[NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was Executive Board voting

[Derek Koopowitz]

Actually Don did get it... since I am the webmaster I also get copies of
emails sent through the website and didn't realize it.


On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:27 AM, jonlowe at aol.com <jonlowe at aol.com> wrote:

> Richard,  funny you should mention using a modelaircraft.org address.
> Yesterday I tried to send an email to the NSRCA address on the website for
> VP Don Atwood,  and Derek K. got it,  lol!
>
> Jon
>
> Jon
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Richard Lewis" <humptybump at sbcglobal.net>
> Date: Thu, Dec 13, 2012 10:14 am
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was Executive Board voting
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> Mark,
>
> As for communications...you should not have to use your personal/work
> e-mail for this...I know I can fairly easily get an e-mail address for each
> CB member from various sources (the list, friends, etc...).  Heck , yours
> is easy and you even include your workplace and phone numbers in your
> signature!
>
> But it is improper to do this unless they have specifically put it out
> there for the purpose.  The AMA could easily give each CB member an
> xxxx at modelaircraft.org email address for official communicaitons...A
> contact form on the website would be even better and would force a user to
> at least enter a name and AMA number before forwarding the message....
>
> I am certain there are many more than the "vocal minority" we see on this
> list that would love to provide you guys feedback in less public way than
> this this list.....
>
> Richard
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Thu, December 13, 2012 9:46:57 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was Executive Board
> voting
>
> I completely agree this is a good dialog.  And thank you for the kind
> words.
>
> Regarding the USA Team, everyone will be hearing a LOT from me soon.
> We're trying to raise a TON of money ($60,000) to cover this next WC's in
> South Africa and it's going to take big effort.
>
> Back to the topic at hand....
>
> There may be a disconnect or misunderstanding regarding the AMA's safety
> stance than what I think we've communicated.  They're not pushing the
> safety guidelines to the Sigs, unless it's something specific TO the SIG.
> Electric motor safety for Pattern is no different that electric motor
> safety throughout the AMA.  When we asked the AMA if they were considering
> any sort of "Arming" requirements for general aircraft , or aircraft over a
> certain size/power rating, we were told no.    When I spoke to Greg Hahn
> specifically about it (this was quite a while back) he stated that while
> the AMA wanted to endorse good procedures, creating rules of that nature
> around such a rapidly evolving technology had all sorts of negative
> implications.  Everything from hampering the evolution of the technology
> (no clue how ESC and other possible safeguards might evolve) as well as
> liability issues TO MEMBERS when the safety rules aren't followed or
> enforced.  Sometimes general guidelines are our friend.
>
> As for rules without consequences... you'll find virtually unanimous
> support from the CB on that subject.  If there's no defined result, it's
> merely a guideline, or a suggestion.  Not a rule.  Yes, some exist like
> that, but they predate the existing board.  This is a fairly new litmus
> test for the board and admittedly I'm strongly in favor of it (I actually
> think Verne is a champion of it as well, we both joined the CB around the
> same time).  It's something we're actively trying to change.  It would be
> great if the NSRCA came out with a guideline and procedure manual.
> Something that spoke to all of the issues that we care about, but don't
> plan to mandate.  When ever we see a "RULE"... the first thought that goes
> through my head is "How will we handle the protest at the nats...".
> Let's be honest.  ALL of our rules are only guidelines at the local level.
> It's the Nats where we have to deal with enforcement and protests.
>
> One concern we all have (CB that is) regarding communication is only
> hearing from the vocal minority.  There are many that simply want to follow
> the rules, not necessarily alter them in any way.  (Set safety issues aside
> for the time being).  I'm talking about rules like weight, advancement,
> noise, etc.    Contrary to popular belief, most are NOT on this list, and
> even those that are, most don't post.  Yet their opinion as stated earlier,
> counts equally.  When I solicit feedback at a contest, and the vast
> majority simply voice that they don't need, or desire a change, that weighs
> heavily against the outspoken few who rally on all the forums.
>
> How to do a better job of communicating back and forth I don't know.  My
> email is pretty well out there.  I'm not sure everyone is open for that
> though.
>
> -M
> Mark Atwood
> Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
> 5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
> Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102
> mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>  |
> www.paragon-inc.com<http://www.paragon-inc.com/>
>
> <
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121213/4bf8c8b3/attachment.html>