[NSRCA-discussion] LONG conversation with Joe Walker on NATs, sequence proposals, and other NSRCA issues.

[John Gayer]

I expect it goes back to when all the events were happening at once, in 
one town or base, at multiple sites. Then you would need a CD to have 
overall authority to resolve conflicts over all the events and their 
EDs. Those were the days when you could /feel/ the dynajets firing up 
over at the controlline speed circles and you might lose electrical 
power because a combat flyaway trailed its lines over a power line. 
There was no time for practice, too much to see. All of modelings best, 
in one place, at one time.

John

On 6/18/2017 10:09 PM, Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
> I don’t know when ED was first used by AMA to designate an event 
> director, but I was the R/C Aerobatics event director for the 1996 and 
> 1997 Nats in Muncie, so it originated before 1996.
>
> Ron Van Putte
>
>> On Jun 18, 2017, at 4:52 PM, Larry Diamond via NSRCA-discussion 
>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Please help me understand where the term ED comes from. Since I can’t 
>> find it on the AMA website, I assume that it must be an NSRCA term 
>> documented in our Procedures, By-Laws, or something.
>> *_AMA Sanction Application:_*Document 302, Revision 2.14.2017
>> AMA Definitions:
>> *_CD – Contest Director:_*For all rule book sanction events. Must be 
>> identified on the AMA Sanction Application. Cannot be changed by 
>> anyone other than by the AMA or through resignation.
>> *_Event Manager:_*For all Non-Rule Book Sanctioned events.
>> The AMA does not seem to identify an “Event Director” in the Sanction 
>> Application or on the AMA website. So where does it come from?
>> The AMA clearly states if you have an AMA rule-book event, you must 
>> have a CD, end of story. Nowhere on the Sanction Application is it 
>> stipulated for an ED. There are 15 times Director is in the form, all 
>> of which is the CD.  In reviewing the Sanction Application, there are 
>> no previsions for a Co-Contest Director.
>> Who completed and signed the Sanction Application? If it is Al Glenn, 
>> then he is legally bound to the Sanction and our AMA insurance 
>> coverage depends on it. If it somebody else, then they are. If the 
>> NSRCA wishes to appoint an Event Director, it is my opinion that it 
>> becomes a supporting role to the CD. The CD is overall responsible 
>> for the contest to the AMA exclusively and to adhere to all AMA 
>> regulations and rules. I believe if there is a conflict between the 
>> NSRCA and the AMA, the AMA documentation prevails.
>> Any attempt to circumvent the AMA sanction by appointing somebody 
>> over a registered CD, becomes a disaster. I’m not an attorney and 
>> somebody who is should help clarify, as there becomes a risk of 
>> liability in the event of property damage or personal injury. Even a 
>> new out of school attorney wouldn’t have much of a problem with that 
>> case. At the top of the liability ring would be the NSRCA, and the 
>> AMA for allowing such a disaster to occur.
>> On another note, the NSCRA BoD either individually or collectively 
>> has disenfranchised at least two NSRCA members for doing the right 
>> thing. Both have served the NSRCA with Honor and dignity. To them, I 
>> personally apologize for the way the NSRCA has treated you this past 
>> few weeks. I thank you for your courage, humility, and dedication.
>> *_Joe Walker_*, this is on you. You are our President and the leader 
>> of the BoD. From my point of view, taking a path of ignorance does 
>> show the reason for this fiasco, but more importantly_it does not 
>> show ownership of the situation at hand_. You accepted the role, you 
>> own it. Please take immediate control.
>> For me, the website chatter is noise. Has no relevance to the 
>> situation other than to deflect responsibility of the NSRCA 
>> Leadership. Doesn’t sit well with me. Most likely because of my 
>> Military background.
>> Personally, I believe in you as well as the others on the BoD. I 
>> believe you will right this ship (sorry, retired Navy guy here). You 
>> have zero time to get it done.
>> Regarding the NATs, The registered CD is in charge and we [NSRCA] 
>> must let the CD take control. It may be better to use the same 
>> contest format as last year as we are out of time to implement 
>> changes without disenfranchising members who either will or are 
>> planning to attend.
