Rules Proposals Final Vote

[Jerry Stebbins]

Tony, I looked all over the AMA website, and could not find any info about this change. Even their 2005 cycle info is 3 years. What am I missing/where can I find it?
Thanks
Jerry
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: tony at radiosouthrc.com 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 2:06 PM
  Subject: Re: Rules Proposals Final Vote


  John:

  One thing that might help you a little is that AMA has gone back to the 2-year cycle....  That means in 2007 we can look forward to a new sequence, once one is proposed when the next cycle starts later this year...


  Tony Stillman
  Radio South
  3702 N. Pace Blvd.
  Pensacola, FL 32505
  1-800-962-7802
  www.radiosouthrc.com
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: John Ferrell 
    To: discussion at nsrca.org 
    Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 1:55 PM
    Subject: Re: Rules Proposals Final Vote


    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 
      To: 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>
        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-----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20040511/b15ce23a/attachment.html