[NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was Executive Board voting
John Gayer
jgghome at comcast.net
Wed Dec 12 19:51:38 AKST 2012
John,
Thanks for providing us with some insight into the thought processes
behind the decisions that were made. While I could spend a lot of time
countering the CB positions on many of the proposals, for the most part
they are over and done with. Hopefully in the next cycle both the board
and the NSRCA will be more proactive in trying to resolve differences
before it is too late.
The single item I really feel obligated to address is that of the safety
proposals. The main problem I have here is the AMA position that they do
not want to make a blanket rule and are leaving it up to the SIGs for
their specific circumstances. This decision was apparently taken without
informing the SIGs. Now the NSRCA is being told on the one hand that the
CB turned down their proposals in part because the CB has to take into
account ALL pattern flyers and the AMA is apparently saying that it is
the NSRCAs responsibility to pass their own rules. We can't do that for
a number of reasons.
1. We don't have a separate NSRCA rulebook nor do we have any
enforcement power over CDs and/or their contests.
2. Actually we do have a rulebook but it is under the control of the
AMA CB not the SIG and the CB has declined to implement additional
safety procedures requested by the SIG
3. So if the NSRCA wants additional safety rules, we need to amend the
rulebook. Sounds like a catch-22 to me
If the AMA wants to turn over the appropriate section of the rulebook to
each SIG, they should just say so. Right now I consider the AMA to be in
an untenable position. They are directing(without informing) others to
write rules the directees have no way to enforce and turning a blind eye
on the potential dangers of runaway aircraft with unshielded lawnmower
blades on the front end. Failsafe and arming issues have already caused
damage and injury at just about every field in the country. Whatever we
can do to prevent both carelessness and brain farts from killing or
maiming we have an obligation to push forward, at least for pattern. The
failsafe rule was an easy one. No additional equipment, just a check to
see that the equipment in place works properly. As for the arming
proposal, the one the NSRCA proposed did not make it out of the
preliminary vote but did not specify an arming solution. Both of these
proposal were similar to checks currently being performed by the FAI.
As far as the lack of penalty is concerned, the first section of the
rules pertaining to safety reads as follows:
*6.1: *The CD at an AMA sanctioned event has the authority to perform
safety inspections of any equipment and to prevent any participant from
using equipment which in the CDs opinion is deemed unsafe.
We assumed this paragraph provided the overriding penalty and placed the
enforcement authority where it should be- in the CDs hands. We were just
adding to the current safety checks that are already listed. Several
paragraphs are in section 6 without any specific penalty listed and
appear to rely on 6.1 for enforcement. If the CD, does not have
time(often the case) or the expertise he can delegate this task to an
e-smart volunteer. As a CD, I would do everything I could to get a plane
in compliance and not enforce disqualification. Disqualifying someone
solves nothing.
Thanks for all you do for pattern
John Gayer
On 12/12/2012 5:29 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
>
> Maybe I can offer some insight.
>
> If a proposal says do something then there needs to be a penalty or
> clear result that the CD can enforce. For example both safety
> proposal had no penalty/result if not complied with. Also was
> concern that although there may be a visible plug that does not
> ensure that the system is really disconnected. There was concern
> about adding responsibility on the CD who may not be electric smart.
> There is always concern that opened ended rules create confusion. If
> you will remember the last cycle a lot of work went into defining
> specific downgrades where to fore no penalty was assigned.
>
> I did, in fact, contact the AMA Tech Director twice on the safety
> issues. AMA has taken the position that they do not want to make a
> blanket rule for all electric activity preferring to leave that to the
> SIGs to implement for their specific circumstances.
>
> On the telemetry issue there was a consensus that we do not have the
> technical means to validate that TM is being used correctly. TM has
> great potential for misuse. How does one enforce only battery
> monitoring for instance. I know that the vast majority of folks do
> not cheat on the rules but I know for a fact that it has happened.
> TM will come up again. Newer radios have it so it will be a fact
> of life. Have no idea where we are headed.
