[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
John Gayer
jgghome at comcast.net
Tue Oct 20 16:47:25 AKDT 2009
Dave,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
However I will repeat that I feel strongly that if there are new
sequences already generated then they should be published now along with
the guidelines used. They must be in a more or less final form now if
they have been presented to District 2 for comment.
If you are looking for volunteers in the next rules cycle, consider me
volunteered.
Also see +++ comments below.
Cheers
John Gayer
Dave wrote:
>
> John,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the response -- seriously -- I know you put thought into
> your responses.
>
>
>
> Your point on the rolling circles in F3A is spot on -- it is an
> excellent example of why AMA should never blindly follow FAI. Circles
> are absolutely contrary to the reducing overflight requirements and
> noise footprint. There are a number of people including myself who
> have advocated against rolling circles -- and apparently we are in the
> minority or it has fallen on deaf ears at FAI.
>
>
>
> Comparing current day turnaround 2M planes to ballistic style 63"
> wingspan piped 2C 60s is not really a fair comparison. When
> turnaround went into effect, the airspace used definitely decreased.
> As the airplanes have gotten larger (another example of unintended
> consequence of another short sighted FAI rule change), the airspace
> requirements have gradually crept up to the current day.
>
>
>
> You are correct that noise could have been addressed separately (to an
> extent) from the style of flying. However, the noise footprint is the
> product of the volume of noise and the amount of airspace used. I
> don't find it coincidence that both were addressed at the same time.
>
>
>
> I think at the time that FAI showed us the way to turnaround, it was
> embraced in the US/AMA to the degree it was because it was clearly an
> aid to reducing noise footprint, which was a huge problem in many
> areas of the country. If FAI were to introduce another "magnitude" of
> change, I think you are correct, US/AMA would not follow unless the
> benefits were revolutionary.
>
>
>
> I understand your history of reduced contests/contestants and the
> timing with turnaround in your area. I've talked with Jeff Carrish
> many times (former D1 guy, in D5 for ~12 years now, and hopefully
> getting back into pattern with encouragement from Dan). I think the
> same story exists in many parts of the US. In the NE US, I think the
> drop started before turnaround, and it started because of the loss of
> flying fields that could handle the ballistic pattern noise footprint
> and airspace needs. In the NE US, it was very apparent a change was
> needed, and turnaround looked to have obvious benefits (and it did),
> and the net result may well have been short term losses for long term
> sustainability.
>
+++++++++I saw both Jeff and Dan in August at the first AAM contest in
about a decade. Hopefully Jeff will start flying competitively again.
Jim Eide showed up to judge.
I certainly agree that the move to turnaround, gradual as it was, was a
good thing. It is clearly more challenging and interesting. It has led
to aircraft that are a delight to fly and almost too quiet if you fly at
an open field.
In this part of the country, it did run off a lot of top level pilots
and, I believe, lead to a gradual decline of pattern in the Rocky
mountain region. I can't speak for other parts of the country although I
used to fly at the Aeroguidance field in the 60s.
>
>
>
> "For the entry level Sportsman class, I am advocating the
> establishment of a skill progression relative to flying pattern
> schedules. This is independent of the maneuver complexity. Clearly
> there should be more maneuvers if only the center is judged. "
> ***********Ok. If I understand your clarification, a full turnaround
> sequence is more challenging than a non or partial turnaround sequence
> when both have the same maneuvers, because simply flying in the box
> adds to the challenge. If I got that right, we are in agreement.
> Whether or not the progression of classes should start with flying in
> the box, or learning specific maneuvers, that, to me, is a
> philosophical question/debate for which I think both sides have
> merit. Almost a chicken and the egg kind of thing. I really don't
> think it is possible to completely separate the two, and based on
> coaching beginner pattern pilots for 20+ years, I think the current
> Sportsman class is pretty solid, albeit maybe a bit long.
>
+++++++++ Removing the judging and the specificity of the turnaround
maneuvers does not eliminate the need to get on the correct track for a
center maneuver through the use of a turnaround maneuver. It does take
the pressure off and should insure that the contestant is not trying to
do an outside loop in the next county or overhead for that matter. The
emphasis as always is the teaching of wings level, rudder comes later.
>
>
> "For Masters, it has been argued that this is the destination AMA
> class. If this is truly the case, then the maneuver difficulty should
> be increased to support this class as an alternate goal to F3A . If it
> is a feeder class for F3A, then it also should support some simple
> roll/loop combinations. My opinion is that it is neither of these."
