[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal - Limiting Size/Power for Sportsman and Intermediate

[Robert L. Beaubien]

+1


  *   Robert Beaubien
  *   Drone Plastics

“What do you call a firm of lawyers buried up to their necks in concrete?   A failure to estimate the proper amount of concrete.”

From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> On Behalf Of Larry Diamond via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 12:56 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal - Limiting Size/Power for Sportsman and Intermediate

Here is the link to review the Rule Change Proposal on the AMA website, RCA20-02…

https://www.modelaircraft.org/sites/default/files/Comp/RCA20-02.pdf

Yes, I read the complete proposal and understand the 2 year grand-father clause.

This is a Ready, Fire, Aim mentality. We are driving to impose a rule change without understanding, or accounting for, the root-cause of the decline. The NSRCA will lose more members than they think because of this. The gamble is it will somehow attract more members, to not only replace those like me, but we are arrogant enough to think it will save the NSRCA by increasing membership as a whole because of this rule change.

Every action taken, to my knowledge, by rule change has caused another layer of decline. Anyone, please provide an example, with the data, that shows changing the rules regarding the Plane itself has increased NSRCA membership. Just one example with the data is all I am asking, engine size, wing span, length, anything that resulted in a surge of NSRCA membership.

Are we as an organization data driven? Or, just willing to accept a good sales pitch and not worry or complicate things with data. If it’s the later, then that is politics. If politics prevails, then I must agree with Bob Kane, the end of NSRCA is inevitable.

What is the data behind this rule change? Real factual data, not words or opinions.

The thought behind the rule change, which is seemingly more popular than I thought it would be, is presented to counter the decline in Pattern. What isn’t addressed with any sense of credibility is the real unintended consequences of current participants.

This is a dose of reality !!!

From my point of view only, let’s assume this rule passes. This is my situation and the decisions I must consider. I’m willing to bet I am not alone.


  1.  I have been in Intermediate since 2004, 15 years this year (NSRCA 3083).
  2.  I wanted and could afford some of the best equipment on the market, and no I am not sponsored so this it is all out of pocket.
  3.  I currently own the following 2M Planes
     *   1 – Of 10 Allures made in this scheme from the World Championship painted in Red/White/Blue with Stars/Stripes.
     *   1 – Alchemy NIB
     *   1 – Shinden RTF
     *   1 – 2M Acuity RTF
     *   1 – Considering purchasing a CK Aero Allure Bipe this summer.

                                                               i.      This has been a discussion back and forth with me and Bryan Hebert for 6+ months.

     *   Every 2M Plane has a set of Wing Bags from Caroline.
     *   I have 100% of all necessary Futaba equipment for the Allure and Alchemy, including Battery packs, 12+ (5S 5000mAh).
  1.  My total investment in 2M Pattern planes is what, easily $15K+

You count my investment based on buying new with your own numbers… Color me stupid, dumb, silly, or maybe I just like the sexy 2M planes regardless how well I fly.

Given these facts, the unintended consequences are, I will have planes I can’t use and can’t sell to recover any sizeable part of my investment simply because of a rule change.

More importantly, you have cost CK Aero, AJ Aircraft, and F3A Unlimited future revenue in a difficult market. Please explain how this is good for Pattern?

I don’t believe I am alone, but this is somehow going to cause me to want to stay in the NSRCA and be enthusiastic about promoting Pattern (sarcasm)?

Just so that it is clear, if this rule passes, it will force me out of the NSRCA within two years. If I continue to compete it will be in IMAC, SPA CPA, or some other discipline.

Which brings me to the real reason for the NSRCA decline. We are the SIG for the AMA for Precision Aerobatics. It is good to see we are, as a SIG, embracing F3P. We let the CPA and SPA get away and create a new SIGs or organizations, when the National Society of Radio Controlled Aerobatics should have been inclusive, not exclusive (you know, like “Elitist”, as painful as that sounds).

Root-Cause (only an opinion) – We, the NSRCA, are focused only on F3A, and now F3P. We didn’t keep up with the change of times and excluded members, who then went a different direction along with some of the NSRCA membership to form the SPA, CPA, etc… We need a paradigm shift in the organization, not a rule change like this.

Our By-Laws state, “…promote the construction and competitive flying of radio controlled aerobatic model airplanes…”, not just F3A, and we lost sight of that perspective. We need to figure out how to unite all precision aerobatic disciplines for the survival and betterment of everyone who enjoys precision aerobatics. That is my proposal…

Best Regards,

Larry Diamond
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20190109/998539eb/attachment.html>