Rules Proposals Final Vote

Fri May 14 10:06:01 AKDT 2004

Boll and Del,
I'm with you guys on this one. Mark sent me an off list e-mail to question my reasoning on a point of a previous post that was critical of the CB, but he did so in such a diplomatic non-volatile way that I was a little
convicted regarding my hasty reaction. In my opinion, we need 7 more Marks on the CB!!!!!
Georgie

"Atwood, Mark" wrote:

> 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.
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                   Name: winmail.dat
>    winmail.dat    Type: application/ms-tnef
>               Encoding: base64

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