>
> ***********I believe you are partially correct. The current Masters
> class is a destination for some, and others are passing through on
> their way to F3A. The current difficulty level of Masters is based on
> feedback from Masters Pilots in prior NSRCA Surveys (and as I've noted
> previously, integrated loop/roll combinations and roll/snap
> combinations were not desired in this class). Pilots that think
> Masters is too difficult can stay in Advanced (I sincerely doubt any
> Advanced pilot who is cleaning up in Advanced won't be able to handle
> Masters) and those that want more of a challenge can take a look at
> F3A (which varies substantially depending on the year). We can't
> control F3A. We can control Masters. I personally think Masters
> should be a little more difficult, so some of the pilots will stay in
> Advanced longer and reduce the top heavy class structure (talking AMA
> only) we currently have. As others have stated (and I agree), guys
> that want to fly F3A will, with or without "official" feeder classes.
> Even if Masters were a feeder class to F3A, I see nothing wrong with
> an absence of integrated loop/roll maneuvers, just as I don't see a
> problem with the absence of spins in Intermediate. If new elements
> are not progressively introduced, what do we end up with? Snaps and
> spins in Sportsman? Years ago we had the problem of escalating
> difficulty within a class....and Novice was inserted under Sportsman,
> and then Pre-Novice was inserted under Novice. Silliness. That is a
> large driver in why the sequence design/criteria documents were
> written (more on that later).
>
+++++++++++I agree that Masters should be more difficult. I'm not sure
how you would do that without introducing some elements of roll/loop or
roll/snap combinations. Right now the pattern is not up to the quality
of pilot that is sitting at the top of Masters whether you consider it a
destination class or a feeder class.
>
>
> "Your last paragraph about armchair quarterbacking and comments based
> on incomplete data is somewhat insulting. I'm operating in the dark
> with my comments because the leadership of the NSRCA has kept me
> there. Where are the "sequence guidelines" published? And why can't
> the general membership see the current state of development of the new
> patterns now. If we don't see them until next year, all we are going
> to get is an up or down vote."
>
> ***********My intent was not to be insulting, but if it came across
> that way I apologize. I freely admit to being frustrated by the lack
> of support and interest in taking part in the Sequence Committee, only
> to have (by comparison) voluminous commentary after the process has
> begun (and is actually close to completion). Certainly anyone coming
> into the game after it began is not guilty of armchair quarterbacking.
>
+++++++++I understand your frustration in getting participation for
these committees. I believe that the leadership has an e-mailing list
for the full membership. The districts also have mailing lists. Was
there a mass mailing explaining the function of the sequence committee
and asking for volunteers? Has this been done for the Event Director of
the World Championships? Until these things are done, you cannot sit
back and complain that you are not getting support.
>
>
>
> The structure of the Sequence Committee and the process to be
> completed was outlined at the onset, and there was buy-in from the
> NSRCA Board, and no dissent from the Membership. The process did not
> include oversight by the general membership, just as the NSRCA Board
> does not include the general membership in every email and phone
> call. Development of the sequences is a process, and putting it on
> hold, or going backwards to include additional people is counter
> productive.
>
>
>
> The "sequence guidelines" -- I don't think they are published
> anywhere, not that they are a secret. They are a collection of word
> documents that are all related -- basically an outline for developing
> sequences as a related group, and then specific docs for each class
> that include design criteria / class objectives, and a maneuver
> catalog for each class. They are intended to be modified as needed
> based Survey results, the inclusion of new maneuvers in a sequence, or
> changes in the rules that would affect flying/judging criteria of
> specific maneuvers. I will send a separate email to the Sequence
> Committee and Prez Derek to see about posting them.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *John
> Gayer
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 20, 2009 5:26 PM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
>
>
>
> Dave,
>
> I do not believe the footprint is that much less than it used to be
> pre-turnaround. We may have pulled in the ends somewhat but we have
> also pushed out perpendicular to the flight line, particularly with
> F3A rolling circles. I don't recall doing old-style turnarounds much
> further out than a 175 meter turnaround that breaks the box a bit
> does. The sport flyers at any field are pushing the limits of
> visibility and flying further out as well.
> The main issue was noise. That is an issue that could and should have
> been addressed as a separate issue from a conversion to turnaround.
> My original point was that we would not have considered turnaround
> pattern in this country if the FAI had not shown us the way and we
> were willing at that time to follow. I also believe that if the FAI
> were to establish a new direction of that magnitude today, that the
> pattern community/leadership would reject such a change out of hand.
