[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal - Limiting Size/Power for Sportsman and Intermediate
Andrew S. Collins
acollinsdal at yahoo.com
Wed Jan 9 17:24:03 AKST 2019
I hope its already to share on this discussion, as someone interested in getting into Pattern, these rules changes would be a major negative.
First I have already purchased 2 2M used planes (which I planned on flying for years), and I don’t want to be in the “little kids class” not allowed to fly the 2M planes.
I don’t need a 2M plane, a 60” wingspan stick is more plane than my ability at this point, but I want to get into pattern to improve my skills, to move up.
Making the lower 2 classes a “kids class” is a total turn off for me
You can buy a used 2M plane that is already setup and has many flights on it and that is a positive thing for someone with limited build experience. To me the thing holding me back last year, is making a commitment of time to fly enough to get to the point I feel more confident in my flying, it has nothing to do with a 2M plane.
These changes would be a big negative in my eyes
andy
> On Jan 9, 2019, at 4:25 PM, Daniel Lipton via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> +1
> In summary, my thoughts are we should not be adding additional limits on what types of aircraft people can use to get started in and staying in our game (Sportsman/Intermediate) we should - if anything be opening up to more potential people. I do like the idea of adding an intelligently crafted bonus for categories of aircraft that have a disadvantage given a pilot of similar skill level (such as the < 60” category)
>
>> On Jan 9, 2019, at 2:15 PM, tim pritchett via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>>
>> 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 <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
>> To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>; Larry Diamond <ldiamond at diamondrc.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <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 <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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20190110/3be82fba/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list