[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System

Sun May 10 07:50:10 AKDT 2009

 I agree the new masters pattern is a keeper. No complaints from me. Mike

--- On Sun, 5/10/09, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

> From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Sunday, May 10, 2009, 10:45 AM
> Yesterday I got one halfway descent flight (masters).
> I carry my stuff to the flightline in preparation for a
> flight. When I turn
> on the transmitter I zero the timer and start the motor
> (single back-flip)
> clear it to full throttle and taxi out, fly the sequence
> and taxi back, shut
> down and note the time on the transmitter, 9 mi. This is
> one to two mi.
> longer than it took me to fly the advanced sequence
> (transmitter 'on' time).
> I don't consider this too long. The new masters
> schedule is a nice one, lets
> just fly it and enjoy it while we have it. In two years we
> are likely to
> have a different one.
> Jim Hiller
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf
> Of Glen Watson
> Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 8:31 PM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
> 
> ...what makes the Masters sequence long on time is the
> maneuver count plus
> certain maneuvers within the sequence that take a long time
> to execute.
> 
> Half Clover
> Figure M
> Hour Glass
> Figure 9
> Double Immelman
> Spin
> 
> Wonder if the sequence committee considers individual
> maneuver time when
> drafting sequences? A couple of the Masters sequence
> maneuvers could have
> been substituted by maneuvers that take less time... for
> example replace the
> Fig M with a cobra w/full rolls, Fig 9 with a bunt or the
> double immelman
> with a reverse knife edge or some other kind of horizontal
> rolling type
> maneuver. How about a snap followed by an opposite slow or
> pt roll that goes
> by very quickly.
> 
> ~Glen
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf
> Of Dave Burton
> Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 9:31 PM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
> 
> I'm currently flying FAI - but not very well! I stopped
> flying pattern
> contest about 18-20 years ago (after advancing up through
> the classes) due
> to multiple vision problems which have been corrected.
> I've been flying
> contests again the last 2-3 years. My skills are pretty
> rusty! I have no
> interest in learning the FAI Final schedules and if I go to
> a contest where
> it's flown I'll fly Masters. BTW, I like the new
> Masters sequence except I
> think it's too long.
> Dave
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf
> Of John Pavlick
> Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 10:13 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
> 
> Dave,
> What class are you currently flying? I'm about to go
> into Masters. :(
> 
> John Pavlick
> http://www.idseng.com
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Burton" <burtona at atmc.net>
> To: "'General pattern discussion'"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 12:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
> 
> 
> > Ok, if Masters is supposed to be the AMA highest skill
> level "destination"
> > class shouldn't it be difficult? Pilots who reach
> this level should be
> > able
> > to safely attempt any of the integrated rollers. Doing
> them well is a
> > matter
> > of repetition, practice skills, and talent. Why
> "dumb down" the
> > destination
> > class? It should be comparable to FAI in difficulty
> IMO. If FAI is to be
> > the
> > destination class then it would be appropriate to use
> Masters as a
> > building
> > block to FAI level. But that's not my
> understanding of Masters at this
> > time.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
> Behalf Of John Fuqua
> > Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 11:57 AM
> > To: 'General pattern discussion'
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
> >
> > I beg to differ.  One is on a straight line and the
> other is in a part
> > loop
> > or full loop depending.  One is horizontal the other
> could be headed up or
> > headed towards the dirt.  One entails maybe two
> control inputs the other
> > requires three pretty much simultaneously.   An
> intermediate can do one
> > set
> > and some FAI pilots cannot do the other set well.  
> Totally different
> > skill
> > level required.
> >
> > Although something like a half loop going up with an
> integrated 2 of 4
> > point
> > or half roll might be something to think about.  At
> least it would be safe
> > and provide a way to begin the skills training
> process.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
> Behalf Of Derek
> > Koopowitz
> > Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 10:15 AM
> > To: 'General pattern discussion'
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
> >
> > Doing an integrated roll such as a loop with a 4 point
> in it is no
> > different
> > than doing an Immelman with a 2 of 4, Split S with a 2
> of 4.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
> Behalf Of John Fuqua
> > Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 6:00 AM
> > To: 'General pattern discussion'
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
> >
> > And I think the reason is that most Masters
> pilot's (myself included) do
> > not
> > relish the thought of doing integrated rollers in
> loops and half loops nor
> > rolling circles.  We could probably use the FAI P if
> we instituted
> > substitutions for those when building the sequences.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
> Behalf Of Dave Burton
> > Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 10:44 PM
> > To: 'General pattern discussion'
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
> >
> > Earl, I think you are correct about the "C"
> and "D" sequences. I don't
> > remember ever flying "C".
