[NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio systems

John Gayer jgghome at comcast.net
Mon Nov 21 21:56:02 AKST 2011


I think you would be better off listing the information that a pilot and 
his caller can receive through telemetry during an official flight. This 
information could be audible alarms for exceeding limits of the three 
parameters you listed. This is effectively the same as the low battery 
alarm currently in your transmitter. This one just happens to have an RF 
link added between the sensor and the alarm.

We should not be concerned about what telemetry is being downloaded and 
recorded but only what telemetry data the pilot/caller is receiving in 
realtime during an official competition flight.  It doesn't make a lot 
of sense to enact rules that cannot easily be enforced. It should  be 
permissible for the pilot to set up a download of any info he wants but 
would only be allowed to examine the telemetry data postflight as an 
instructional aid. That data would have no standing in the competition 
and could not be used for any kind of protest.

Of course there should be a ban on any closed loop control systems that 
use the attitude, velocities or accelerations of the model as feedback, 
either directly in the model or through the transmitter. This should not 
preclude the use of closed loop systems such as those that control 
surface position, system voltage or motor/engine rpm which do not use 
aircraft parameters as feedback.

John

On 11/21/2011 7:57 PM, Peter Vogel wrote:
> Dave,
>
> I wonder why you think a middle ground would create controversy?  I 
> get why there's been controversy as to what's a snap roll (and what's 
> a spin for that matter) but for telemetry, it should be simple enough 
> to enumerate what's permitted:
>
> 1.  Battery voltage
> 2.  Amp draw
> 3.  Temperature
>
> Anything else not permitted.
>
> Peter+
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Dave Lockhart <DaveL322 at comcast.net 
> <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>> wrote:
>
>     Fair enough distinction on the differences between Spektrum and
>     Hitec/Graupner.
>
>     I'm in no way suggesting the telemetry be ignored.  I'm suggesting
>     that rules that are impossible to accurately write, interpret, and
>     enforce are only going to be a timesink and source of controversy.
>
>     Pattern planes are quiet because we have a noise rule....not
>     because the noise rule is rigidly enforced at every pattern
>     contest.  If an extremely loud plane were to show up at a pattern
>     contest, I'd think at the majority of local contests the owner of
>     the loud plane would be offered assistance to quiet the plane,
>     and/or asked to quiet the plane prior to the next event.
>
>     Regarding the future of telemetry in pattern.....we can either
>     embrace it 100% and allow it to help pilots in any/all capacities
>     (simple enough, just adds more cost and complexity to the event),
>     pick a middle ground of what telemetry is allowed (and embrace
>     controversy), or disallow it (simple answer).  While I easily see
>     current/future radios including telemetry oriented at increasing
>     safety / preserving equipment (that may or may not be able to be
>     turned off), I seriously doubt any of the radio manufacturers are
>     going to produce radios with telemetry features that will enhance
>     flying that can not be turned off.  To that end, I think it is
>     easiest to disallow telemetry.....and then tech inspect if/when
>     needed......and I suspect telemetry to "cheat" will be about as
>     common as gyros.
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Dave
>
>     *From:*nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>     <mailto: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
>     *Peter Vogel
>     *Sent:* Monday, November 21, 2011 9:34 PM
>
>
>     *To:* General pattern discussion
>     *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio
>     systems
>
>     DX8 has telemetry but it's only sent if you have a TM1000 or
>     similar module in your plane, so unless you bind the telemetry
>     unit when you bind the RX, it's off.  But that's NOT how Hitec and
>     Graupner have implemented theirs (battery telemetry is always on
>     in the Aurora 9 and now even their entry level transmitters and
>     ALL of their receivers) Spektrum & JR are heading that direction
>     in their next gen, Futaba won't be far behind lest they lose more
>     market share in the US to JR & Spektrum.  It's a reality of the
>     market and ignoring it won't make it go away.
>
>     Peter+
>
>     On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Dave Lockhart
>     <DaveL322 at comcast.net <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>> wrote:
>
>     Spektrum DX8 has telemetry, for about 1 year now.  And it can be
>     turned off.  Yes something else that technically would need to be
>     inspected, just like inspecting TX programming for "magic"
>     switches to defeat the noise test.
>
>
>     Regards,
>
>
>     Dave
>
>     *From:*nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>     <mailto: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
>     *Peter Vogel
>     *Sent:* Monday, November 21, 2011 9:09 PM
>
>
>     *To:* General pattern discussion
>     *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio
>     systems
>
>     My issue with this approach is that it effectively makes the
>     current generation of equipment illegal for pattern competition as
>     telemetry is integrated into all new receivers + transmitters from
>     Graupner and Hitec already, I suspect Spektrum/JR aren't far
>     behind and we'll see what Futaba comes up with in their next tech
>     refresh.
>
>     I know I'm just a sportsman competitor and not up to the calibre
>     of the most of the people on this list, but from my perspective
