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

Wed Jan 9 15:47:38 AKST 2019

Board members are easy to find if you look

https://www.modelaircraft.org/events/competition-resources/contest-board-members

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Richard Lewis via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 6:23 PM
To: Larry Diamond; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal - Limiting Size/Power for Sportsman and Intermediate

Actually all AMA open members do not vote on rules proposals.

AMA rule proposals are handled by a contest board.  You can contact the  CB members to express your opinions to them, but they are not beholden to anyone but themselves for the vote they ultimately cast.

Have not looked recently, but last time I did, the CB members were hard to find and did not officially publish email addresses.  The only legitimate way to contact them was by snail mail.  Of course you could usually stalk them enough on lists like this to email them...I had suggested back then that a secure contact link be implemented on the AMA site to allow secure electronic communication.

Anyone know if these folks are easier to find and contact now?

Richard

Sent from my mobile device.

On Jan 9, 2019, at 6:08 PM, Larry Diamond via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

Just a minor point, to echo Joe's words...

The rules proposal has been submitted and it is not an NSRCA decision right. The rule is out there for AMA members to vote on. I suspect most of the votes are typically from the NSRCA members, albeit open for all AMA members to vote on.

There are differing opinions on this rules proposal. An honest open discussion within this discussion group is healthy.

None-the-less, it will proceed through the AMA process.

LD

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 6, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: Monte Richard <mrichard at compassengineering.com> 

Date: 1/9/19 5:41 PM (GMT-06:00) 

To: tjpritchett at aol.com, General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>, vellum2 at bellsouth.net, ldiamond at diamondrc.com 

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

Excellent points Tim. Let’s not shoot ourselves in the foot with restrictions that aren’t totally thought out and all ramifications explored first. Once someone enters Sportsman with a sport plane and flies a few contests, they see that as a whole, the pilots there are very helpful and willing to assist them. They usually want to fly a 2 meter plane when moving up to Intermediate, and most of the time have made a few friends in the sport who help them find a used 2 meter plane at a reasonable price to get started. They also realize that a well-trimmed sport plane can compete pretty well in Intermediate.

Monte Richard

2019 AMA Pattern Nats ED

AMA 5581, NSRCA 4469

NSRCA D6 VP

mrichard at compassengineering.com

Cell 337-349-6627

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of tim pritchett via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 4:16 PM
To: vellum2 at bellsouth.net; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org; ldiamond at diamondrc.com
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal - Limiting Size/Power for Sportsman and Intermediate

   Larry's comments tapped a thought I've been considering for a while.  Our planes are pretty cool, and attract a lot of attention.   You see folks walk the lines looking, and stopping at the 2M Pattern Planes.  I still do that at contests.  They are why I got into (and stay in) the sport in the first place.  If they were ugly, I wouldn't have wanted or bought one.  I think every one has an affinity for the planes.  When we were flying a lot of nitro, pipes and retracts were not allowed in Novice (may still not be).  I flew a stick that year, and couldn't wait to get out to fly the 'big stuff' in Sportsman.  Young, poor, and stupid, but I had an EU1-A! 

  In addition to restricting our own pilots who fly Intermediate for many years, as was pointed out, we also have potential recruits who look at the planes and want to fly one.  If we tell them no, you can't fly this until you're capable of X class, today they would just abandon the prospect and go buy a jet.  I think our planes carry some value in recruiting for the sport, and are more of an asset than a liability.  We should find ways to leverage that 'passion' we all share. 

   Point also taken on the industrial impact.  We should know what our manufacturers/distributors think about rules changes, as I'm sure they are impacted by regulation, better or worse.  They are a very integral part of what we do, and should have a voice; a loud one.  Without them we have no sport.  

My $.02 (...most of it stolen)

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Walker via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; Larry Diamond <ldiamond at diamondrc.com>
Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2019 3:27 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal - Limiting Size/Power for Sportsman and Intermediate

Thanks Larry!

As a point of clarification, rules proposal submittals are done by AMA members and not the NSRCA (This is an AMA process).  This particular one was proposed by Mike Harrison as an individual.  We've been talking a lot about how we can clarify this process so the NSRCA can represent the community, but that's an ongoing task.  I love the motivation behind looking to encourage participation of course.  Do I agree with the proposal as written? Not entirely.  I posted earlier that giving or loaning our older, unused planes to folks that show interest in seeing what pattern is all about can be a compelling strategy since it eliminates the "cost of entry" barrier entirely.

I'd encourage you to go re-read some of the K-factors in the last year or two.  We have all been promoting aerobatic competition flying inclusive of F3A, SPA, CPA, JPA, F3P and IMAC with vigor.  Bringing everyone together is the clear path forward in my opinion.  Locally, we get a lot of crossover between IMAC, SPA and AMA pattern.  Jamie Strong even created a contest for CPA and SPA planes in March of this year.  I'm looking forward to that for sure (with an old Atlanta and MK Arrow).  So, I don't think that we have lost sight as an organization, we are just looking for ways to entice folks to bring their toys out to play.

Enjoy!

Joe

On Wednesday, January 9, 2019, 2:55:47 PM EST, Larry Diamond via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote: 

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

a.       1 – Of 10 Allures made in this scheme from the World Championship painted in Red/White/Blue with Stars/Stripes.

b.      1 – Alchemy NIB

c.       1 – Shinden RTF

d.      1 – 2M Acuity RTF

e.      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.

f.        Every 2M Plane has a set of Wing Bags from Caroline.

g.       I have 100% of all necessary Futaba equipment for the Allure and Alchemy, including Battery packs, 12+ (5S 5000mAh).

4)      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 

_______________________________________________
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

(c) 2018 Compass Engineering & Consultants, LLC. All rights reserved. This electronic transmission, and any attachments hereto, is intended only for the use of each individual recipient named above and may contain information belonging to the sender that is confidential, proprietary, is subject to copyright, constitutes a trade secret or is legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately (i) notify the sender, (ii) permanently delete the original and all copies of this electronic transmission and all attachments hereto, and (iii) destroy all printouts of this electronic transmission and all attachments hereto. Please note that electronic transmissions to and from the sender may be monitored by the sender's employer. Thank you for your cooperation.    

_______________________________________________
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/20190110/25371524/attachment.html>