> > I'd like to see the current FAI P schedule flown
> by both FAI and Masters
> > as
> > separate classes because of the larger pool of judges
> for both classes
> > that
> > would result. It worked well back in the day. The idea
> doesn't seem to get
> > much traction when it's proposed however.
> > Dave
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
> Behalf Of Earl Haury
> > Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 10:18 PM
> > To: General pattern discussion
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
> >
> > Pretty good memory! As I recall the top AMA classes
> were C Novice & C
> > Expert
> >
> > (same sequences), D Novice & D Expert used the FAI
> sequence. Most local
> > events used the D version as no one was very fond of
> the touch & go in the
> 
> > C
> >
> > sequence, the Nats used C N&E, Team Selections D.
> B class also had a touch
> 
> > &
> >
> > go as the maneuver following take-off (made for some
> short flights).
> >
> > Earl
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dave Burton" <burtona at atmc.net>
> > To: "'General pattern discussion'"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 6:48 PM
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
> >
> >
> >> Its been a long time ago but I think three rolls
> and three inside loops
> >> were in the entry level "A" pattern back
> in 1971-72 when I was flying "A"
> >> class. If I remember correctly we had 3 outside
> loops from the top in "B"
> >> pattern class. From memory, "A" pattern
> sequence was take off, straight
> >> flight out, procedure turn, straight flight back,
> horizontal figure 8
> >> (centered flat 8 in front of you), three inside
> loops, three rolls, stall
> >> turn, immelman turn, traffic pattern approach, and
> landing. I haven't
> >> tried to remember this in a long time so I may
> have left something out.
> >> (BTW, we had "D" Expert and
> "D" Novice classes that flew the same
> >> sequence
> >
> >> as the top two classes. FAI was only flown at the
> Team selection contest
> >> and by the team at the world championships as I
> remember)
> >> Dave Burton
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> On Behalf Of
> >> mjfrederick at cox.net
> >> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 4:10 PM
> >> To: General pattern discussion
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
> >>
> >> No, it was a Sportsman class maneuver. This was
> back when we weren't
> >> afraid to call Novices what they are: Novices.
> >>
> >> Matt
> >> ---- verne at twmi.rr.com wrote:
> >> In the old pre-turnaround days, 3 rolls was an
> Advanced-class maneuver.
> >>
> >>
> >> ---- Don Ramsey <don.ramsey at suddenlink.net>
> wrote:
> >>> I disagree with Arch about the 3 rolls.  I
> think this is an aircraft
> >>> killer.  It killed a lot planes when we did
> it.  Dont require maneuvers
> >>> in the early patterns that put the aircraft at
> high risk.
> >>>
> >>> There are other maneuvers that teach the
> skills to do the slow roll and
> >>> point rolls with little risk to the plane.  To
> do the 3 rolls properly
> >>> takes a lot of real estate and requires other
> skills that the Sportsman
> >>> pilot is not equipped to handle.  When it was
> in the sequence people did
> >>> get through it but very few performed it well
> and I thought it did not
> >>> teach much toward advancement of the skills
> required of rolls in the
> >>> other patterns.  Slow rolls and point rolls
> are very easy compared to
> >>> the
> >
> >>> skills required to do 3 rolls.
> >>>
> >>> Don
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >>>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf
> Of Archie
> >>> Stafford
> >>> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 7:59 AM
> >>> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement
> System
> >>>
> >>> Richard,
> >>>
> >>> So your answer about the 3 rolls is lets not
> put it in, because it is
> >>> hard?  It was a maneuver that was done for
> years with no problems, but
> >>> it
> >
> >>> did make you learn to fly through the rolls.
> >>>
> >>> The vertical upline doesnt really teach much. 
> Try it with a .40 size
> >>> sport plane.  You are right, it doesnt have to
> be a certain height. But
> >>> you better be starting high as the next
> maneuver is a split S.  Those
> >>> last 5 maneuvers dont really teach anything. 
> Sportsman should be about
> >>> introducing people to pattern and allowing the
> guy with the .40 sport
> >>> plane a chance to compete.
> >>>
> >>> Arch
> >>>
> >>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >>>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf
> Of Richard
> >>> Lewis
> >>> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 6:47 AM
> >>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement
> System
> >>>
> >>> Arch,
> >>>
> >>> The vertical upline is a great teaching
> maneuver for sportsman and
> >>> requires no more power than a stall turn. 
> There is NO criteria for the
> >>> length of this line, and a box entry just
> before it.  I tell every
> >>> sportsman pilot I meet, no matter what they
> are flying this: Enter the
> >>> box as high as necessary to do as short an
> upline as possible or that
> >>> the
> >
> >>> plane is capable of and setup for the split-S.