>     I'd like to see something very straightforward, something like this:
>
>     Radio control equipment must be of the open loop type, no on-board
>     or telemetry-based automated feedback loop equipment such as
>     gyroscopes, autopilots or similar equipment is permitted.
>      Downlink telemetry providing basic system health functions such
>     as battery voltage and servo or motor current draw and temperature
>     data is permissible, but advanced telemetry such as heading,
>     attitude, airspeed, windspeed, etc. is not allowed.
>
>     Peter+
>
>     On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Dave Lockhart
>     <DaveL322 at comcast.net <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>> wrote:
>
>     While the intent is clear enough, wordsmithing rules to get
>     exactly the desired intent and only the desired intent is never
>     going to be truly achievable....just like the perpetual
>     wordsmithing for snaps and spins.
>
>     The simple solution is ban all telemetry and remove the problem of
>     determining what telemetry is / isn't allowed.  I am not opposed
>     to systems that enhance safety, but telemetry is not needed to do
>     that, simply link whatever onboard monitoring to the RX and have
>     the throttle pulsed to idle....just like the RF / low battery
>     failsafe / holds setups do now.
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Dave
>
>     *From:*nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>     <mailto: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
>     *astropuppy
>     *Sent:* Monday, November 21, 2011 7:03 PM
>
>
>     *To:* General pattern discussion
>     *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio
>     systems
>
>     Just my 2 cents. I think this technology would be best used to
>     eliminate the judges. Take a few (box & center)
>     gps coordinates before the contest and voila a judge who will work
>     all day without lunch or a Bio break. Mike
>
>     On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:45 PM, J N Hiller
>     <jnhiller at earthlink.net <mailto:jnhiller at earthlink.net>> wrote:
>
>     I wasn't going to get back into this but thanks to your thoughtful
>     reply I now have more questions / concerns we may need to be aware
>     of before adjusting rules.
>
>     If allowed I can envision telemetry expanding to include absolute
>     positioning of the flight plane, feedback to a processor giving
>     the pilot audible instructions during the flight similar to a good
>     caller. Call this a virtual or electronic caller helping the pilot
>     with timely verbal advise throughout the flight assist him in
>     correcting any and all deviations from the required track.
>
>     If we allow that only visual feedback be used but the pilot than
>     the rule needs to allow only system related data be available in
>     real time, no flight data.
>
>     If electronic flight sensor data is allowed need it be interpreted
>     by a biological assistant or should electronic processing of the
>     raw data be allowed resulting in usable pilot commands. Should the
>     instructions talking electronic device?
>
>     If we start nitpicking functionality within the rules we will be
>     revisiting the rule about as often as snap rolls. It appears to me
>     every thing except closed loop electronic flight command could be
>     allowed.
>
>     Disallowing advancing technology doesn't work for long. That
>     sounds familiar doesn't it.
>
>     The nice young lady in my truck computer does a good job assisting
>     me with navigation. I bet she could just as easily help me keep my
>     RC airplane on that invisible flight path as well as call the next
>     maneuver. It admittedly wouldn't be the same as a real live caller
>     including selective additives in their verbal suggestions.
>
>     Looks like another move to the latest and greatest equipment few
>     of us would benefit from.
>
>     Jim
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>     <mailto: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
>     *Ed Alt
>     *Sent:* Monday, November 21, 2011 10:27 AM
>     *To:* NSRCA List
>     *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio
>     systems
>
>     Is it against the rules for your caller to mention that the engine
>     sounds lean?  Can he tell you that it looks like you're dropping a
>     wing in the corners? What if he says you're drifting out to
>     200 meters, or that you just about missed the pole on the
>     turnaround?  All of these things are in-flight feedback, based on
>     audible or visual feedback from the model, that you, the pilot may
>     or may not have observed as keenly as your caller.  And you, as
>     the pilot, may or may not act on this feedback, which is different
>     than an automated closed loop feedback system.  It's called free
>     will.  If your caller grabs the sticks to fix any of these issues
>     for you, it's another matter entirely.
>
>     So now there can be telemetry feedback.  It is only a closed loop
>     feedback system if there is a mechanism in place to take specific
>     action on that feedback in a pre-determined fashion, which results
>     in having corrected some condition of flight with the model.  How
>     a low voltage warning could count as closed loop feedback is
>     debatable, but I guess that if it's OK for a hearing
>     imparied pilot to be assisted by a caller to land when there's an
>     engine problem, then it ought to be OK for an audible beep or a
>     glance at a telemetry display to clue you in on what's happening
>     inside the model, before it becomes a safety problem.
>
>     Just for perspective, your servos and voltage regulators are all
>     closed loop feedback systems.  So is the pressure regulator on a
>     YS, if you are still running one.  None of those closed loop
