Landing Direction

[Paul Horan]

Dave,

    You are correct, submitting proposals thru NSRCA is the BEST way.  It should not be nor is it  the only way.   I also agree with you that proposals submitted outside the NSRCA create an unnecessary and unfair load on Don.  Unless the NSRCA is to break from the AMA (not a bad idea) then submissions outside the NSRCA is an option open to all AMA members.

    Can the load of the rules interpetation be shifted back to the submitter ?   If they cannot provide a rationale for the rule and details that support it and do not require interpetation - then its file 13.   

    The option to submit individual rules proposals should not relieve the individual of making a proposal without obvious contradictions.  If there are contradictions within the proposal or relative to the existing rules then let the submitter fix it.   Freedom of self expression is not without responsibility.

Regardless,
Paul
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: David Lockhart 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 10:45 PM
  Subject: Re: Landing Direction


  Paul,

  You are suggesting that entering proposals outside of the NSRCA would be preferable?

  I'm aware of 2 major "fiascos" (fiascii??) from the last rules cycle -
  1)  The new wording for the spin entries.
  2)  The new takeoff/landing procedures.

  Both were generated outside of the NSRCA.  Both have required huge expenditures of time by Don Ramsey and anyone with knowledge of the rules attempting to explain just how these new rules/criteria are to be applied.  The general consensus is that both are poorly worded and create conflicts with the existing guidelines and rules.  It is a simple matter of fact that the wording (and supporting rationale) regarding spins is self contradicting, contradictory to general criteria/guidelines in the rules, and describes a scenario which is technically impossible.  Another simple fact is that the majority do not support unscored takeoffs and landings.

  There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we would be far better off if the 2 referenced proposals were never submitted.  Just my singular opinion, but I'm willing to be the majority agree.

  The NSRCA survey, rules committee, and proposal process to the AMA is not perfect - however, it is much better than the process previously.    As has been stated on this list, membership in the NSRCA does not prohibit an individuals option to submit proposals outside of the NSRCA - however, I think it is pretty clear what an individuals priorities are when they submit competing proposals.  The process certainly doesn't benefit from competing proposals by NSRCA members (Officers in some cases) which only serves to weaken and undermine the efforts of the NSRCA.

  BTW - I agree landing is more difficult than taking off - of course many maneuvers of differing difficulty have the same K-Factor - a different discussion entirely.

  Regards,

  Dave
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Paul Horan 
    To: discussion at nsrca.org 
    Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 9:22 PM
    Subject: RE: Landing Direction


        Seems to me that landings should have a higher K factor than take offs.  A k of 2 for landing would be good or maybe even higher.  
        As far as entering a rules proposal outside of NSRCA - the last fiasco seems to be a major PLUS for doing so. 
    Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050614/f580328a/attachment.html