Rules Proposals Final Vote

[Bill Glaze]

John:
Your feelings are considerably milder than some of us.  I would note, 
however, that under the proposed return to the two year cycle, you will 
have the opportunity to be disappointed a lot more often.  As long as we 
continue to do business in the same-old-same-old mode.
Bill  Glaze

John Ferrell wrote:

> I am disappointed at the prospect of flying the same maneuvers in the 
> Sportsman/intermediate and Advanced classes for the next three years 
> but I suppose it will all work out.  Them who get tired of it will 
> move on, the Masters & Fai will continue.
>  
> However, I am acquainted with all but three of the Contest Board 
> members and I feel they must have had reasons for voting as they did. 
> I hope those reasons were for the good of all.
>  
> At any rate, what you see is what we got. The time for bickering is 
> past. Clearly, the AMA wants direct communications rather than the 
> assistance of the NSRCA and in the future I expect we need to all send 
> them the detailed communications and let them deal with it. Failure to 
> endorse the survey is a simple statement that we are not allowed to 
> play in their sandbox.
>  
> The proposals are at 
> http://www.modelaircraft.org/Comp/2005rulesproposals.htm
> If you compare the T&L sequences with FAI's you will see they are not 
> near as rigid.
> Note there is no longer a penalty for an aborted takeoff(whatever the 
> reason), and no need to call the maneuver. The need to call the 
> landing is removed as well. I hate to show my ignorance in public but 
> I am still trying to figure out what "upwind and downwind markers" 
> are. In this district we normally mark the boxes, the centers and the 
> landing zones. If the terrain is rugged, sometimes the box markers are 
> pretty close on one side, and not so close on the other.
>  
>  
> John Ferrell   
> http://DixieNC.US
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: Ron Van Putte <mailto:vanputte at cox.net>
>     To: discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
>     Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 10:36 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
>         <mailto:johnfuqua at gdsys.net>>
>         Date: May 10, 2004 9:09:23 PM CDT
>         To: "Ron Van Putte" <vanputte at cox.net <mailto: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-----
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20040511/9f73f2d3/attachment.html