[NSRCA-discussion] Failsafe Check - was Contest board - Was Executive Board voting
PhilS.
chuenkan at comcast.net
Thu Dec 13 10:59:45 AKST 2012
Trouble is, it isn't!
Phil Spelt, KCRC President
AMA 1294 Scientific Leader Member
SPA 177 Board Member
(865)435-1476v, (865)604-0541c
On 12/13/2012 2:04 PM, Randy Forbus wrote:
> /_Common_ sense/?
>
> > From: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
> > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:29:03 -0500
> > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Failsafe Check - was Contest board - Was
> Executive Board voting
> >
> > Changing the subject line again so people can follow the thread better.
> >
> > Two comments. One - TURNING OFF YOUR RADIO WHILE THE PLANE IS ARMED
> IS A BAD IDEA. That's from me...not me as a CB member. Control the
> plane the entire time that the batteries are plugged in. Have the
> radio ON when you plug them in and until you unplug them. Electronics
> are FAR from foolproof. I cringe everytime I fly with someone who's
> habit is to plug batteries in with the radio off...and then arm the
> plane but turning the transmitter on with the plane out on the runway
> unsecured. Twice I have seen them turn on the radio with the radio set
> to the wrong model... both with bad results. neither were pattern planes.
> >
> > The same goes for turning off your radio following the flight
> assuming that it disarms the plane. It does not. Fail safe or no failsafe.
> >
> > 2) and this is as a CB member. Setting your failsafe, and having the
> CD CHECK that you've set the failsafe is a great contest procedure.
> But it's a crappy "Rule". Any more than taking your frequency pin
> prior to 2.4 was a "rule" in the ama book. Having a helper hold your
> plane while you start it is a great procedure. Verifying you're set to
> the correct model is a great procedure. Checking that both Aileron
> servos are plugged in after assembly is a great procedure. All impact
> safety. None belong in the rule book for a contest.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 13, 2012, at 11:44 AM, John Gayer wrote:
> >
> > Keith, the idea is to have multiple systems in place to avoid such
> an occurrence.
> >
> > A failsafe check at the contest would have prevented the problem.
> Communication between the person removing the plane from the runway
> and the pilot would have prevented the problem. An arming plug still
> engaged in the pits might have been commented on by anyone standing
> around.
> >
> > To check the power operation, I put the plane in a stand with a fast
> idle and shut off the receiver to confirm the ESC shutdown works, then
> turn the TX off and turn the receiver on to confirm that without a
> failsafe or TX signal, the ESC stays shut down, then turn the TX back
> on to confirm normal operation and shut the TX off to get failsafe
> which should shutdown the motor as well(not hold). Finally turn the TX
> back on and confirm that throttle cut both shuts the motor down and
> disables the throttle stick. Presumably you already know that your
> arming plug works if you have one unless it has been ejected.
> >
> > John
> > On 12/13/2012 9:13 AM, Keith Hoard wrote:
> > If I recall the story correctly, the offending aircraft was left
> unattended after landing while the pilot "debriefed" with the judges.
> If there was nobody to physically secure that airplane, then there
> would have been nobody to pull the arming plug either.
> >
> > Unless the arming plug had a "self-ejection after landing" feature,
> it would have still been installed in the airplane and it STILL would
> have gone to full power into the pits when the Tx was turned off.
> >
> > Sent from Windows Mail
> >
> > From: John Fuqua
> <johnfuqua at embarqmail.com<mailto:johnfuqua at embarqmail.com>>
> > Sent: ?December? ?13?, ?2012 ?9?:?49? ?AM
> > To: General pattern discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was Executive Board
> voting
> >
> > Well I was the victim of a runaway electric which trashed my plane
> and barely missed slicing up people in the pit. The operator HAD set
> Fail Safe. Somewhere along the way it got changed and when he turned
> off the Tx !!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
> >
> > 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 Randy Forbus
> > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:59 AM
> > To:
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was Executive Board
> voting
> >
> > With all the fancy smancy computer radios out there fail safe seems
> to be the log ical way to prevent a runaway.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: rforbus at hotmail.com<mailto:rforbus at hotmail.com>
> > To:
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:50:09 +0000
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was Executive Board
> voting
> > Well I personally havent seen a runaway electric plane and I know
> some have and the out come wasnt good, but like Mark said an arming
> plug doesnt give 100% safety, common sense has to prevail. Ive never
> seen a glow motor come back to life with no glow driver connected
> either, but I know that happens too.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:38:03 -0600
> > From: scmcharg at gmail.com<mailto:scmcharg at gmail.com>
> > To:
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest boa rd - Was Executive Board
> voting
> >
> > Mark and John,
> > First of all, I personally want to thank you for stepping up to the
> fire blaster and communicating with us. Believe me, I know what it
> feels like. Mark, after all of the communication and survey (flawed as
> it was in some eyes), it was clear that no one wanted the arming plug
> but agreed with the idea behind the proposal. That's why the proposed
> one was changed to mirror the FAI rule. That one didn't even make the
> preliminary vote and the one we requested be trashed was accepted.
