Rules Proposals Final Vote

Thu May 13 13:29:32 AKDT 2004

As a CD and competitor, I'm disappointed RCA-05-17 failed, the jump from Intermediate to Advanced would have been much easier for most folks with the snap added. 
My contest in D1 allows up to an 84" span monoplane in Sportsman but I'm not willing to open it up to anything that is AMA legal in size so I'm glad Ron voted as he did on RCA-05-7. There are plenty events the large IMAC ships can fly at. 99% of them are not interested in Pattern and would not continue past Sportsman as it would mean a change of aircraft. Only once have I seen a sound check at a D1 contest and I've never seen planes measured and weighed so as far as I'm concerned we have "loose guidelines" and I decide to draw the line in the sand by maximum size. I'm not going to turn away anyone with just about any sport plane but I will turn away a 40lb, 40% 120DB monster that just wants to hover in your face anyway. Frankly there are more than a few politically correct pattern ships in District 1 and I bet all Districts that don't meet the 11lb limit, but that's a different argument. From a CD perspective RCA-05-5 makes sense. 0 or 10 for these maneuvers, the possibility of allowing both Sportsman and Intermediate flyers to fly 2 rounds per flight and more than once it's been said the AMA classes are supposed to be primers for FAI, well FAI is 0 or 10 for takeoff and landings. Scoring will be somewhat easier and the focus will be on the "in the box maneuvers". At any given contest at any given time, a person on the flight line can have a close call with a plane taking off or landing, it doesn't matter if that take off or landing is judged or not. In fact some of the close calls I've witnessed in D1 were by upper class flyers "shaving" the judges. 
I've said it before on this list, the fact is we are AMA members first and NSRCA members second. What rules and decisions are made are made with AMA in mind first, not NSRCA. I'm not saying I agree, it's just the way it is. No doubt it's a conflict of interest for an individual who is also an AMA official and NSRCA member to submit a proposal counter to the NSRCA's proposals but in the current environment, that individual is an AMA member first so they are within their rights. It's obvious we need a change. 
Ed M.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: RCSkyraidr at aol.com 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 11:32 AM
  Subject: RE: Rules Proposals Final Vote

  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/20040513/302ea345/attachment.html