> It is arguable as to the cause for a drop in attendance but it does
> appear to start about the same time as the conversion of pattern to
> turnaround. There are a lot of ex-pattern flyers dating from that
> period. Our latest contest here in Albuquerque had eight contestants.
> The spring contest had 15. If I want to attend another contest, I
> have to travel at least 450 miles. That would gain me1-3 contests next
> year. Any more and I'm up to 700-1000 miles travel one way. This part
> of the country(pre-turnaround) was very active in pattern. Colorado
> alone used to have at least 5 contests and now they are struggling to
> bring back just one of them. Utah, Montana and Nevada used to have
> contests- now nothing.
>
> For the entry level Sportsman class, I am advocating the establishment
> of a skill progression relative to flying pattern schedules. This is
> independent of the maneuver complexity. Clearly there should be more
> maneuvers if only the center is judged.
>
> For Masters, it has been argued that this is the destination AMA
> class. If this is truly the case, then the maneuver difficulty should
> be increased to support this class as an alternate goal to F3A . If it
> is a feeder class for F3A, then it also should support some simple
> roll/loop combinations. My opinion is that it is neither of these.
>
> Your last paragraph about armchair quarterbacking and comments based
> on incomplete data is somewhat insulting. I'm operating in the dark
> with my comments because the leadership of the NSRCA has kept me
> there. Where are the "sequence guidelines" published? And why can't
> the general membership see the current state of development of the new
> patterns now. If we don't see them until next year, all we are going
> to get is an up or down vote.
>
> John Gayer
>
> Dave wrote:
>
> The ONLY REASON?
>
>
>
> Hmmm.....pattern would have all but died in many parts of the country
> had it not been for reduced overflight requirements of turnaround, the
> reduced noise, and the reduced noise footprint. In the Northeast US,
> pattern was dead in many areas because of noise and overflight
> problems, and 20 years later, some clubs are just now starting to
> understand that pattern is no longer a field killer. I was part of
> the group in the late 80s that penned the transition to turnaround,
> and I was a diehard AMA flyer at the time. Yes, some dropped pattern
> because they did not want to change to turnaround style, but many of
> those would not have been able to continue flying non turnaround
> because of the noise and overflight issues.
>
>
>
> To suggest that the AMA community is fully rejecting FAI concepts is,
> I think, a gross overstatement. FAI has always done some stupid
> things, and like any large bureaucracy, it will likely do so in the
> future. On a regular basis, there is advocacy to do what FAI does,
> and on a regular basis there is opposition to ABSOLUTE congruency with
> FAI.....AMA can always CHOOSE to follow an FAI lead, but should never
> establish legislation REQUIRING it to do so.
>
>
>
> I'm not clear whether you want to increase or decrease the difficulty
> of Sportsman? Eliminating turnarounds would make it easier. Adding
> back 3 roll and 3 loops would make it harder? And if Sportsman were
> made less difficult, and Masters were made more difficult, then the
> difficulty between classes would increase ...another always hot topic.
> My opinion, I would like to see the Sportsman class simpler, and I've
> been involved with the Sequence Committee for 20+ years, and 90% of
> the time I've been called an elitist for trying to take away the "fun"
> and "challenging" maneuvers from the Sportsman. I'd like to see
> pattern competitors stay in a class until they have mastered the
> elements in that class, not simply gotten to the point of being able
> to consistently fly the sequence with no scores <5. I'd like to see
> competitors realize that they can practice the next sequence BEFORE
> getting there, and there is some personal responsibility in preparing
> for the next class. Everyone needs to understand it is simply
> impossible to have difficulty gaps between classes that everyone finds
> to be appropriate -- it is continually adjusted by the Sequence
> Committee based on feedback from the pilots that voice their opinion
> during the design process.
>
>
>
> For Masters, the biggest difference between it and FAI, aside from 2
> schedules, is the integrated loop/roll (rolling loops, rolling
> circles) element. Masters pilots have repeatedly in substantial
> majorities expressed the desire to NOT HAVE integrated loop/roll
> elements in Masters. If you want integrated loop/roll elements, there
> is a class for that -- it is FAI. The other element in FAI that is
> not in Masters is combination roll / snap maneuvers -- again, because
> Masters pilots have repeatedly expressed the desire to NOT HAVE this
> in Masters.
>
>
>
> I'm glad to see the prolific number of posts on this (and similar
> topics) in the past month......I'm sure it means many people will
> volunteer AND contribute to the next Sequence Committee. There is a
> very good system in place (that is quite flexible and accommodating to
> reflect progress and evolving ideas) for designing sequences, but it
> does not work without participation, and as with many other endeavors,
> it does not do very well accommodating armchair quarterbacking and
> occasional comments from sidelines base on limited or incomplete data.
