[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

[Scott McHarg]

I would like to point out that the BoD had a long discussion about the two
proposals in question.  The discussion about the Safety proposal was based
on communication between all of us receiving emails, phone calls and
monitoring the discussion list.  The opposition was the arming plug (which
was in the survey), not the entire proposal as written originally.
Therefore, that portion of the rule proposal was removed and then rewritten
as suggested by said communication to look at the "what" and not the
"how".  One member brought up that safety should not be based on technology
specifics.  We contend that is impossible IF the safety concern stems from
the technology itself on top of the human factor that is inherent in this
technology. If this proposal finds its way through our AMA Rules Committee,
you are not instructed on how to make sure your aircraft is disarmed just
make sure it is disarmed.  There is absolutely zero weight to be added,
holes to be drilled, money to be spent or any undue effort on the
contestant's part in order to accomplish this.

Concerning the weight issue, the reasoning behind approving the proposed
5500g was two-fold. Number one, the majority (regardless of how few the
majority makes up) suggested that this is what they wanted.  Number two is
that Mr. Lachowski has a proposal out there already for an increase to
5200g.  It would make little sense to replicate his proposal and send it to
the AMA.  It would stand to reason to give the AMA Rules Committee several
choices from which to base their decision on. The NSRCA does not make the
rules, we send in our "suggestions" if you will.  The AMA Rules Committee
must take these proposals and do what's in the best interest of the
community as they see fit.  It is up to them to apply these proposals and
make rules out of them.  Should the AMA Rules Committee decide that no
weight shall be added or should they decide to accept Mr. Lachowski's
proposal or the one passed by the BoD or, as seen in the past, they come
out with their own proposal, the NSRCA intends to follow these rules and
guidelines to the letter and will support said decisions on all points.

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Stuart Chale <schale1 at verizon.net> wrote:

>  It really looks like 2 proposals were supported by the group that voted,
> and 2 proposals were pretty much 50/50  I would defer to a statistician to
> determine if the slight margin has any statistical significance.  I know it
> doesn't on one and doubt it does on the other.   Does the NSRCA really want
> to support (and therefore likely have passed) 2 proposals that if 1 person
> voted the other way on one and 4 people voted the other way on the other
> would have resulted in a majority voting against?
>
> I strongly urge the powers that be take a closer look at these two
> proposals before "pushing" them through on half the voters that didn't want
> them.  The results are too close to say that "we" are in favor of them.
>
> Stuart Chale
>
>
> On 3/8/2012 3:50 PM, Scott McHarg wrote:
>
> Hello,
>    As promised, here are the raw results of the survey.  107 unique
> individuals took the survey.  Individuals that felt it necessary to vote
> multiple times had their responses deleted and only their original answers
> accepted.  Based, in part, to Dean Pappas' post on RCU and through the
> comments listed there, through email, phone conversation, discussion on
> this list and in person, the Safety Proposal was adjusted to the "What"
> instead of the "How".  The new Safety Proposal will be posted shortly on
> the NSRCA website.  The NSRCA BoD met last night to vote on these candidate
> proposals.  The original Safety proposal was taken off the table (the one
> that you saw in the survey) and the new proposal was then voted on.  Based
> on survey results, District VP interaction with his constituents and posts
> on RCU as well as this NSRCA discussion list, the BoD unanimously passed
> the new Safety Proposal, the Class Advancement as well as the Telemetry
> proposal for submittal to the AMA Rules Committee.  The Weight proposal
> also passed with a vote of 9 to 1.
>
>     We would like to thank those of you who took the survey and
> appreciate not only the time that it took for you to fill out the survey,
> but your dedication to this hobby.  The Rules Proposals will now be sent to
> the AMA for further review and discussion.  Attached are the survey results
> both in raw (all members) and NSRCA members only form.  I have also
> attached all four of the proposals again (with the new Safety Proposal) for
> your consumption.
>
>  Thank you again,
> Scott
>
>
> --
> *Scott A. McHarg*
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4858 - Release Date: 03/08/12
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>



-- 
*Scott A. McHarg*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20120309/bca72d83/attachment.html>