>> Sorry for the rant, but it is my .02
>> Best Regards,
>> Larry Diamond
>> *From:*NSRCA-discussion 
>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]*On Behalf Of*Joe 
>> Walker via NSRCA-discussion
>> *Sent:*Sunday, June 18, 2017 2:08 PM
>> *To:*Frackowiak Tony <frackowiak at sbcglobal.net 
>> <mailto:frackowiak at sbcglobal.net>>; General pattern discussion 
>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
>> *Cc:*John Gayer <west.engineering at comcast.net 
>> <mailto:west.engineering at comcast.net>>
>> *Subject:*Re: [NSRCA-discussion] LONG conversation with Joe Walker on 
>> NATs, sequence proposals, and other NSRCA issues.
>> Good afternoon all,
>> I appreciate the points being brought up and will certainly work hard 
>> to ensure that all guidelines and requirements are met.  I must 
>> admit, it’s been difficult searching for information myself, let 
>> alone folks who are seeking guidance that are not directly involved 
>> in making decisions that affect all of us.  This fact alone has been 
>> a core driver in my decision to become involved in the organization 
>> in more direct way.
>> Now, that said, we need to find a path forward that works for the 
>> organization as a whole, and of course the entirety of the 
>> membership.  There are innumerable points that we can all get mired 
>> in, debate and get irritated about, but my primary interest is 
>> gathering all legacy information, previous comments, new input, etc., 
>> and match the task of clearly documenting and organizing that 
>> information into a useful, and user friendly format.  This serves not 
>> only my personal needs to know where to look, but also serves the 
>> membership by having all information and resources at our fingertips.
>> This effort has started with an overhaul of the website.  Through no 
>> individual’s actions, the previous life of the website became a 
>> repository of bits and pieces of these resources, rather than a lean 
>> and clear source of information.  Many of these resources are quite 
>> useful and had been meticulously created by NSRCA members over the 
>> years.  Unfortunately, some of documents conflict each other and some 
>> are silent on issues that need direction or clarity.  Some procedural 
>> requirements are missing all together.  Derek Koopowitz has 
>> generously donated countless hours of his personal time and financial 
>> resources to develop and maintain the web presence.  His efforts 
>> should be commended!  Peter Vogel has spent just as much time 
>> developing and refining content for the website.  What we really need 
>> now is a few folks with an eye for detail and are tuned in to 
>> procedures and rules to assist in vetting the information that we 
>> have posted and help create a more comprehensive resource that has 
>> reliable information and links to other regulatory agencies that 
>> affect our procedures.  This is a giant task that would go to serve 
>> us all well in the end.
>> You may ask why I am talking about the website in relation to the 
>> sequences or the format of the Nats topics du jour.  Well, it’s all 
>> related at the core of the issues at hand, information.  Many of the 
>> points that have been brought up in these discussion forums are 
>> completely reasonable points.  We need to get to a place where we are 
>> able to distance the points that are being made from the distracting 
>> emotions.  For those that have read my articles in the K-Factor, this 
>> theme has been clear and consistent.  I’ve also directly reached out 
>> and asked for folks to email me personally (via the K-Factor 
>> articles) with any legacy information that they feel is missing from 
>> the site or the decisions they see that are being made.  We have an 
>> opportunity to make course corrections pretty easily in most cases to 
>> adjust the path of a project, task, or procedure, but this requires 
>> assistance from the entire membership.  It especially requires the 
>> long term members who have served in these previous capacities to 
>> contribute.
>> I am always seeking passionate volunteers to devote their skills and 
>> energy towards making the processes better. I commit to keeping the 
>> NSRCA on a forward trajectory by doing my best to ensure that 
>> decisions are followed through with and tasks are completed.  Clearly 
>> things will be missed, and I’m certainly not claiming perfection.  I 
>> am seeking assistance though.  Are you willing to contribute to a 
>> solution to help keep the NSRCA organized, accessible and responsive 
>> to the needs and desires of the membership?  If so, please reach out 
>> to me directly and I’m happy to work together to forge a plan that 
>> benefits all of us.  I appreciate the extra effort that Jon Lowe made 
>> to speak with me directly and help turn a situation he was unhappy 
>> about into a productive strategy to make it better.  I’m available 
>> (mostly…), and I invite folks to give me a ring.  Let’s talk it out 
>> and develop a solution together.  “The Board” is not a secret society 
>> of folks looking to destroy what we have, it’s a group of folks who 
>> have volunteered their personal time to help make our weekend fun 
>> with toy airplanes more enjoyable by alleviating the general 
>> membership of daunting task of organization.  Please reach out to 
>> your DVP’s and help them communicate concerns and ideas that can be 
>> formally presented to the Board for discussion and approval.
