Rules Proposals Final Vote

[Marty King]

I think what some of the board forgets is each NSRCA member is an AMA member in some district. When John said he had no comments from any AMA members in his district he should have looked at the breakout of his district comments on the NSRCA survey. I think the contest board thinks of NSRCA as having its own members. If we would take a pole at each contest, I wonder how many non-NSRCA AMA members compete? So, in short the AMA members they should be representing in the way they vote, is us. I think we all should start CC: our AMA district reps on conversations like this. They may not realize just what their appointed contest board personel are doing or not doing.
 
Marty King
AMA 39945
NSRCA 2551

Jerry Stebbins <JAStebbins at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
John's comments are interesting, but not totally correct. 
I would assume that the info on the survey was "districtable" and therefore each rep could/should have found out how his membership voted. If not, one could assume a % by allocation and be close. In any case you would not expect the proposer to vote against his own proposal, or those of his compatriots. Also I would generally not expect the board members to vote against the Chairman's proposal, supported by NSRCA execs. or on their poposals, unless they had some very strong opposition expressed to them.
I expressed my comments verbally to John several times at contests, both factual rebuttals of his "rationale", and the legal implications of someone getting hit under a new rule that reduced the criteria, and need for takeoff "control". My mistake was to delete the long,and specific, comments I wrote and then deleted, after deciding they had all been previously expressed. I should have, at least , documented them for the record.
  I have been hit, and had to duck several times, while judging, over the past 11 years, and did not like it. Demonstration of control of the plane on the ground, and in the air is a basic Safety precept, and I think this sends the wrong message to the pilots. One takeoff this year at Pensacola was at right angles to the runway--luckily out, but the judges sure flinched!!!!!!!
No reason to duck, jus don"t judge!!!!!!
Jerry----- Original Message ----- 
From: Lance Van Nostrand 
To: discussion at nsrca.org 
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 12:12 AM
Subject: Re: Rules Proposals Final Vote


Ron,
John's post is interesting, and provides insight into his perspective.  My response is:
1. We recognize that the AMA CB is independent and should vote in a way that represents their district.  It is part of the CB member's job to understand the sentiment of his district.  It's not the members responsibility to find him.  Without this input, he is voting personally from an appointed position (not democratic).
 
2. It is totally reasonable that he might prefer non-judged TO/L.  In fact 17% of the survey respondents agree with that position.  However, with "nada" input from his district, how can he conclude that an overwhelmingly unpopular opinion is the will of his constituents?
 
--Lance 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Ron Van Putte 
To: discussion at nsrca.org 
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: Rules Proposals Final Vote


John Fuqua asked me to forward the following to the NSRCA discussion list.

Ron Van Putte

Begin forwarded message:

From: "John Fuqua" <johnfuqua at gdsys.net>
Date: May 10, 2004 9:09:23 PM CDT
To: "Ron Van Putte" <vanputte at cox.net>
Subject: RE: rules proposals final result

Please pass on to the group that the Board is an AMA Board not a NSRCA Board.  If we were an NSRCA Board Ron Van Putte's proposal on the annex system would not have been rejected by the AMA Excutive Council.   While I respect the NSRCA survey and look at the results I represent AMA District V not NSRCA District 3.  Same for the other Board members.  Just as the Board is not in lock step with me, or anybody else for that matter, the Board is not in lock step with the NSRCA nor should it be.  Each District member must feel out his District.  If he gets input from NSRCA members from his District than all the better.  Just for the record I received zero, nada, 0 written or email inputs from my District members on these proposals.  Others in my District have talked to me and there was no clear consensus one way or the other leaving me to vote my feelings.
 
I submitted the takeoff and landing proposal, again, having had another of my district members submit it the last cycle where it failed.  Just like flying by class vice frequency of some years ago, some ideas take time to develop.  I think the proposal is superior to what we have now for a lot of reasons.  Go look at the rationale in the proposal to see the issues.  One last thought.  If takeoff and landing were aerobatic manuevers, the FAA would require all airline passengers to wear parachutes.
 
John Fuqua
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Van Putte [mailto:vanputte at cox.net]
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 6:38 PM
To: John Fuqua
Subject: Fwd: rules proposals final result

John - FYI.

Ron

Begin forwarded message:


From: patterndude at comcast.net
Date: May 10, 2004 6:27:11 PM CDT
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: rules proposals final result
Reply-To: discussion at nsrca.org


Joe,
and what would you do as a board member if your board chairman used his bully pulpit to submit a proposal at odds with the NSRCA?
--Lance

--
District 6 AVP
www.aeroslave.com


		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20040511/96e771db/attachment.html