Rules Proposals Final Vote

[Atwood, Mark]

Del, Bill...I appreciate the kudos, but they're somewhat unwarranted.  It seems only fair that I (or we) be able to provide the logic behind our votes...If I can't...then I didn't have any...and THAT would be a problem.
 
As for discussing them openly...I guess that's a personal choice based on what I would want others to do.
 
-Mark

________________________________

From: discussion-request at nsrca.org on behalf of Del Rykert
Sent: Thu 5/13/2004 7:54 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Rules Proposals Final Vote



Mark..
    Although some may not agree I believe your stepping up to the plate does
wonders for the rank & file to share your logic. It isn't going at appease
everyone but it sure is salve for the wounds.
     I commend you SIR..
                          del
               NSRCA - 473

----- Original Message -----
From: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 7:14 PM
Subject: RE: Rules Proposals Final Vote


Ok...I don't see anyone else from the CB stepping up to answer any
questions, so maybe that's taboo...But..I'm the new guy. So I'll plead
ignorance :)

Here was my logic...Yes...Allowing a 40% in sportsman is an issue...and I've
been to 2 contest in the past year where they showed up expecting to
fly....and it would have been a disaster (I'd seen them fly and wouldn't
want to be ANY WHERE NEAR the runway on take off OR landing...scored or not.

So here's where we, the CB is stuck.  I have no choice...either accept, or
reject.  Period.  No option to "edit" the proposal to say "Some" planes...

So...with that in mind...I felt it was easier to make exclusions to the rule
at the Contest director level on a field by field, contest by contest basis,
(As we have BEEN doing for years) than to accept this rule which many felt
(including me) was too broad.

I'd be happy to expound more if so desired...

-Mark Atwood
AMA District III

________________________________

From: discussion-request at nsrca.org on behalf of RCSkyraidr at aol.com
Sent: Thu 5/13/2004 6:06 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Cc: ronlock at comcast.net
Subject: Re: Rules Proposals Final Vote


Ed, your last note to this group I think identified what the CB's main focus
on the size and sound limitation was. They wanted to keep the "Big Planes"
out of pattern. I am sure that was their main focus as they voted against
this motion. And I agree with your arguments about the "Big plane" guys not
really moving up to Pattern. They are not our market for new Pattern fliers

The problem is, while focusing on this intent, the CB threw the baby and the
whole family out with the wash water. If not ignored, this rule would have a
devastating effect. Does the CB realize that in keeping out the big guys,
they also are keeping out the little guys? The rule said size and  sound
requirements must be met for Sportsman. The effect:

1) All the current crop of sport 45 to 50 powered small pattern airplanes
like the Venus 40, the Spectrum, the Ultrasport and others, PLUS 60-powered
Tai Jais, Tigers and Cloud Dancers are ALSO PROHIBITED! A sport 45 on the
stock, included muffler is 103 dB at 3 M. So are most sport 60's. These are
the planes most potential Pattern pilots use in their first primer and then
want to fly in a contest. So we tell them fine, first buy an expensive pipe,
rare these days for 45's and they cost about as much as the plane, mangle
your plane to mount it and then we'll let you come play with us Big Boys?
Otherwise you stay home because your sport plane is not good enough to fly
with us.

2) Former Pattern pilots who still have some of the older 60-size planes are
also excluded. Even piped, these planes were well in excess of the noise
limit. So one of our best markets for growth, former pattern fliers, are
hereby excluded from our august company unless they buy a new, quiet plane.

I cannot believe the CB intended these consequences. This is not only bad
for Pattern, it is horrible for the AMA. A main purpose of the AMA, in its
charter, is to foster and build participation in aeromodeling competition.
The CB's action on this matter is contrary to that mission and damaging to
our entire sport.

And please, don't anyone out there say no one checks noise at contests. Who
cares? The rule is there in the book and its very presence in the rule book
causes the damage.

I'm a new pilot. I go to the MA primer with my Venus 40 and decide to try
Glen cause I did OK at the Primer. I get the book so I know something and
read it cause I don't want to look like an idiot at my first contest. I see
the sound check, there is no note on the contest flyer saying no noise check
and I begin to wonder. I know my stock engine is not very quiet. I don't
want to go, get checked and sent home. So I stay home and forget the whole
silly idea of flying Pattern.

Is this what the CB intended? If it is, this is the proof that Pattern
Snobbery still exists. I don't believe that. This had to be an oversight on
their part. An unintended consequence of trying to limit the 40% planes. The
ironic part is that a modern 40% IMAC plane comes fairly close to our sound
limits. Yet the poor guy with the 45 is SOL.

Ed, as for your allowing planes up to 84 in. and no noise restriction, while
I applaud your decision, the CB just said YOU CAN'T DO THAT. They took that
option away from you because the failed proposal said the CD had the option.
The CB said you ain't smart enough to be trusted with that decision.

This accident has to be corrected. Having a rule that is "ignored"
diminishes all other rules.

Frank




=====================================
# To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 8207 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20040513/901eaa3f/attachment.bin