Rules Proposals Final Vote

[Bill Glaze]

Frank: 
I see some good thinking here.  Some proposals reflecting the statements 
below should be implemented--I feel, anyway.  I like to see anything 
that would add to the effectiveness of the NSRCA and its efforts to 
improve the sport.  Bill Glaze

RCSkyraidr at aol.com wrote:

> While I read the discussion list a lot, I usually do not post here too 
> much. But I have noticed a lot of discussion about who knew what and 
> when. Most non-D-1 fliers probably are not aware that we in NSRCA D-1 
> took our own rule change survey of ALL D-1 active Pattern pilots. At 
> every contest, Ann and I searched out pilots who had not already 
> taken the D-1 survey and got their input. In the end, EVERY pilot who 
> flew at a 2003 contest was polled.
>  
> I tabulated the results and sent them to Ron Lockhart and Scott 
> Melville. My fault, but I forgot that PA was in Mark Atwood's area and 
> did not send the results to him. I will not make this mistake again. 
> Except for RCA-05-8, about removing forced advancement, the survey was 
> definitive. Results were overwhelming for each proposal.
>  
> However, the effect on the CB members was just mixed:
>  
> For RCA-05-5, T/o & landing, 72% of D-1 fliers were against this 
> change yet Scott voted for it anyway.
> For RCA-05-7, any plane in Sportsman, 82% of D-1 fliers wanted any 
> plane to fly, but Ron voted against this change.
> For RCA-05-17, bring back the snap roll, 82% of D-1 fliers wanted the 
> two maneuvers back in the schedule. Both Ron and Scott represented 
> their constituents on this one, but I wish I had sent the survey to 
> Mark as he voted against the restoration. His was the deciding vote 
> and might have been different had he known about the survey.
>  
> I am especially bothered by the fact that our own national survey 
> closely parallels D-1's results yet some national NSRCA board members 
> decided to propose changes that the members apparently did not want 
> anyway. And the answer that "we will get used to it" is probably not 
> the best way to address the members' concerns on this issue. However, 
> NSRCA members do have a voice here as there are elections.
>  
> We have no voice regarding AMA decisions, however. So what should we 
> do? Complete anarchy? It is possible since each CD sets all the rules 
> for his own contest and, with prior notification, can make just about 
> any change he feels would benefit his contest. In practice, this would 
> be a problem if CD's change schedules and judging criteria.
>  
> However, one area I urge CD's to consider is to ignore RCA-05-7 and 
> open their Sportsman class to any AMA legal aircraft. Many CD's in D-1 
> have done this for years and it has helped build attendance and gain 
> us pilots. Off hand, I know of several active D-1 fliers who started 
> this way. Rick Wallace flew his Hangar 9 Cap in Sportsman his first 
> year and flew at several major contests. He is now Advanced D-1 
> champion. Current JR team member Dan Landis flew his first few 
> contests with a somewhat loud, .60-size "Half-Troublemaker."
>  
> Judging by the Pattern Primers we have in D-1, most of the pilots fly 
> their sport aerobatic planes, Venus 40's , etc., using sport mufflers 
> that cannot meet the noise requirements. When they come to their first 
> contest, we are going to tell them they can't fly because their plane 
> is too loud?  Get serious.
>  
> Any D-1 CD who wants to open the Sportsman class at his contest, let 
> me know. I will send that notification to the D-1 mailing list 
> and publish it in my D-1 column and that helps to meet their 
> notification requirements. I'll even fill out the AMA notification 
> forms for them and send them in if they wish.
>  
> As for survey results, CB members are free to vote as they wish. One 
> problem is that current board members can submit AMA rule change 
> proposals that run counter to the NSRCA membership wishes, but have 
> the appearance of coming from the NSRCA since the proposer is an 
> official of the SIG. This gives the proposed rule change undeserved 
> "weight" as it looks "official" when, in reality, it is decidedly 
> unpopular with the SIG members.
>  
> I wonder if the NSRCA could not devise a better system. We need to 
> establish a system that polls the membership for suggested rule 
> changes, presents the proposed rule changes for a NSRCA membership 
> vote, and then presents the suggested changes to the AMA CB.
>  
> Once the NSRCA membership approves a set of rule changes, no NSRCA 
> board member can submit contradicting proposals to AMA without first 
> resigning from the board. That way, the NSRCA speaks with one 
> official voice. Individual NSRCA members retain the right to submit 
> cross-proposals, however.
>  
> These are some thoughts. What does the list think?
>  
> Frank Granelli
> D-1 VP

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20040513/5fbda6be/attachment.html