>     systems fly the model for you.  They only serve to stabilize that
>     part of the system that you are in command of.
>
>     Ed
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     From: jnhiller at earthlink.net <mailto:jnhiller at earthlink.net>
>     To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>     <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>     Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:12:15 -0800
>     Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio systems
>
>     "Closed Loop" ?? Dose this include information displayed for pilot
>     and or caller to use during a competition flight? Or only
>     electronic? If the info is displayed on the TX screen should it be
>     blacked out during flight? A beep for low voltage is obviously a
>     good thing but much more than that could be perceived as unequal
>     advantage. Personally I don't have the time or processing ability
>     to deal with it in real time. Keeping track of what I'm trying to
>     do is about all I can manage.
>
>     Jim
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>     <mailto: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
>     *Jay Marshall
>     *Sent:* Monday, November 21, 2011 8:00 AM
>     *To:* 'General pattern discussion'
>     *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio
>     systems
>
>     "Good" and "No Good" are not the issue. As far as I am concerned,
>     all information can be "Good". The issue is how it is used -- no
>     closed loop control.
>
>     Jay Marshall
>
>     *From:*nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>     <mailto: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
>     *rcmaster199 at aol.com <mailto:rcmaster199 at aol.com>
>     *Sent:* Monday, November 21, 2011 10:44 AM
>     *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>     <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>     *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio
>     systems
>
>     So, who's gonna draft a replacement rule for the old, antiquated
>     one? Sounds to me like some types of telemetry are not a bad thing
>     (airborne radio voltage, servo condition, are two OTOH). Other
>     types are no good (direction, rpm, voltage/current of power
>     supply, exhaust temp, etc)
>
>     MattK
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Verne Koester <verne at twmi.rr.com <mailto:verne at twmi.rr.com>>
>     To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>     <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
>     Sent: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 10:24 am
>     Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio systems
>
>     They were removed in mine as well. That was the last Futaba top
>     tier radio that came with good stiff springs.
>
>     Verne
>
>     *From:*nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>     <mailto: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
>     *Bob Richards
>     *Sent:* Monday, November 21, 2011 9:21 AM
>     *To:* General pattern discussion
>     *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio
>     systems
>
>     I think we all know what the intent of the rule is, but I think we
>     all agree that the rule needs to be modified to make that clear.
>
>     As for a snap switch, it is not a "control sequencing or control
>     timing device" as it does not initiate any kind of sequence or
>     start any kind of timing event, IMHO. Does anyone remember the
>     very first Futaba 8SGA transmitters that DID have timers on the
>     snap switch function, such that when you activated the switch it
>     would deflect the different control surfaces for a predetermined
>     amount of time (programmable). In my transmitter, the adjustment
>     pots for that had been removed, presumably because of the rules
>     against such functions.
>
>     Bob R.
>
>
>
>     --- On *Sat, 11/19/11, John Ford /<astropattern at yahoo.com
>     <mailto:astropattern at yahoo.com>>/* wrote:
>
>
>     From: John Ford <astropattern at yahoo.com
>     <mailto:astropattern at yahoo.com>>
>     Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio systems
>     To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>     <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>     Date: Saturday, November 19, 2011, 8:03 PM
>
>     I would speculate that the term "feedback" means a closed control
>     loop where the telemetry data would actually become pre-programed
>     data input to the TX software such that throttle, rates, flight
>     conditions, or mixes would actually be modified by the software in
>     real time. That would certainly be a game-changer!
>     Just having open telemetry isn't an advantage...it's probably a
>     distraction, unless you alarm on Rx battery voltage or something
>     like that.
>
>     John
>
>
>
>
>     On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 5:37 PM EST Peter Vogel wrote:
>
>     >Hmm.
>     >
>     >So I'm looking at section 4.4 of the AMA Competition regulations here:
>     >http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/2011-2012RCAerobatics1.pdf
>     >
>     >I see the following emphasis mine:
>     >
>     >Radio control equipment shall be of the open loop type
>     >(i.e. *no electronic feedback from the model to the *
>     >*ground*)
>     >
>     >It then goes on to provide examples of what is/is not permitted:
>     >
>     >Examples of control functions not permitted:
>     >8) Electronic or other signal or feedback
>     >from the model of *any kind.*
>     >
>     >I believe the verbiage needs to be changed to reflect the spirit
>     and intent
>     >of the rule, which is to prevent telemetry data (i.e. heading,
>     airspeed,
>     >etc.) that would provide an advantage in precision to the pilot
>     flying with
>     >said equipment.  Basic telemetry data such as the state of charge