>
> Weight is always contentious but we had just implemented a weight
> change the last cycle. I thinks the consensus was that some
> experience with the current rule was warranted.
>
> Advancement is also a contentious issue. But I guess the majority
> felt that this proposal was no better than what exists.
>
> We did have an initial vote and 3 failed. Then we had a cross
> proposals phase and then a final vote. I would be happy to provide
> all vote results to NSRCA along with why they failed (assuming I get
> that insight) and would have done so this time if requested. My bad
> for not being more pro-active but having done this for a long time
> with never a request I guess I did not see this coming. AMA does
> post the results but admittedly they are not always timely.
>
> John Fuqua
>
> One last thought. Board members rarely get feedback on proposals.
> A lot of the time we just have to do what our experiences tell is the
> right thing to do for our sport.
>
> *From:*nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Scott
> McHarg
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:00 PM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was Executive Board
> voting
>
> Mark and all CB members,
>
> I really doubt that anyone is upset because the proposals got
> turned down. The problem is in the lack of communication between the
> author (whether it be an individual or committee). There was no
> report published as to what the issues were, there was no
> communication between the author(s) and the CB, there was simply
> nothing. I watched online daily to see what the results of the
> interim vote was so that we could take corrective action as necessary.
> Those were never published and to be honest, I'm not even sure there
> was an interim vote. I spoke to a couple of CB members and I will not
> call out their names in public as I do not want to point fingers. I
> was told that I would be hearing from the CB as the process went on so
> that proposals that warranted improvement could be massaged into a
> rule that made sense. So, I patiently waited along with the rest of
> the folks. The next thing I know, all proposals are turned down with
> no explanation and final votes have been cast.
>
> I received a brief explanation of the thought process of one CB
> member right before the final vote was to be taken (and I mean right
> before). It was his opinion that he was expressing and I respect that
> but what was said was pretty amazing to me. This person's words went
> something like "This is the start of a great rule but not close to
> being one yet. It is not our job to help write the rules, simply to
> vote on them and uphold the pattern community". I do not think for
> one second this is how the entire CB feels and refreshed knowing this
> is not the case. This simply tells me to submit what you have and
> we'll make the decision. If it's good or if it's a good start, the CB
> has no obligation to help get it there, that's the author's
> responsibility. Please understand, the proposals didn't pass and
> that's OK. Maybe next time, we can all work together to come up with
> proposals if they are warranted.
>
> I am slightly distraught about the Advancement Proposal. This
> would have made it so much easier for everyone to fly in the class
> that they were competitive in and/or felt comfortable in. This did
> not change the pattern community and did not warrant any extra work or
> duties, especially for the CD. There would not be any more trophy
> hunting going on with it then there is now as most local events are
> attended by the same individuals and we all know who is flying in what
> class for the most part. OK, so it got turned down but why? What is
> the logic? Honestly, that's what I want to understand more than
> anything. I definitely get the weight proposal. I even get the
> "safety" proposal to some extent. This one, the Advancement Proposal,
> I do not understand. If there were arguments or heated discussions
> within the CB for those that supported it and those that didn't, why
> wouldn't the author(s) be included in the communication to help
> explain the intent of the proposal so that it could be made clear?
>
> As far as the safety proposal is concerned, I really do get why
> that shouldn't be a pattern rule but, did the proposal get passed to
> the AMA Safety Committee? If it did, great! Why didn't we know? I
> agree with some of y'all also that sometimes it "seems" that safety
> procedures don't need a rule because most of us are very careful and
> incorporate some safety device. In racing motorcycles, you have to
> safety wire the majority of your bolts and nuts at all times.
> Especially the oil drain plug. Imagine a drain plug backing out and
> hitting turn 6 at 120 mph and a fellow competitor going through that.
