<html><head></head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>Rick</div><div><br></div><div>That is well within the CDS rights as long as it is published before the contest. </div><div><br></div><div>Arch<br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On Feb 3, 2012, at 12:38 AM, Rick Sweeney <<a href="mailto:bacabbey@gmail.com">bacabbey@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>It has been a long time,(1994-1995) but I recall when I was flying Sportsman it was three in, one out, three in...etc. Advanced was all turn-around as I recall. When I started flying pattern turn-around had pretty much completed its transition so I never really flew non turn-around style.<br>
<br>I was asking a Sportsman flyer at the field that is just getting into it how he thought he might like removing turn-around in his class and he was not real hot on the idea. He thought it would be to big of a transition into Intermediate which is all turn-around. I do like the idea of removing it but his reaction surprised me a little, but I see his point, as it would be difficult going from no box, to all in. <br>
<br>Would it be possible for a CD to make the decision at his contest to hold a non turn-around, Novice class to experiment with the idea locally? I am not sure what the ruling would be on that.<br><br>Rick <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Keith Hoard <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:khoard@gmail.com">khoard@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>Whenever I've tried to coach a sport pilot on pattern, they hang in there right up to the first turnaround maneuver. . </div><div><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><div class="h5"><div><br>
On Feb 2, 2012, at 20:04, Archie Stafford <<a href="mailto:astafford@md.metrocast.net" target="_blank">astafford@md.metrocast.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt">John,<br>
<br>
I have suggested this previously and was told this was too difficult for Sportsman pilots. I don’t agree with that at all. I would like to see the lower classes have some more challenging maneuvers, but less box stuff. I think this will attract guys to fly without having to invest a lot. There will be a big jump at some point between classes, and I believe between Intermediate and Advanced. By that time people know if they want to continue and can look to invest more time and effort into it. The approach that we can make the patterns smoothly flow from one class to another simply wont work without lowering the overall difficulty. We need to make it more fun for Sportsman to encourage new blood and let them see how much fun it can be. This is just my opinion, but this approach seemed to work well 15-20 years ago.<br>
<br>
Arch<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/2/12 8:59 PM, "John Fuqua" <<a href="http://johnfuqua@embarqmail.com" target="_blank">johnfuqua@embarqmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</span></font><blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><font color="#1F497D">If this is as you suggest then NSRCA has the opportunity now to redo the Sportsman sequence and make it so power is not the criteria and more suited to sport planes. <br>
<br>
</font><br>
</span></font><font><font face="Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"><b>From:</b> <a href="http://nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a> [<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Archie Stafford<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 02, 2012 7:41 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> General pattern discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating tonewFAIrules<br>
</span></font></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt"> <br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt">I agree Verne. I wish it was set up as it used to be, where sportsman left the box often and even Intermediate had a couple of breaks. I would like to see the difficulty increased in the lower classes, but more box brakes. It amazes me that 20 years ago a Novice pilot had to do 3 loops, but with todays airplanes and technology, suddenly this is more difficult. I would bet many Advanced pilots would have trouble with it and even more so the three rolls that were in Sportsman. It seems as though we have totally changed the entry levels encouraging the need for full blown pattern ships. Years ago you could fly Novice with any average sport plane. Adding complexity with maneuvers at the top of the box and the vertical upline that requires some power has made this sequence much harder to fly competitively with a .40 size sport plane. <br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt"> <br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt">Arch<br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt"><br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt"><br>
On Feb 2, 2012, at 8:25 PM, "Verne Koester" <<a href="http://verne@twmi.rr.com" target="_blank">verne@twmi.rr.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</span></font><blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font color="#1F497D"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:12pt">It wasn’t the expense. It was the fact that an above-average sport pilot could do a pretty respectable job with that old Sportsman schedule without the full commitment that a full-time pattern pilot makes. Those guys had a blast going against their rivals in whatever region they lived in. Go somewhere else and it’d be an entirely different group having just as much fun flying against their pals.. A few of those guys would move up through the classes but most seemed to be quite happy and content to do 2 or 3 “local” contests a year and have at it against their pals. Turnaround raised the ante and the commitment to a level those guys obviously didn’t want to go to.<br>
<br>
