather than any one
> person dictating the whole thing. We had around  16 x 4 schedules (4 =
> 401-404) at one time, that we narrowed down to 2 x 4 for the big maneuver
> change survey. Huge amounts of time and huge amounts of work done by
twenty
> plus volunteers.
> >
> > The membership votes at around a 20% response - very strong in survey
> terms. Then it goes off to the top of the page process and then nearly
dies
> half a dozen times. (A much longer story)
> >
> > In my mind I see a major disconnect between AMA contest boards and the
> value of SIG's/societies. Dave Brown and many contest board members
continue
> to state the validity of any ONE AMA member submitting a proposal. They
also
> state that any individual proposal has equal value to that of any NSRCA
> proposal. I would agree if the individual had done the work that the NSRCA
> and its members had done.
> >
> > To be openly frank the system has a basic flaw when one individual can
> hold a society's or SIG's work to ransom - it happens, happened, and will
> happen again.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Eric.
> >
> > ==================# To be removed from this list, send a message to
> > # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> > # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> > #
> >
> >
>
>
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #
>
>
=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to 
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#