> Trust me as I've seen oil and coolant on the track and what happens,
> it's ugly. I do not agree, however, that because most people are
> safety conscious and have something in place, that a rule doesn't need
> to be made. Imagine that case in the example above. The premise that
> most do it so it's OK is not the correct mindset. We wrote and
> rewrote that proposal to give the majority what they wanted. People
> didn't want an arming plug to be required. Cool, we said. Let's make
> it so that the requirement is just that the plane is disarmed. Most
> loved the new proposal because it directly reflected the FAI rule and
> it did not require any added equipment or weight or drilling holes in
> the side of your plane. Not only did that proposal go down in flames
> but the original proposal submitted by someone other than the NSRCA
> Rules Committee requiring an arming plug passed the initial vote from
> the CB. How did this happen after all the uproar?
>
> It seems to me that it is easy to place blame on the NSRCA but ask
> to take the AMA to task is a big no-no. We pay dues to the NSRCA and
> therefore we have a voice! I agree 100%. But, we are also members of
> the AMA and should have a voice there as well. We do not (or so it
> seems). This is what, if anything I would like to accomplish as a
> volunteer of the NSRCA; to increase visibility of our community and
> have wide open communication with our members and equally important,
> with the AMA who really has the ultimate say-so in every facet of this
> hobby. I want to know how to "fix it" for next time and have the true
> open door policy where communication flows both ways. One group or
> the other should not be required to make the first call. We should
> want to work together for the betterment of our hobby.
>
> Thank you for reading,
>
> Scott
>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
> <mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>> wrote:
>
> OK, As a CB member I want to throw a few quick things out there.
> First and foremost, Just like the NSRCA Board, we're a group of
> volunteers that love modeling and Precision Aerobatics, and we do the
> best we can with fulfilling our charter. If there are issues,
> mistakes, bad choices, GOOD choices, they are all the result of a
> dedicated group TRYING to do their best. There is no hidden agenda or
> malicious intent...ever.
>
> That said I think one of the clear disconnects is our Charter. We are
> selected to the contest board based on our years of experience in the
> hobby, the sport, a demonstration of our understanding of the AMA and
> its rules, and an active participation and understanding in the niche
> within which we are representing.
>
> We have some obligation to preserve Pattern, as Pattern. I.e. if the
> ENTIRE NSRCA membership voted unanimously to change the rules such
> that whom ever could fly 10 laps the fastest wins... We would have an
> obligation to vote NO, regardless of that unanimous support. I.e go
> fly Pylon. Occasionally we are presented with rules that we
> collectively feel are not in the best interest of maintaining Pattern
> competition and this then comes into play. This is especially true
> when rules are put forth that strongly alter the lower classes (Often
> championed by someone with heavy interest and enthusiasm, but minimal
> years of experience to know how these things manifest).
>
> We also have an obligation to the logistics of the sport. Rules that
> place an unreasonable burden on running an event bare a much higher
> level of scrutiny prior to being passed.
>
> We have an obligation to the AMA to keep some consistency with their
> general rules, and with similar rules in other disciplines. Safety
> issues fall squarely into this camp. The AMA has long stated that
> they do not support legislating out stupidity, or creating burdensome
> rules that punish the masses simply to protect against carelessness
> (Unless of course the result of such error is catastrophic).
>
> Also regarding safety, if the safety issue is somewhat generic to the
> hobby, then those regulations are pushed up to the AMA safety board
> for review unless they are very specific to the individual discipline.
>
> Bottom line... Just because the majority of the NSRCA wants it,
> doesn't mean we should be approving it.
>
> Lastly, the statement "The majority of the NSRCA" does NOT necessarily
> mean the survey results. That is a VERY small subset of our group.
> It's typically a subset of the vocal, or the opinionated, or both. I
> can't speak for the entire CB, but I WILL speak for Verne (Sorry
> Verne) and me, in that we both query as many of our district members
> that we see or can solicit. MANY times an issue that has been fired
> up on the list or via the survey gets a very different 'vote' when
> it's discussed in the actual setting of a contest, and when all the
> inputs are weighed (I.e. everyone standing there discusses it).
>
> All that said, there's no reason why we couldn't collectively write an
> assenting or dissenting opinion much in the way a court does, to at
> least convey the logic that was used to make our vote.
