<html>
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Brush Script MT";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{margin-right:0in;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.NormalWeb1, li.NormalWeb1, div.NormalWeb1
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle19
{font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:.2in .25in 33.1pt .25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Bad idea, but I would endorse skis.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<div>
<p><b><i><font size=4 color=navy face="Brush Script MT"><span style='font-size:
13.5pt;font-family:"Brush Script MT";color:navy;font-weight:bold;font-style:
italic'>Jay Marshall</span></font></i></b><font color=navy><span
style='color:navy'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>-----Original Message-----<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>From:</span></b> nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] <b><span style='font-weight:
bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>John Konneker<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, April 29, 2008 4:57
PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> Discussion List<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> [NSRCA-discussion] Rules
change proposal</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>I have been impressed by the spirit
of fair play and sportsmanship in the NSRCA since returning to pattern.<br>
I feel though that there has been an oversight in the rules that I think now
could be corrected.<br>
I just got in from flying my Focus II for the first time since last October.<br>
It (I) was terrible! The long winter layoffs here in the northern climes
imposes a real hardship on pattern pilots living here.<br>
To be fair I would like to propose an adjustment to the maneuver k-factors
based on the annual mean temperature and <br>
extreme lows (I want to leave out highs) of where one lives. <br>
For example my lowest k-factor would be 10 for landing and takeoff and then go
up from there according to degree of difficulty of<br>
maneuver. In some cases I can see 20+ easily.<br>
Folks like Derek, Ron Davies, Chris Fitzsimmons living in California would have
highest k-factors of 1...who knows...maybe even fractional or minus.
These k-factors would be assigned by pilot and voted on only by members that
have at least 24" of snow each year.<br>
What do you all think?<br>
I want to be fair.<br>
JLK</span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>