> Your arguments also are the same as others and the reason why we
> changed it. I also understand your point about be specific and generic
> at the same time but I do not believe that everything has to have a
> penalty. If it ain't right, just make it so and be done with it. If a
> competitor doesn't disarm the plane, ask him to do so. You don't have
> to spank the person with a penalty every single time.
> >
> > Like John Gayer sai d concerning Telemetry, there is no penalty in
> the current rules which y'all approved so why now does there have to
> be one in order to get it passed. Likewise, if this was the whole
> problem to this proposal or any of them, why didn't y'all just let us
> know so we could fix it? John Fuqua says that AMA doesn't want to
> blanket the entire AMA community with a rule for electrics concerning
> safety and wants the SIGs to do it yet ya'll who are OUR rule makers
> for our SIG say it's not your responsibility. This is certainly an issue.
> >
> > This type of communication that we are having right here is
> extremely healthy and, in my opinion, the exact conversations that
> should have been happening during the process instead of after. Again,
> I appreciate you and John taking the time to hash this out. For me, my
> frustrations are subsided knowing we can talk about this. Thank you
> for that.
> >
> > On a tangent, I would like everyone to pay close attention to the
> Kfactor thi s year. Mark Atwood is writing a monthly column for the
> Kfactor. Mark is the Team Manager for our Team USA F3A World Team. I
> think you'll like what he's doing as each month, he is giving a bio of
> each competitor. Things will progress from there. I am truly looking
> forward to this column. Sorry to stray but I think it's important to
> realize how much he does for our hobby as well as put his feet to the
> coals. :)
> >
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Atwood, Mark
> <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com<mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>> wrote:
> > I want to be clear that I'm speaking for my view, not neccessarily
> the entire CB (though I know of at least a few that share my view). No
> one objects to the idea of better safety. What's objectionable to
> many, is making a rule that will either be unenforced, unevenly
> enforced, or punitively enforced. The idea of being able to see a
> visible disconnection from the batteries (and no, an arming p lug does
> not provide that) at all times would clearly fall into that camp. The
> first person at the nats that sets his canopy on his plane to prevent
> it from blowing away and IS disqualified...or ISN'T
> disqualified...creates a problem. If we don't prevent them from
> flying, then there's no point in having the rule. If we do prevent
> them from flying, we've really broken the intent. And I completely
> understand that there should be some common sense in all of this. But
> our group isn't so good about common sense when we start picking apart
> the letter of the rule in a protest. Just ask any former Nats CD.
> >
> > The idea of great safety procedures and habits should more likely be
> outlined as guidelines, strong recommendations, peer pressure to
> comply, etc. That, or we need a more cleanly crafted rule that doesn't
> get someone disqualified for covering their airplane with a white
> (opague) cloth to keep it cool in the summer, thereby preventing me
> from seeing if there are co nnected batteries to the motor.
> >
> >
> > 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 13, 2012, at 12:28 AM, John Gayer wrote:
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> > on telemetry you mean a simple statement like this in our proposal:
> > Any form of automatic flight control loop that utilizes aircraft
> flight parameter feedback whether onboard the model or through the
> transmitter is prohibited. Telemetry or feedback mechanisms intended
> for use as safety functions may not be used to c reate an unfair
> advantage over other competitors.
> > Not sure how you can find loopholes in that second statement.