>     for the
>     >reciever and main system batteries (in the case of an electric) model
>     >and/or engine/motor temperature, RPM, etc. provide no such
>     advantage and
>     >should be permitted as it enhances flight safety and provides some
>     >protection for the airframes themselves.
>     >
>     >Rex, says that "it goes on to say that the rule is to prevent
>     >pre-programmed control of the aircraft such as timed snaps" but I
>     believe
>     >those are distinct sentences, the RC equipment must be open loop
>     with no
>     >feedback from the model to the ground.  Period, full stop.  Then
>     it goes on
>     >with additional requirements distinct from the RC TX/RX:
>     Autopilots are
>     >prohibited (i.e. devices such as the UAVDev board or Ardupilot or
>     the new
>     >AS3X from Horizon would be prohibited, even though they are not
>     closed-loop
>     >control systems.  Further, automatic control sequencing or control
>     timing
>     >devices (which I have always read as preventing the use of snap button
>     >functions on modern computer transmitters) are prohibited.  I've
>     wondered
>     >how that last one is enforced given virtually every computer radio
>     today
>     >has the ability to assign a snap of any form to any switch or
>     button on the
>     >transmitter and it would be difficult to check that snap functions are
>     >inhibited in every contestent's TX.  I have assumed the honor system
>     >applies.  I would expect the same honor system, with, perhaps, a
>     check of
>     >winning pilot's telemetry systems in high-stakes events would be
>     sufficient
>     >to relax the telemetry rule to allow basic telemetry systems such
>     as the
>     >Hitec, Graupner + Spektrum systems to be permitted.
>     >
>     >Peter+
>     >
>     >On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Richard Lewis
>     <humptybump at sbcglobal.net
>     <http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=humptybump%40sbcglobal.net>>wrote:
>     >
>     >> The rule likely needs an update to verbage that is consistent
>     with current
>     >> technology, but as long as there is no closed loop on any of the
>     telemetry
>     >> it is well within the "spirit" of the rule to use/allow these
>     systems in
>     >> pattern...
>     >>
>     >>  ------------------------------
>     >> *From:* Peter Vogel <vogel.peter at gmail.com
>     <http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=vogel.peter%40gmail.com>>
>     >> *To:* "nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>     <http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion%40lists.nsrca.org>"
>     <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>     <http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion%40lists.nsrca.org>
>     >> >
>     >> *Sent:* Fri, November 18, 2011 4:20:02 PM
>     >>
>     >> *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] No telemetry rule & new radio systems
>     >>
>     >> I was just reading RCM&E (one of my favorite magazines) and
>     noticed that
>     >> the latest systems from Graupner and Hitec have telemetry
>     built-in to all
>     >> RX's, I suspect the others aren't far behind.  With the current rule
>     >> against any form of downlink from the aircraft, it seems the
>     newer systems
>     >> will be out of reach to those competing in pattern aerobatics. 
>     I'm just in
>     >> sportsman, any thought to relaxing the rule to restricting
>     telemetry that
>     >> might actually be an advantage in competition as opposed to
>     things that can
>     >> save an airframe like battery voltage data?
>     >>
>     >> Peter+
>     >>
>     >> Sent from my iPhone4S
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>     >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>     <http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion%40lists.nsrca.org>
>     >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>     >>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>     >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>     <http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion%40lists.nsrca.org>
>     >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>     >>
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >-- 
>     >Did you know? Arthritis affects people in all age groups including
>     nearly
>     >300,000 children.
>     >Please help me ride 525 miles down the California coast to support
>     >Arthritis Research
>     >http://2011cccnca.kintera.org/pvogel
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>     NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>     <http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion%40lists.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
>     <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
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Did you know? Arthritis affects people in all age groups including
>     nearly 300,000 children.
>     Please help me ride 525 miles down the California coast to support
>     Arthritis Research
>     http://2011cccnca.kintera.org/pvogel
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Did you know? Arthritis affects people in all age groups including
>     nearly 300,000 children.
>     Please help me ride 525 miles down the California coast to support
>     Arthritis Research
>     http://2011cccnca.kintera.org/pvogel
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Did you know? Arthritis affects people in all age groups including 
> nearly 300,000 children.
> Please help me ride 525 miles down the California coast to support 
> Arthritis Research
> http://2011cccnca.kintera.org/pvogel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20111122/420cb6a3/attachment.html>


More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list