>> Best,
>> Joe Walker,
>> NSRCA President
>>> On Jun 18, 2017, at 12:47 PM, Frackowiak Tony via NSRCA-discussion 
>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
>>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>>> +1. Thank you John. Just as a side note. I was on the Sequence 
>>> Committee for the previous 2 cycles. I was not informed in any way 
>>> that I would not still be on the Sequence Committee. I was also very 
>>> surprised that the BOD appointed a Chairperson who had never 
>>> participated in the process before. In the past, I believe, the 
>>> Chair always came from the existing Committee.
>>> Tony Frackowiak
>>> On Jun 18, 2017, at 9:21 AM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jon,
>>>>
>>>> Relative to the scheduling of the new sequences, there is a 
>>>> document that addresses the timeline for the sequence committee. 
>>>> This document is not on the website, at least not in the logical 
>>>> place under sequence development. Here is the section about the 
>>>> schedule. This document was generated in 2012 to separate the 
>>>> functions of the committee from the sequence development guide 
>>>> which gets some updates every cycle.
>>>>
>>>> 4 Suggested Sequence Submittal Process
>>>> The following is the recommended timeline for the development and 
>>>> submission of new sequences. Sequence
>>>> development should always start in two years prior to when the 
>>>> sequence is to be replaced. For example, if the
>>>> Masters sequence (2 year lifecycle) is to be replaced in 2015 (X) 
>>>> then work on the development of a new
>>>> sequence should start in 2013 (X – 2). What follows is a timeline 
>>>> showing the activity (task) and the month the
>>>> activity should start:
>>>> TASK TIMELINE
>>>> Assign and approve Committee Chairperson October - year X – 2
>>>> Committee Chairperson recruits Committee Membership October – year 
>>>> X - 2
>>>> BoD approves Committee Membership November – year X - 2
>>>> Establish development schedule December – year X - 2
>>>> Review design criteria/receive BoD approval for changes December – 
>>>> year X - 2
>>>> Develop preliminary changes/sequences and flight test January 
>>>> through March – year X - 1
>>>> Publish for public comment on NSRCA website/K-Factor April through 
>>>> May – year X - 1
>>>> Finalize changes/sequence selection based on comments June through 
>>>> August – year X - 1
>>>> Submit proposed changes/sequences to BoD for approval October– year 
>>>> X - 1
>>>> Publish approved sequences on NSRCA website/K-Factor November – 
>>>> year X -1
>>>> New sequences in use January – year X
>>>>
>>>> There is no question about the requirement for publishing the 
>>>> proposed sequences. It was supposed to happen the beginning of 
>>>> April. From your email it appears that neither you or Joe were 
>>>> aware of  the publication requirement or the dates involved. I know 
>>>> you addressed the lack of continuity between boards in your ppost 
>>>> but I believe the Committee had this document and should have 
>>>> shared it with the board. Certainly all past Committee members had 
>>>> a copy.
>>>>
>>>> There is another section in this document that addresses the makeup 
>>>> of the committee and the oversight function of the board.
>>>>
>>>> 2.3 Membership
>>>> There should be at least six Committee members excluding the 
>>>> Chairperson and should, if possible, contain at
>>>> least one member who is currently competing in each of the AMA 
>>>> classes. There should be representation from
>>>> as many NSRCA districts as possible on the committee. Non pilots 
>>>> and non NSRCA members may be
>>>> committee members, provided that their qualifications meet the 
>>>> approval of the Chairperson and the BoD. The
>>>> Committee shall contain at least one current member of the BoD. All 
>>>> members of the Committee are voting
>>>> members.
>>>>
>>>> 2.5.1 Standard Committee Procedures
>>>> • The NSRCA President shall be the primary point of contact for 
>>>> communications between the
>>>> Committee Chairperson and the Board on all matters of directive 
>>>> nature, and for deliverables from
>>>> the Committee.
>>>> • The Chairperson will select members for his/her committee and 
>>>> propose a team to the BoD.
