Bigger issues--Long as usual from me

[george kennie]

Hmmmmmm,

Troy Newman wrote:

> 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.
> #

=====================================
# 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.
#