>  Overall, it's a quick
> >>> and
> >
> >>> easy lesson in airspace management.  The radii
> are also not specified,
> >>> just need to be equal.  So often we see
> sportsman approach center and
> >>> pull a radically tight radius and expose nasty
> attitude changes.  This
> >>> ia
> >
> >>> another opportunity to teach.  It is also an
> easy, low risk lesson in
> >>> aircraft attitude and trimming, as
> transitioning through a radius from
> >>> horizontal to vertical directly in front of
> you requires decent trimming
> >>> (right thrust, etc...) and also a degree of
> confidence that the wings
> >>> are
> >
> >>> level.  Also a opportunity to teach.
> >>>
> >>> Put three rolls in intermediate and watch the
> intermediate pilots drop
> >>> like flies........
> >>>
> >>> Richard
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>   _____
> >>>
> >>> From: Archie Stafford
> <astafford at swtexas.net>
> >>> To: jpavlick at idseng.com; General pattern
> discussion
> >>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >>> Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2009 7:42:50 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement
> System
> >>> I think one thing we need to really get back
> to basics on is designing
> >>> the schedules based around the skills
> necessary to be able to move on to
> >>> the next sequence.  I think we have picked a
> bunch of maneuvers, but are
> >>> missing out on what skills are needed.  The
> current sportsman sequence
> >>> is
> >
> >>> way too long and requires a lot more power
> than a beginner sequence
> >>> should.  There was a time when you could fly a
> .40 sport plane and be
> >>> competitive, but those days are gone.  What is
> gained by the vertical
> >>> upline on center maneuver?  You have to have a
> plane with a reasonable
> >>> thrust to weight ratio as the next maneuver is
> a split s.  There are 2
> >>> half reverse Cuban eights.  You could
> conceivably get rid of the last 5
> >>> maneuvers and not be missing anything.  You
> would also allow a true .40
> >>> size first low wing plane a chance at being
> competitive.  I understand
> >>> the argument that theoretically those planes
> are already competitive,
> >>> but
> >
> >>> in reality they arent.
> >>>
> >>> The biggest thing that people in sportsman
> need is the basic
> >>> understanding of a contest and the ability to
> learn to fly a straight
> >>> line and maintain altitude.  Then as you
> progress you can add other
> >>> maneuvers.
> >>>
> >>> Two maneuvers I think need to be put back into
> intermediate are the 3
> >>> horizontal rolls3, not 2.  With 3 you have to
> learn to fly through them.
> >>> Also, the double stall turn was a great
> maneuver for that sequence.
> >>> Straight inverted flight is another important
> element that gets missed,
> >>> even with the inverted exit.   As you progress
> into Advanced maybe
> >>> introduce snaps and a spin, with a couple more
> inverted exits to
> >>> actually
> >
> >>> prepare someone for Masters.
> >>>
> >>> I think if the sequences get viewed as
> building blocks, then the
> >>> maneuvers needed will take care of themselves.
> >>>
> >>> Just my .02,
> >>>
> >>> Arch
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >>>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf
> Of John
> >>> Pavlick
> >>> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 3:35 PM
> >>> To: General pattern discussion
> >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement
> System
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Bill,
> >>>  What district are you in? Maybe Ziggy and I
> will take a road trip this
> >>> summer. That could make things interesting for
> you guys. I'm staying in
> >>> Advanced as long as I can or at least until I
> lose my day job. :)
> >>>
> >>> John Pavlick
> >>>
> >>> --- On Thu, 5/7/09, Bill Glaze
> <billglaze at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>> From: Bill Glaze
> <billglaze at bellsouth.net>
> >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement
> System
> >>> To: "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >>> Date: Thursday, May 7, 2009, 7:36 PM
> >>> Joe:
> >>>  Advanced last weekend in Winston = 0
> contestants.  A couple of weeks
> >>> ago
> >
> >>> in Green Sea: Advanced = 1 contestant.  I
> don't believe that we've had
> >>> more than 4 contestants in Advanced in a
> single contest for 2
> >>> years--maybe more.  I haven't thought much
> about just why that might be,
> >>> but right now, it's a very unpopular
> class.  I concur that most of the
> >>> dropouts seem to be either from the Advanced
> class, or, from those who
> >>> are forced into the Advanced class.  No matter
> how/why they're forced to
> >>> move up, it's just the way it is right
> now.