>>>> • The BoD will review the Committee for national (District) balance 
>>>> and representation across
>>>> Intermediate through Masters Classes and, if necessary, provide 
>>>> recommendations on the
>>>> Committee members to the Chairperson. The BoD will then vote to 
>>>> accept or reject the proposed
>>>> Committee members.
>>>> • The Chairperson and Committee members agree to work as a team and 
>>>> reach a consensus on the
>>>> Committee’s proposals. They agree to support the Committee’s 
>>>> proposal and not submit separate
>>>> proposals on these sequences to the BoD.
>>>> • The Committee shall perform their tasks within the schedule of 
>>>> milestones as defined by the BoD.
>>>> • The Committee will produce proposed changes to sequences based on 
>>>> input from the membership
>>>> and their experience. The sequences will be published in the K 
>>>> Factor and on the NSRCA website
>>>> for review.
>>>> • The Committee will coordinate with the Rules/Judging Committee 
>>>> Chairperson to produce the
>>>> final proposals, with supporting rationale, to be approved by the BoD.
>>>> • Sequences for Sportsman, Intermediate, Advanced and Masters Class 
>>>> will be developed for
>>>> presentation to and review by the precision aerobatics community on 
>>>> the NSRCA website. New
>>>> sequences may not necessarily be presented for all classes.
>>>>
>>>> I have cherry-picked the pertinent sections from the document but 
>>>> have also attached the complete document.  It's pretty clear that 
>>>> the directives contained here were not followed. The current 
>>>> committee makeup does not conform to the document in terms of 
>>>> consensus,  geographical distribution, number of members or the 
>>>> requirement for a current board member.
>>>>
>>>> On another subject, It is my understanding from when I was on the 
>>>> board that the NSRCA board proposes the ED to the AMA. Once that is 
>>>> done, the ED responsibility  is to the AMA not the NSRCA. At that 
>>>> point, the NSRCA no longer has any authority over the ED. If that 
>>>> is still the case, how is the/board/creating Co-EDs or changing the 
>>>> ED? And directing change to the finals from the originally 
>>>> published setup when this is solely up to the ED? It is very late 
>>>> to be running surveys and reevaluating procedures with the start 
>>>> barely a month away. Even the survey itself seems to be 
>>>> problematic. I've attended four of the last six Nats, year before 
>>>> last in Masters but didn't qualify for the survey?
>>>>
>>>> Also we are finding out that the F3A finals have been changed back 
>>>> to the normal format. We find this out because Jon had a long 
>>>> conversation with Joe and posted on the list? I can't find anything 
>>>> on the website about the Co-CD change, the survey, the change to 
>>>> the F3A final or what's going on with the sequence committee, 
>>>> committee members or committee members that have resigned and been 
>>>> replaced. The Masters finals sequence that was developed without 
>>>> establishing any sequence guidelines( at least not that were  
>>>> published) or buyin from the board is a case in point of the lack 
>>>> of transparency of the current committee.
>>>>
>>>> John Gayer
>>>>
>>>> On 6/18/2017 6:25 AM, Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>>>>> Joe and I had a LONG conversation Saturday about the NATS, 
>>>>> sequences, and NSRCA in general.  This email is what I heard based 
>>>>> on that conversation and he knows I'm writing this. I've known Joe 
>>>>> for a number of years, and we are good friends, so we had a very 
>>>>> frank discussion. I don't think I swallowed any koolade, but you 
>>>>> be the judge.
>>>>> First though, I am as guilty as anyone in reacting to stuff on 
>>>>> this discussion list, without picking up the phone or calling 
>>>>> people directly. No excuse, but modern media at work. I should 
>>>>> know, as a past president of NSRCA, how hard it can be to get to 
>>>>> ground truth sometimes, and to make sure accurate info is 
>>>>> distributed. For that, I apologize.
>>>>> One thing I didn't realize, was that until yesterday, Joe was not 
>>>>> on this discussion list. He's primarily used the NSRCA Facebook 
>>>>> page. He's catching up now with all of the discussions here over 
>>>>> the past couple of weeks.
>>>>> You've probably seen by now the letter on Mike Harrison and Al 
>>>>> Glenn being co-EDs for the NATS. Joe realizes that decision and 
>>>>> clarification had not been made either to them, the NSRCA BoD, or 
>>>>> the membership, and it wasn't documented on the NSRCA website. Joe 
>>>>> and the BoD are working on remedies to make sure oversights like 
>>>>> that don't happen again. The BoD meeting was a couple of nights 
>>>>> ago, and it was clarified then, and put out to the membership.