> The length of time it takes to draft, propose, review, and implement
> rules is always a hot topic, and it certainly doesn't get any shorter
> with late entries to the game or increasingly larger numbers of people
> involved. I can assure you that the active core of the current
> Sequence Committee is listening, and nothing is being done in a vacuum.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Dave Lockhart
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *John
> Gayer
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 20, 2009 11:39 AM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
>
>
>
> As I recall, the ONLY reason AMA is now flying turnaround is because
> F3A went to a turnaround format. The "powersthatwere" were concerned
> that our team would not have the relevant experience to compete on the
> world stage. This started a process of conversion to turnaround by
> including the FAI pattern and then expert turnaround in AMA pattern
> contests.
> The pendulum has now swung the other way where the AMA pattern
> community, while overly committed to turnaround, rejects the patterns,
> rules and concepts of the FAI.
>
> While I no longer see a need to use the current(or past schedule as we
> have already done) F3A pattern as the Masters pattern, I believe it is
> important to address whatever is new and challenging in the upcoming
> F3A patterns and consider introducing similar elements into the
> Masters pattern.
>
> At the other end of the spectrum, I believe that the Sportsman class
> should have the turnaround elements removed completely. Perhaps some
> of the center maneuvers could be upgraded in difficulty at the same
> time. The sportsman flyer needs more focus on learning the maneuvers
> and where to place them. Making them fly the box simply insures that
> they aree not in position to do a proper center maneuver. This is not
> intended as a first step in getting rid of turnaround but rather
> creating a progression in the learning process.
>
> John Gayer
>
> Bill Glaze wrote:
>
> Ed:
>
> Why are we tied to FAI? Ed, certainly you must realize that we are
> tied to FAI so that every 2 years we can send a handful of model
> flyers to some foreign land to compete in a contest, the results of
> which will be of interest to only a handful of people here, and,
> certainly, won't boost interest in pattern for the general model
> flying community. That's why!
>
> So there!
>
> Bill
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Ed Alt <mailto:ed_alt at hotmail.com>
>
> *To:* NSRCA List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> *Sent:* Monday, October 19, 2009 9:33 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
>
>
>
> Re. the notion of robotically accepting whatever FAI P sequence
> comes our way as our Masters sequence, let's keep it simple. What
> problem, exactly, are we trying to solve? And what exactly is it
> about giving up all autonomy with respect to creating our AMA
> Masters sequences in this country that leads us to believe that
> this represents a solution?
>
> I think that you need to look no further than the P-11 and F-11 to
> fully understand why this should not be done. On the one hand,
> you have a prelim sequence that was done either with complete lack
> of understanding of what the box boundaries are, or perhaps worse
> yet, contemplates that it is best to fly at 220m in order to stay
> within them while maintaining consistency with roll rates and
> maneuver size throughout the sequence. And then you have
> snaposaurus F-11. I quit IMAC in favor of Pattern after 2003 for
> some good reasons, and these two 2001 FAI sequences harken back to
> that time for me. Let's not start introducing the mindless
> application of snap rolls and lack of thought for what the
> aerobatic box is there for, just to make it easier to flit between
> Masters and FAI during the season.
>
> Joe Lachowski and Dave Lockhart put a great deal of of thought and
> energy into creating sequence design criteria, which is a good
> tool to help design better sequences. I think that we should
> continue to refine this approach and use it to our advantage to
> make the best sequences that we are capable of, rather than just
> adopt something that we have essentially no control of.
> Ed
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: jlachow at hotmail.com <mailto:jlachow at hotmail.com>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:24:03 -0400
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
>
> If we go this route, I for one will definitely quit.
>
> We already have new sequences designed for 2011 for all the
> classes. And we have been adopting a maneuver here and there from
> the FAI sequences. They will be presented in the K-factor sometime
> in the future. There are even two different sequences put together
> for Masters. One is the traditional length and the other is the
> same length as FAI.
>
> The new FAI sequence for next year is a real good example not to
> flat out adopt a P sequence as it is.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: burtona at atmc.net <mailto:burtona at atmc.net>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:56:40 -0400
> CC: tom_babs at bellsouth.net <mailto:tom_babs at bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
>
> It seems to me that adopting the FAI "P" schedule for the Masters
> class with "changes" is not the way to go. A better alternative
> IMO is to fly FAI P schedule under FAI rules as a separate class.
