[NSRCA-discussion] Failsafe Check - was Contest board - Was Executive Board voting
Scott McHarg
scmcharg at gmail.com
Fri Dec 14 13:08:26 AKST 2012
72 MHz radios that lose signal also don't increase throttle to 1/2 or full
like failsafe can if setup incorrectly. Maybe you can't fix stupid but the
stride was simply to help prevent it.
On Dec 14, 2012 3:48 PM, <mjfrederick at cox.net> wrote:
> I'm a little late to this discussion, but would like to point out some
> things I don't think have been covered:
> Failsafe is a feature available only to those who fly PCM or 2.4. I still
> have some old 72MHz FM gold-stickered 4-channels that I could legally fly
> at a local contest. Are you going to tell someone using an old radio like
> that they can't compete because they can't pass a failsafe test? Of course,
> they can't compete at the Nats, but technically these rules should apply to
> ALL contests, not just the one at which we really enforce them.
> Also, I think one person touched on this, but I want to expand on it. When
> I was learning on my old Gold Kraft radio I was always taught you never
> turn off the transmitter until you confirm the receiver is off. This was
> before computer radios were commonplace, and before electrics were en
> vogue, so as long as the engine wasn't running it wasn't a big deal (other
> than the battery usage from unpredictable servo behavior). It's a practice
> I still use today with my 10-ch Futaba on 2.4. Failsafe has spoiled us into
> assuming it is OK to not follow normal safety procedures we should have
> been taught when first learning to fly. The main runaway incident mentioned
> here was due to operator error, nothing else. The transmitter was turned
> off before the receiver, and as many have pointed out, that is doubly
> dangerous with electrics. Even if you put in a technology-specific rule
> such as failsafe check, you still can't fix stupid.
>
> Matt
>
>
> ---- John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> sorry I was so unclear. For normal operation I do not advocate turning
> off anything and only turning on your throttle cut before disarming the
> motor battery.
> What you are referring in my post was the set of checks I go through
> with a new plane or after modifications with the model fully restrained.
> I forgot to mention doing a range check as well. I want to know what the
> ESC and all parts of the radio are going to do IF I screw up in my
> shutdown or startup procedure.
>
> *6. Safety requirements: *Considerations of safety for spectators,
> contest personnel, and other contestants are of utmost importance in the
> event, and the following safety provisions must be observed.Failure to
> comply with the following could result in disqualification of the
> contestant’s plane by the CD.
>
> *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.
>
>
> I do not understand why another sub-paragraph of 6 should not include
> failsafe operation. A bad failsafe setup can be repeated every time and
> is correctable at the contest. Your other examples are one-time
> oversights and are not correctable except through personal procedures.
> Correct failsafe operation is to help when you inadvertently violate
> your personal procedures.
> Makes a lot more sense than checking for knife-edge wings which is still
> in the rulebook and completely undefined with no specific penalty. How
> about poor sportsmanship(undefined) being grounds for a safety
> disqualification? What is the definition of dangerous flying? I don't
> have a problem with these being in the rulebook but they seem to violate
> all your standards. Maybe you should write up all the standards and then
> form a committee to rewrite the rulebook to those standards. You are
> right that there is nothing in the rulebook about conforming to club
> rules concerning frequency pins. Don't understand this lack when there
> are rules on how to run a ready box. Also rules on how to run a matrix
> system. Actually this reads more like a howto than a rule. I believe it
> is no longer valid either. My point being that the rulebook is full of
> information on how to run a contest and how to run a Nats. Why is it
> inappropriate to have how-to information and direction to run a failsafe
> check?
>
>
> The CD of a contest does so under the auspices of the AMA. He may or may
> not be an NSRCA member but even if he is, the NSRCA has no control or
> authority over the operation of the contest. The NSRCA can write
> procedures, and even add a rule book of their own and its all a big
> so-what. The AMA has clung to the mantle of authority when it comes to
> contest sanctions, approval of CD status and the rule book. What I see
> as a problem that we could solve together is apparently out-of-line.
> Sometimes it is critical to rise above a current process and change it.
>
> John
>
>
>
> On 12/13/2012 10:29 AM, Atwood, Mark wrote:
> > 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 logical 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 board - 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 said 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 this 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 plug 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
> connected 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 create 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 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><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>] 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 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. 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 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 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><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<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><tel:440.684.3101%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 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>><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:
> 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.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>><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 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 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 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>><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
> >><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<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<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/20121214/3fd17572/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list