>>>>> The changes to the format of the NATS was also discussed. The 
>>>>> final format is the EDs call, as long as it is by the rule book. 
>>>>> But as I reminded Joe, the finals for Masters was eliminated a 
>>>>> couple of years ago to great hue and cry when it was unnecessary 
>>>>> to use the matrix system, and was reinstated the following year. 
>>>>> So tread carefully. He pointed out that this year's NATS is trying 
>>>>> something that hasn't been done in years, and that some changes 
>>>>> happen as a result. This should have been better communicated to 
>>>>> the membership. The survey that went out yesterday was to affected 
>>>>> entrants to last year's and this year's NATS.  However, if the 
>>>>> changes to the finals are affecting your decision on whether or 
>>>>> not to enter the NATS, I urge you to contact Joe. His email and 
>>>>> phone number are in the back of any KFactor. He did say that so 
>>>>> far the survey is about 80% for the shortened Masters finals. I 
>>>>> don't know though how many responses he's received. Incidentally, 
>>>>> FAI has reverted to a 2-F, 2- unknown finals format, according to Joe.
>>>>> He realizes that NSRCA and the membership is in a time crunch for 
>>>>> vetting and getting approval for the new AMA sequences for next 
>>>>> year. The BoD first saw them a few hours before we did, and it 
>>>>> became clear during the BoD meeting that they needed a separate 
>>>>> meeting to discuss and vet them. Significant discussion centered 
>>>>> around the proposal for a Master's class finals. That isn't 
>>>>> contemplated in the Sequence guide, and there hasn't been any 
>>>>> decision on putting that before the membership or not.  According 
>>>>> to Joe, neither he, nor other members of the BoD knew that a 
>>>>> finals sequence would be proposed, total surprise. Obviously, to 
>>>>> get feedback to make necessary changes, get approval from the 
>>>>> membership, final approval by the BoD and to publish all of the 
>>>>> new sequences by years end is going to be tough. Joe clearly 
>>>>> understands that challenge.  In addition, he said he recalls no 
>>>>> discussion one way or the other during the BoD meeting about 
>>>>> distributing what they got from the sequence committee to the 
>>>>> general membership. I told him I felt that the sooner they get 
>>>>> feedback the better, and he agreed. Constructive feedback to Joe 
>>>>> or your District VP is encouraged. I know there have been some 
>>>>> personal issues that resulted from the distribution of the 
>>>>> sequences, and Joe and others are working to correct those 
>>>>> problems. I hope they can be resolved also. Those involved will 
>>>>> know what I'm talking about.
>>>>> It still is not clear to me, and I think Joe, why the sequences 
>>>>> we're developed in such secrecy.  This definitely didn't help the 
>>>>> current controversy. I told Joe that drafts should have been out 
>>>>> months ago for comment. He agreed that this needs to be the 
>>>>> process going forward, and the procedure guide for developing the 
>>>>> sequences may need clarification for timelines and transparency.
>>>>> One of the things I faced, and Joe is facing, is loss of corporate 
>>>>> knowledge anytime there is new leadership in charge. This is 
>>>>> especially true of volunteer organizations with no central office. 
>>>>> I have some things I think can help, and I will make sure Joe gets 
>>>>> them. If you have old files or other information you think might 
>>>>> benefit him or the BoD, please contact him.
>>>>> I emphasized to Joe the need for fast communication on hot topics, 
>>>>> even to say they're working on it, and will get back to us. He 
>>>>> gets it, and I think being on this list he will get and can react 
>>>>> to the hot issues of the moment.
>>>>> Do I agree with everything Joe said and the BoDs actions? Of 
>>>>> course not; I'd be surprised if I did. Pattern fliers are, if 
>>>>> nothing else, opinionated SOB's. Can they do better, especially 
>>>>> with communication? Surely, and I think Joe gets that. And I'm 
>>>>> going to try to improve my communication with Joe and my DVP, 
>>>>> Larry Kauffman, before I express displeasure here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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_Pattern_Sequence_Development_Committee_Charter_Rev1p1_10-01-12.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170620/7a3ab4fe/attachment.html>