>
> Anyhow, the entire CB is online and our names are published. One need
> but ask... and many do. But we're sometimes remiss to post too much
> on the discussion boards about a proposal. Rather most of us take a
> back seat to the discussion and simply listen.
>
> -Mark
> Mark Atwood
> Paragon Consulting, Inc. | President
> 5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
> Phone: 440.684.3101 x102 <tel:440.684.3101%20x102> | Fax:
> 440.684.3102 <tel:440.684.3102>
> mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com
> <mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com><mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com <mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>>
> | www.paragon-inc.com
> <http://www.paragon-inc.com><http://www.paragon-inc.com/>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 12, 2012, at 12:19 PM, J N Hiller wrote:
>
> I'm not too old to remember what it was like before the NSRCA. If you
> traveled very far you could find yourself competing in an unfamiliar
> event.
> The NSRCA has matured since those early days and contributed greatly
> to standardized judging, rule proposal screening and national unity.
> YES the NSRCA has value well beyond the K-Factor.
>
> Yes it would be nice to get the rest of the story from the AMA contest
> board as to why safety related rules were voted down. Maybe I missed
> it but at this point I can only guess. I could probably ask directly
> and get a reply but I trust they had a valid reason.
>
> I also trust our BOD to lead the NSRCA on my behalf without having to
> explain, discuss or endlessly argue details in an open forum. Open
> discussed can be extremely time consuming with limited productivity.
> There is no making everyone happy especially if their' participation
> is hit and miss continuously requiring covering old ground.
>
> Those of us that wish to be involved in the details can get actively
> involved.
>
> Enough. On to the shop!
>
> Jim Hiller
> NSRCA 376
> .
>
> -----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>>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>]On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 7:33 AM
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Executive Board voting
>
> John,
> I have never intentionally attacked anyone, either on this forum or on
> the discussions over on RCU. I've asked questions, seeking answers.
> I tend to be direct in my emails and they may appear to be harsh,
> probably comes from my background dealing with the military. I have
> not accused anyone of having an agenda, nor do I think anyone on the
> board does. If you or anyone else thinks that is what I've implied or
> am implying, I'm sorry.
>
> I think after seeing what you said here, seeing the complete NSRCA
> survey results, and several private emails and phone calls, that there
> is a general apathy in NSRCA which seems to have its roots in people
> questioning the relevancy of the organization. If NSRCA is not
> relevant and doesn't provide added value to the membership, we can
> turn the sequences back over to the AMA and disband. I'd like to see
> NSRCA viewed as returning far more in value to the membership than the
> few dollars they invest each year. A question we all need to
> constantly ask ourselves is "If someone asks me why I should join the
> NSRCA, what do I tell them?"
>
> The K-Factor is a recurring theme in the survey and people I have
> talked to in terms of value to the members. I would like to
> congratulate Scott McHarg and the rest of the K-Factor crew on the
> December issue of the K-Factor. I everyone reading this hasn't looked
> at it, it has a lot of how-to in it. Good job!
>
> I didn't mean to imply that the AMA competition board should not have
> been much more transparent during the rules proposal process. They
> should have been, and that communication is one thing I'd work on to
> improve if elected. I am an advocate of follow-up, follow-up,
> follow-up. And if we are going to ask others to be transparent to us,
> then we need to walk the talk.
>
> Again, sorry if I offended anyone. I was asking questions that I
> didn't see anyone else asking, and I wanted to know the answers. I
> hope the membership will see this continuing discussion as
> constructive, and offer their thoughts.
> Jon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net
> <mailto:jgghome at comcast.net><mailto:jgghome at comcast.net
> <mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>>>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>>
> Sent: Tue, Dec 11, 2012 11:16 pm
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Executive Board voting
> [quote]ORIGINAL: jonlowe
> Transparency. I think the spilled milk has been discussed enough, from
> the AMA rules change proposal process by the board, to the bylaws, to
> the aborted officer election.
