[NSRCA-discussion] Failsafe Check - was Contest board - Was Executive Board voting

Scott McHarg scmcharg at gmail.com
Fri Dec 14 13:16:29 AKST 2012 

Sorry, that should have been AM/FM radios.
On Dec 14, 2012 4:08 PM, "Scott McHarg" <scmcharg at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/f079781b/attachment.html>

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list