I never flew against any of those guys because my first contest away from my home field was in Advanced which is a long story in itself. Suffice to say, I wouldn’t have recommended it then and especially not now. FWIW, I love turnaround flying. I have just always thought we put a little too much pressure on those that want to give it a try and probably scare off some or many in the process. For those that might want to argue the point, forget it. Been there, done that, ain’t doing it no more.<br>
<br>
Verne Koester <br>
<br>
</span></font></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font><font face="Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"><b>From:</b> <a href="http://nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a> [<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Peter Vogel<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 02, 2012 6:42 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> General pattern discussion<br>
<b>Cc:</b> General pattern discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating tonewFAIrules<br>
</span></font></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt"> <br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt">I don't buy the expense argument anymore. The $200-$400 Osiris from 3DHobbyShop winds up at $400-$800 all-up, depending on how you choose to equip it and is more than capable of turning in very respectable showing. <br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt"> <br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt">Now the $650 Vanquish even puts a full 2M plane in an affordable range. <br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt"> <br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt">Peter+<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone4S<br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt"><br>
On Feb 2, 2012, at 12:50 PM, "Del" <<a href="http://drykert2@rochester.rr.com" target="_blank">drykert2@rochester.rr.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</span></font><blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font color="#0000FF"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:12pt"><b>Your right Peter.. The beauty of that period of flying anyone with an Ugly stick or under powered kadet could enter and fly pattern. Attendance at meets was amazing at most parts of country. That style did get some heat as blamed for loss of fields from over flights of homes etc. but if the full truth were to be looked at all flying endeavors loud and noisy aircraft flying near and over homes was the bigger culprit. Pattern was at the forefront of addressing that and mandating a reasonable sound level at the nats especially but bonus points could be award for quiet aircraft and penalties for noisy planes. <br>
</b></span></font></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font color="#0000FF"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:12pt"><b> <br>
</b></span></font></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font color="#0000FF"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:12pt"><b>The other big advantage was as recently petitioned people would come out and enjoy themselves flying after only practicing the weekend before if at all and do fairly well sometimes. The changes have hurt overall mass attendance but the quality of the flying by competitors has improved dramatically. Some like that tradeoff. Others not so much. Partially because of increased expenses to compete means they can't participate and still feel they made a reasonable showing. <br>
</b></span></font></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font color="#0000FF"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:12pt"><b> <br>
</b></span></font></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font color="#0000FF"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:12pt"><b> Del<br>
</b></span></font></font><blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">----- Original Message ----- <br>
</span></font></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"><b>From:</b> Peter Vogel <<a href="mailto:vogel.peter@gmail.com" target="_blank">mailto:vogel.peter@gmail.com</a>> <br>
</span></font></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"><b>To:</b> General pattern discussion <<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>> <br>
</span></font></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 02, 2012 3:15 PM<br>
</span></font></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating tonewFAIrules<br>
</span></font></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt"> <br>
OK. Looking at some of the old rule books, I'm confused. Take for example the novice sequence from 86-87: <br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt">Takeoff<br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt">Straight flight out (U)<br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt">Procedure turn<br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt">Straight flight back (D)<br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt">Stall Turn (U)<br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt">Immelmann Turn (U)<br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt">3 inside loops (U)<br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt">One horizontal roll (D)<br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt">Landing<br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt"> <br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt">The procedure turn, stall turn, and Immelmann sure seem like turnarounds to me, granted to meet the mandatory directions relative to wind you would need to have a free turnaround between the straight flight back and the stall turn, and another free turnaround between the stall and the Immelmann, etc. So were all the "stunt" turns intended to be executed at show center with a free turnaround outside the box between each maneuver? <br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt"> <br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt">I'm amazed at the amount of "heat" (aka: passion) there seems to have been in the K-factor around the change to turnaround schedules. I admit I like my 2 "free" turnarounds outside the box in Sportsman between maneuvers 6+7 and 11+12 but I could muddle through without them if I had to, and I honestly can't imagine flying such a disjoint sequence as the ones I'm seeing in the old rulebooks. Hardly feels like a "sequence".