> >>> Bill Glaze
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: Joe Lachowski
> <mailto:jlachow at hotmail.com>
> >>> To: NSRCA Discussion List
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >>> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 11:32 AM
> >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement
> System
> >>>
> >>> I'm for getting rid of advancement in the
> Advanced class for one. This
> >>> is
> >
> >>> the class a number flyers who stick around
> seem to hit their skill level
> >>> wall and disappear.  It also appears to be the
> smallest class attended
> >>> at
> >
> >>> local contests these days.  At least in D1 it
> is.
> >>>
> >>> I'd also like to see the option of being
> able to move back after one
> >>> year
> >
> >>> in the next higher class. This would be a
> allowed one time only.
> >>>
> >>>  To make frequent sequence change doable,
> instead of having to come up
> >>> with new ones every 4 years or so, maybe we
> should just come up with a
> >>> good set of say 4 for each class. You can
> rotate through them every 2
> >>> years and start from the first one all over
> again after they've cycled
> >>> through. This could easily be done for
> Intermediate and Advanced.
> >>> Probably even Masters. After about 8 years the
> pool of flyers for the
> >>> most part will have changed in each class
> anyway. Establishing these
> >>> sequences will probably take a well thought
> process of about two years
> >>> by
> >
> >>> some dedicated people willing to take it on.
> You could also just change
> >>> a
> >
> >>> handful of maneuvers in these sequences after
> the 8 year cycle to keep
> >>> things a little fresh for those that are still
> flying a particular class
> >>> after the 8 year cycle. This is a lot of work
> up front but in teh long
> >>> run it is easier.
> >>>
> >>>  As far as Sportsman goes, you just need one
> good sequence that teaches
> >>> the basic skills to get you to Intermediate.
> The one we have now is
> >>> pretty close if not good enough.
> >>>
> >>> Just some ideas.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>   _____
> >>>
> >>> From: anthonyr105 at hotmail.com
> >>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >>> Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 10:48:08 -0400
> >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement
> System
> >>>
> >>> Good idea Earl. I think peer pressure alone
> will suffice but if we want
> >>> an organize system this has merit.
> >>>  Do we realize if we allow the other classes
> to become destinations then
> >>> the sequences should change more frequently.
> >>>
> >>> Anthony
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>   _____
> >>>
> >>> From: ejhaury at comcast.net
> >>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >>> Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 09:24:18 -0500
> >>> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
> >>> In the discussion regarding the Masters
> sequence / length a few
> >>> competitors mentioned that increasing the
> difficulty would cause them to
> >>> stop competing. Folks, this needs to be
> addressed! We can't tolerate a
> >>> system where folks are forced to a level where
> they can't enjoy pattern
> >>> and/or chose to quit.
> >>>
> >>> There are generally two views of the current
> system. One is that it is
> >>> cast in stone and needed to force the
> "trophy hound" to move to the
> >>> proper class. The other is that peer pressure
> alone will result in
> >>> proper
> >
> >>> classification. I think that there's a
> third possibility, some folks
> >>> prematurely move to a higher class for the
> "prestige" of that class.
> >>> There's likely reality / unreality to each
> view which supports that some
> >>> process is needed. While there have been some
> changes to smooth the
> >>> advancement process, nothing has changed for a
> person who finds
> >>> themselves in a class that exceeds their
> skills. I know - there's a
> >>> process to petition for dropping to a lower
> class, but it's intended for
> >>> hardship cases rather than being
> uncompetitive.
> >>>
> >>> OK - going back to the first paragraph - how
> might we fix this? My
> >>> suggestion is to change the rules so that
> folks who gather points in the
> >>> lower percentile of a class for X number of
> events (or rounds, or time
> >>> span?) have the option to stay where they are,
> or move back a class. The
> >>> current advancement rules would be applied to
> folks in the upper
> >>> percentile. It seems that this would provide
> an option for the casual
> >>> competitor to seek a comfort level and retain
> a reasonable advancement
> >>> process for the serious competitor. Of course
> there are administrative
> >>> issues, probably best to simply use data
> within each district, as most
> >>> already track points for district
> championships. A district based data
> >>> set would also best weight performance within
> one's local peer group.
> >>>
> >>> Just my thoughts - how about the group
> discussing this some.
> >>>
> >>> Earl
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>   _____
> >>>
> >>> Hotmail goes with you. Get it on your
> BlackBerry or iPhone.
> >>>
> >
> <http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutoria
> > l_Mobile1_052009>
> >>>
> >>>   _____
> >>>
> >>> Hotmail has ever-growing storage! Dont worry
> about storage limits. Check
> >>> it out.
> >>>
> >
> <http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutori
> > al_Storage1_052009>
> >>>
> >>>   _____
> >>>
> >>>
> _______________________________________________
> >>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >>>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>>
> _______________________________________________
> >>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >>>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion