[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

[J N Hiller]

The NSRCA posted rule proposals for open discussion and solicited a vote in
order to refine the proposals before submitting them to the AMA. The
proposal could have been submitted directly to the AMA. In past years the
AMA contest board has had to sort through multiple proposals dealing with an
issue. This NSRCA process streamlines the process with membership support.
Voter turnout and response to serves and are always smaller than desirable
but we all had an opportunity to add our input to the process.
We all have a voice in the AMA rules change process by submitting our
concerns and recommendations to our AMA contest board members before they
vote, which is due at AMA HQ May 1st. Most would appreciate constructive
input.

I've been a member of and support the NSRCA for a long time and have
participated in pattern competition long enough to remember when we were
subject to local interpretation of rules and judging standards. We have the
NSRCA and many dedicated individual volunteers to thank for our national
consolidation of pattern activity, which will always challenge our BOD.

Thanks for letting me speak.
Jim Hiller


-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of
mjfrederick at cox.net
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 10:03 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

I second what Stuart is saying here. I've kept my mouth shut just observing
throughout all this discussion mainly because I'm not a member of the NSRCA.
Why am I not a member? I can't remember the last time the NSRCA represented
my interests. To propose a weight rule change is a huge mistake. Hopefully
the contest board has better sense (and experience) than the NSRCA
leadership. Being the AMA-recognized special interest group for Pattern is a
huge responsibility. Changes to what we do should not be taken lightly, nor
should they be left up to a 50% + 1 vote on a website. Sometimes leadership
and experience need to step in and stand up to those who are barking the
loudest about not being able to make weight. In this instance, the squeaky
wheel doesn't necessarily deserve the grease. Well, whetever. It's not like
I would just stop flying pattern if a weight increase was passed, but I
think it would tarnish the image of pattern. Perhaps irrevocably. Once a
change like this happ
 ens, it cannot ever be taken back. Let's say 2 - 3 years from now as
battery technology continues to improve (because let's face it, the only
people who want weight limit increases are electric guys), and the batteries
get lighter and lighter, you may have now given electric planes an
advantage. Rules are already in place to allow anyone to try pattern without
needing to make weight. Rules were recently passed to allow the lower
classes a variance so that they get a little leeway as they move up. Leave
things alone, and the technology will catch up to the rules, as it always
has in the past (2-stroke to 4-stroke migration).

Matt

---- Stuart Chale <schale1 at verizon.net> wrote:
_______________________________________________
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