> [/quote]
>
>
> I certainly agree that there were processes that could have been
> improved relative to the bylaw changes and officer election. However
> to call them aborted and imply in various other posts that the board
> has a hidden agenda is over the top. Clearly the board could have and
> should have done a better job on the elections and, for that matter,
> the treasurer's audit but there was no intent to hoodwink or put one
> over on the membership. We are nothing but a bunch of volunteers with
> a love of pattern. When the call went out two years ago, noone else
> stood up and said "I want to run for office". Various coercions were
> applied to get Ed Alt to run for President and Scott McHarg to run for
> Secretary.I will admit to calling Derek and asking if they had found a
> Treasurer in mid-December. When he said yes, I thanked him and was
> about to hang up when he said "you". Later that year Ed Alt resigned
> due to the press of work and Jim Quinn who was then VP reluctantly
> assumed the reins of president. Good choice or not, there was noone
> else champing at the bit to take the job and the board gratefully
> accepted Jim as president. I didn't see anyone jumping up and down to
> get on the board at that time or, for that matter, now. Kind of wonder
> where all the current contrarians were then. Jon, I guess you were
> still recovering from your retirement so that excuses you but there
> are plenty of others making derogatory comments about the actions of
> the current board. Where are you when we need help? Apparently looking
> the other way. Right now John Bruml has been trying to get out of
> being the Advertising Manager almost as long as I've been on the
> board. Where are those clamoring to help out? Apparently using their
> energies to bash those who did throw their hat in.
>
>
> LOWE>>Oh, and about the Contest Board. Their process is well
> documented by the AMA and follows a strict time table. We all had the
> opportunity to provide inputs and cross proposals after the initial
> vote. We also had the opportunity to talk to the CB members, and I
> did talk to a couple of them. The CB members are mostly active
> members of the pattern community, are well known, and are charted by
> the AMA, not the NSRCA, to look at rules proposals to benefit all AMA
> participants, not just NSRCA members. Problems with the NSRCA
> proposals were hashed out here, and the submitters had the opportunity
> to fix issues during the cross proposal process. How much follow-up
> contact did the NSRCA board initiate with the CB during the process?
> Were any cross proposals submitted?<<LOWE
>
> Jon, this seems to have provided the impetus for your presidential
> campaign. I can only say that the NSRCA Rules committee operated
> openly, if with a late start, and solicited input from the membership
> on RCU and this list(and outside the membership as well), ran a
> survey, modified proposals to meet objections and finally submitted
> proposals to the contest board. More open you cannot get. I find it
> fascinating that to you, the NSRCA board must be open and direct with
> its membership(as it should) but when dealing with the contest board
> we are expected to dig, pry and canvas the board members in an effort
> to find out how our proposals are doing and what objections might have
> been raised. Why is the same openness not required in both cases in
> your mind?? While it is clear in the published process that
> cross-proposals could be submitted within a window, we had no way of
> knowing which or what part of our proposals were causing difficulty.
> There was no contact initiated by the contest board. Adding insult to
> injury, there was no "report out" published, listing the pro and con
> votes by district and any discussed objections. As I have said
> before, I have no more idea what it takes to get a proposal passed
> through the CB then I did a year ago before the NSRCA rules committee
> formed. How do you explain the dichotomy between your views of the
> contest board and the NSRCA board?
>
> Relative to the Nats, it is clear to everyone on the board that the
> Nats are in the control of the AMA which has been true ever since NPAC
> went away. We, the board, present a candidate to the AMA, who has
> always been accepted. After that we lose any control. Although since
> I've been on the board, there have been various problems at the Nats
> which many blame on the NSRCA not the AMA. Arch has been good about
> keeping us in the loop but he makes it clear who he reports to. He
> and previous EDs and the AMA staff have been great about providing
> logistic support for the banquet, ice cream social, etc. However there
> is no question about the ED having two bosses, AMA is it. The NSRCA is
> responsible for using the funds collected by the AMA on our behalf to
> purchase the necessary scoring equipment and paying the volunteer
> staff what we can. This is never enough to even cover their expenses
> at the Nats much less travel.
>
> John Gayer
> NSRCA Treasurer
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto: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><mailto: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
>
>
>
> --
> *Scott A. McHarg*
> Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121213/ab106e43/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list