> > There were no enforcement penalties listed in the original equipment
> rule either. We were proposing only to clarify what telemetry could be
> allowed from a safety POV. As it stands without revision, everyone who
> walks to the line with equipment that downloads and monitors/alarms on
> airborne battery voltage is in violation of the rule. Fortunately,
> there doesn't appear to a penalty for that in the current rule.
> >
> > The impression I am getting from both you and John is that the CB
> tries to find reasons to reject proposals on technicalities rather
> than embrace the intent of a proposal and find ways using their
> experience with the rules and communications with the proposers to
> make the proposals work. Of course if the intent is rejected as it
> appears it was with the weight proposal, then a rejection is clear and
> easily understood.
> > *> I'm a bit confused by what you are saying about the safety rules.
> Most radios these days support failsafe. The rule proposed does not
> apply if there is no failsafe available. Size of plane is irrelevant
> if the radio supports the function. I have also seen many smaller
> aircraft with arming plugs as well. I would have to say that in this
> case, size does not matter.
> >
> > About the formal statement writing, we have two CB members who care
> enough to respond here. Leaning forward like that is often taken as
> volunteering.
> > John
> > If anyone wants to reference the proposals submitted, they can be
> found at:
> > http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/ruleproposals/rcaerobatics.aspx
> >
> > On 12/12/2012 9:20 PM, Atwood, Mark wrote:
> >
> > I'll add a touch more specific to a few of these.
> >
> > Telemetry... Consensus was overwhelming that we need a SIMPLE rule,
> NOT a technical one. DON'T CHEAT. Ok, sounds too ambiguous, but it's
> really not. We all felt strongly (and came up with a several ways to
> cheat the details of the proposed rule) that we need a rule based on
> intent, not on technical specifics otherwise we'll be chasing our tail
> as the technology advances. Something that simply says telemetry may
> not be used to aid the pilot in piloting the aircraft.
> >
> > To John's point, any proposal that doesn't outline the penalty for
> breaking the rule is almost immediately abandoned. Enforcement has to
> be both clear, and reasonable from a logistical perspective.
> >
> > Lastly, regarding the safety rules... we're not in a position to
> assume that only 2 meter full blown pattern ships are the only planes
> competing unless we plan to make that a rule too. So any rules have to
> apply to anything that fits in the 2 meter box and weighs less than
> 5Kgs. The one proposal stated specifically that there had to be a
> visible break in the connection from the battery. That requires
> Canopies to be left off the aircraft (or Clear Canopies) at all times.
> Not practical. Those were just some of the easy reasons to vote
> no...there were other considerations as well that weighed against it.
> >
> > I like the idea of a formal "opinion" statement from the majority.
> Not sure who's burdened with writing it though.
> >
> >
> > 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>><mailto: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/><http://www.paragon-inc.com/><http://www.paragon-inc.com/>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 12, 2012, at 7:29 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 a ll 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 a nd 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><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.o
> rg<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 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 membe rs 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 cas
> > t.
> > 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. Thi s 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 wei ght 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 th
> > at it c
> > ould 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 majo
> > rity wh
> > at 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 tha t 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><mailto:atwoodm at paragon-in
> c.com<mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>><mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com<mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>><mailto: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 m
> embers 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><tel:440.684.310
> 1%20x102> | Fax: 440.684.3102<tel: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>><mailto: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>><mailto: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>><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/><http://www.paragon-inc.com<http://www.paragon-inc.com/>><http://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 continuousl y 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>><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<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>><mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:ns
> rca-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<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>><mailto: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>><mailto: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.n
> srca.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 membershi p, 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 u s,
> 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>><mailto:jgghome at comcast.net<mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>><mailto:jgghome at comcast.net<mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>><mailto:jgghome at comcast.net<mailto:jgghome at comcast.net><mailto: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>><mailto: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>><mailto: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>><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 presid
> > ent. Go
> > od 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 di
> d 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 ope n 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 cont
> > est boa
> > rd. 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 Nat s, 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>><mailto: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>><mailto: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>><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:NSRC
> A-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<mailto: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<mailto: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<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>><mailto: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
> >
> >
> > --
> > Scott A. McHarg
> > Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>><mailto: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<mai
> lto: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<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
> >
> > ___________________________________ ____________
> > 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
> *
> * *
> *
> *
>
> *
> _______________________________________________
> 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/de81e603/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list