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

Thu Jan 10 13:13:10 AKST 2019

Thank you all for your inputs.  I want to qualify some of my reasoning, most of which you have already heard.  I assure you this is not a ready, fire , aim concept nor impulsive act on my part. I have been an avid participant for 40 years.  I have flown every class.  I have been actively involved in many ways.  I have a very good understanding and knowledge of the history of pattern and the trends and the reasons.  

I have talked to numerous modelers and/or would be pattern flyers and flyers newly in the pattern world.  The “would be” pattern flyers felt the expense was very high, the newly entered felt like they spent an exceptional amount to get into it.  Others that entered with smaller airplanes said they not only felt like they were at a disadvantage, they knew they would have to buy the bigger plane to be competitive. 

Of course on another note, they have not yet experienced the pain of financing all the maintenance, crashes etc that go into this sport. 

 I processed all this over a period of a couple of years.  

My efforts were directed at making the entry level affordable yet competitive to give a true sense of competing at pattern at a fraction of the cost - not by a few  percentage points but by 50 to 75% less- around $1000 cost vs $2000-$4000 cost.  Some of you claim that is not an issue-well maybe not to you, but to others it is, so they simply don’t do it.  We cannot determine that number of potential flyers we lose because of expense-maybe a lot, maybe not.

I am going to request a change to the grandfather clause so that it is forever.  That was what I was going to do originally but was persuaded otherwise.  Those that are currently in it can stay with no issues.  

For those that have 2M planes but are waiting to enter,,,,what are you waiting for?  If you enter this year you will be grandfathered in. 

Some of you are forecasting gloom and doom, however there is no way to know the results of the rules proposal.  I believe it is a true change that can help foster growth and development.  I don’t see this hurting the companies at all, in fact, it should improve it and stimulate more sales.  It will also send a message to make them more affordable.  

This rules change will take time to have a positive effect-probably years..

There are legitimate counter proposals but no one has put them forward.  I strongly recommend that happen.  I also really like the marketing and public promotions concept.  The problem with it is that goes  away as soon as the promoter tires of doing it.   So it is no longer.   Need a rule that stays.  

There needs to be rules in place that encourage participation.  Maybe having sportsman class is enough, but once that person leaves that class they are in for a big financial hit.  

It is apparent that some of you don’t know how the rules process works.  This a  lengthy process and the rules can be changed and amended to get a better result.  Consider that avenue.  

Do the bonus plan-somebody propose it…..

Mike H

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of davel322--- via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 10:57 PM
To: 'Pete Cosky' <pcosky at comcast.net>; 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal - Limiting Size/Power for Sportsman and Intermediate

+1

From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> > On Behalf Of Pete Cosky via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 9:57 PM
To: Andrew S. Collins <acollinsdal at yahoo.com <mailto:acollinsdal at yahoo.com> >; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal - Limiting Size/Power for Sportsman and Intermediate

Andy thanks for your input. YOU are the person we need to attract and retain.

I know the people who actually vote on these proposals watch the list so if there are other lurkers out there please drop the cloaking device and give us your input.

Sent from my mobile device

On Jan 9, 2019, at 9:23 PM, Andrew S. Collins via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> > wrote:

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 <mailto: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 < <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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 < <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
To: 'General pattern discussion' < <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; Larry Diamond < <mailto:ldiamond at diamondrc.com> 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 < <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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
 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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
 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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
 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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/f883dd43/attachment.html>