<br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt"> <br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt">Peter+<br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt"> <br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt">On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:43 AM, J N Hiller <<a href="http://jnhiller@earthlink.net" target="_blank">jnhiller@earthlink.net</a>> wrote:<br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font color="#000080"><font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">The sequences flown were published in the old rule books. Be aware that over the years some of the class names changed.<br>
Some time back I applied K-factors to those non-turnaround schedules to try to understand the migration of increasing difficulty, concluding that the K-factor alone is a poor indicator of actual difficulty. But we all step up to the challenge regardless of the difficulty.<br>
Jim <br>
</span></font></font></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt"> <br>
<br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:12pt">-----Original Message-----<br>
<b>From:</b> <a href="http://nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a> [<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>]<b>On Behalf Of </b>Peter Vogel<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:23 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> General pattern discussion<br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:12pt"><b>Cc:</b> NSRCA Discussion List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating tonew FAIrules<br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt"> <br>
I was reading some of the archived K-factors and it got me curious, is there an archive of the sequences pre-turnaround?<br>
<br>
Peter+<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone4S<br>
<br>
On Jan 31, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Joe Lachowski <<a href="http://jlachow@hotmail.com" target="_blank">jlachow@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
You can log on at the NSRCA website and then proceed to the judges section and click on archived documents. Thanks to Jim Hiller who provided me a lot of these, I was able to scan them in and put them into the PDF Format. Anyone who has anything older than whats up there, send a hard copy to me to scan and I'll have Derek put them up.<br>
<br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt">
</span></font>
<p align="CENTER">
<font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt"></span></font></p><hr size="2" width="100%" align="CENTER">
<p>
<font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt">Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:45:38 -0800<br>
From: <a href="http://derekkoopowitz@gmail.com" target="_blank">derekkoopowitz@gmail.com</a><br>
To: <a href="http://nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating to new FAIrules<br>
<br>
We have a pretty good collection of AMA and FAI rule books on the website if anyone wants to see what rules were like, or how much they have changed over the years... <br>
<br>
Click on the link below:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://nsrca.us/index.php/archiveddocuments" target="_blank">http://nsrca.us/index.php/archiveddocuments</a> <br>
<br>
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Jon Lowe <<a href="http://jonlowe@aol.com" target="_blank">jonlowe@aol.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</span></font><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:12pt">It would appear that the FAI is going down the same road as IMAC, with IMAC's subjective "airspace control" factor. The smoothness and gracefulness 25% gives a judge a non-objective way to give a downgrade of 2 to 3 points. Since there is no scoring criteria for it that I could find, other than Michael Ramel's instructions to the judges at the WC, I'm not sure what we do with it. I would think that his instructions would have been protestable, if anyone had wanted to go down that path, since I'm unaware of any official FAI rule interpretation saying, for example, that constant speed is a part of smoothness and gracefulness. I'm sure he was just trying to give meaning to a poorly writen criteria.<br>
</span></font><span style="font-size:12pt"><font face="Times New Roman"> <br>
</font><font face="Arial">Very sorry to see the FAI going this way.<br>
</font></span><font face="Arial"><font size="4"><span style="font-size:13pt">Jon<br>
</span></font></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt"> <br>
</span></font></p></blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt">_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="http://NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
</span></font></blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt">_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="http://NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
</span></font></blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
<hr size="3" width="95%" align="CENTER"></span></font><font><font face="Consolas, Courier New, Courier"><span style="font-size:10pt">_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="http://NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
</span></font></font></blockquote>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>NSRCA-discussion mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a></span><br>
<span><a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></span></div></blockquote></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br></blockquote></div><br>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>NSRCA-discussion mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></span></div></blockquote></body></html>