> Those of us with some age remember when this was done years ago as
> "D" expert and "D" Novice classes. As I remember AMA class "D" was
> the FAI event back then. This would have the advantages of two
> classes flying under the same rules and the benefits of more
> flyers/judges familiar with the same rules and maneuvers. It
> would also eliminate the work involved in coming up with a new
> Masters sequence every three or so years as a new schedule would
> be automatically be invoked FAI changed. I'd like to see a
> proposal for this change submitted to the Contest Board.
>
> Dave Burton
>
>
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Vicente "Vince" Bortone
> *Sent:* Monday, October 19, 2009 11:29 AM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
>
>
>
> Hi Lance,
>
>
> Just to clarify. I am not the only one making this proposal. Don
> Ramsey and Charlie Rock helped me to put it together. I am going
> to try to respond to your questions below. Please read below in
> **bold. **Thanks for bringing this discussion to the list.
>
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lance Van Nostrand" <patterndude at tx.rr.com>
> <mailto:patterndude at tx.rr.com>
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 11:51:30 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada
> Central
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
>
> I know official discussion hasn't started but this list is one of
> the good vetting forums. Vince proposed Masters flying FAI P,
> which is clear **(this is for sure the most important
> statement)**, but if the logic behind the proposal as written
> causes confusion it may make a less convincing case. **Good
> point. We assumed that was easy for someone that is very familiar
> to pattern to digest the intent of the proposal. Your conclusions
> are correct. We are assuming that the current procedures we use
> to design the Master schedule are not changed. We adopt the
> current FAI P schedule with the appropriate changes to suit the
> Master class. This is the reason why we didn't try to discuss
> other details. **For example, it says "there is an evident pile
> up f pilots in the Masters class" but never clearly states how
> flying the same sequence would change that. He may be implying
> that people will more freely move between classes to balance the
> lines because they are flying a similar sequence but the sequences
> may not be identical and the judging rules are not
> identical. **Correct. You actually saw what happened in Tulsa
> this year. There were 10 pilots in Masters and you decided to
> divide the group in two and five flew Masters and five flew FAI.
> This also happened already in other local contest around KC. It
> happens at Fort Scott contest also. Pilots will be more willing
> to do this we fly the same schedule. **At another point it says
> "This will make judging of both classes very accurate" but doesn't
> address the obvious differences in judging criteria between AMA
> and FAI, which is the current burden that Masters and FAI pilots
> currently bear when the fly one class and judge the other.** I am
> sure that we will agree that it will be a lot easier to deal with
> these differences if we fly the same schedules. The proposal
> intent is not to address the differences in judging criteria
> between AMA and FAI. I believe that it will become natural as we
> start to fly the same schedule and the differences will go away
> with time. **Finally, there is no exact wording proposed on the
> form where it is expected, but later in the logic it refers to the
> idea of replacing some FAI maneuvers where appropriate. **We are
> assuming that the current procedure to design the schedules
> is still in place. The committee will check the current FAI P
> schedule and proposed a final one with the changes to make it
> suitable for Masters. For example, P11 the only portion I will
> change is the integrated half loop on the figure M. I will
> suggest something like 2 of 4 or 1/2 roll on bottom to replace the
> integrated 1/2 roll. I believe that all other maneuvers are
> suitable for Masters. **Without exact wording, its not clear how
> this is done, or if the maneuver descriptions will be re-written
> in the AMA rules, or referenced to the FAI descriptions like the
> sequence. **The committee will decide whatever is appropriate.
> If they feel that the FAI descriptions are appropiate we could use
> it as is.** Oh, and how does AMA deal with the fact that FAI
> changes schedules in odd years?** We will need to follow FAI
> schedule. I think that this is very possible and should not be a
> problem. **
>
>
>
> My intent is simply to point out aspects that detract from it's
> thoroughness. I do not yet have a stance on the issue.** We put
> this together just taking at the 2008 Nats. I remember that I
> have to judge FAI and I never had the chance to judge FAI before
> the Nats. I was trying to study the FAI schedule at the same time
> that I was trying to fly my own contest. This is clearly an
> additional pressure on the contestant. If this proposal pass
> it will make our life easier at the local contest and when we
> judging at the Nats or any other contest. Also, clearly will make
> the judging level very high because Masters and FAI pilots will be
> very familiar with the schedules we fly and the details requires
> to judge each of the maneuvers. Finally, the balance in local
> contest will be easier to fix since we will more willing to fly
> FAI when required. **
>
>
>
> --Lance
>
>
> _______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion
> mailing list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.
> <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.
> <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091021/fe97c736/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list