Rules Vote on Sportsman Planes

[ronlock]

Hi All,

I was surprised to read that I had voted no to RCA-05-07 that allows CDs to allow any 
AMA legal plane in Sportsman, without including such change in the sanction request.  
My intention was to vote Yes.  Upon review of my personal spread sheets, and the 
formal vote sheet I sent to AMA, I see that a clerical error on my part resulted in me 
sending a No vote.  One more yes vote would have made the difference.  
I apologize for that error, and will re-check my work more thoroughly.   
Wish I could do more.

Ron Lockhart
PS -  A clairification - AMA rule paragraph 4.2  prescribes a score penalty for planes 
not meeting noise standards, there is no requirement that they not be allowed to fly.

SNIP from Granelli Post:
>...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...<

  ----- 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/20040513/1b96c351/attachment.html