<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Keith, the idea is to have multiple systems in place to avoid such
an occurrence. <br>
<br>
A failsafe check at the contest would have prevented the problem.
Communication between the person removing the plane from the runway
and the pilot would have prevented the problem. An arming plug still
engaged in the pits might have been commented on by anyone standing
around. <br>
<br>
To check the power operation, I put the plane in a stand with a fast
idle and shut off the receiver to confirm the ESC shutdown works,
then turn the TX off and turn the receiver on to confirm that
without a failsafe or TX signal, the ESC stays shut down, then turn
the TX back on to confirm normal operation and shut the TX off to
get failsafe which should shutdown the motor as well(not hold).
Finally turn the TX back on and confirm that throttle cut both shuts
the motor down and disables the throttle stick. Presumably you
already know that your arming plug works if you have one unless it
has been ejected.<br>
<br>
John<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/13/2012 9:13 AM, Keith Hoard
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:-6898270660445593451@unknownmsgid" type="cite">
<style>
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph {
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, p.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, p.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast {
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
line-height:115%;
}
</style>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,'Segoe UI',Meiryo,'Microsoft YaHei
UI','Microsoft JhengHei UI','Malgun Gothic','Khmer UI','Nirmala
UI',Tunga,'Lao UI',Ebrima,sans-serif;font-size:16px">
<div>If I recall the story correctly, the offending aircraft was
left unattended after landing while the pilot “debriefed” with
the judges. If there was nobody to physically secure that
airplane, then there would have been nobody to pull the arming
plug either.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Unless the arming plug had a “self-ejection after landing”
feature, it would have still been installed in the airplane
and it STILL would have gone to full power into the pits when
the Tx was turned off.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>Sent from Windows Mail</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div
style="border-top-color:rgb(225,225,225);border-top-width:1px;border-top-style:solid">
<strong>From:</strong> John Fuqua <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:johnfuqua@embarqmail.com">johnfuqua@embarqmail.com</a>><br>
<strong>Sent:</strong> ‎December‎ ‎13‎, ‎2012 ‎9‎:‎49‎ ‎AM<br>
<strong>To:</strong> General pattern discussion <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><br>
<strong>Subject:</strong> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board
- Was Executive Board voting<br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">Well
I was the victim of a runaway electric which trashed my
plane and barely missed slicing up people in the pit.
The operator HAD set Fail Safe. Somewhere along the
way it got changed and when he turned off the Tx
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.</span></p>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium
medium;border-style:solid none
none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) black
black;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class=" MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">From:</span></b><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>
[mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Randy Forbus<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:59 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board
- Was Executive Board voting</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">With
all the fancy smancy computer radios out there fail
safe seems to be the logical way to prevent a runaway.<br>
</span></p>
<div>
<div class=" MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center"></span></div>
<p class=" MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">From:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:rforbus@hotmail.com" target="_blank">rforbus@hotmail.com</a><br>
To: <a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:50:09 +0000<br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was
Executive Board voting</span></p>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">Well
I personally havent seen a runaway electric plane
and I know some have and the out come wasnt good,
but like Mark said an arming plug doesnt give 100%
safety, common sense has to prevail. Ive never
seen a glow motor come back to life with no glow
driver connected either, but I know that happens
too.<br>
</span></p>
<div>
<div class=" MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center"></span></div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">Date:
Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:38:03 -0600<br>
From: <a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:scmcharg@gmail.com"
target="_blank">scmcharg@gmail.com</a><br>
To: <a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board -
Was Executive Board voting<br>
<br>
Mark and John, </span></p>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">
First of all, I personally want to thank you
for stepping up to the fire blaster and
communicating with us. Believe me, I know
what it feels like. Mark, after all of the
communication and survey (flawed as it was in
some eyes), it was clear that no one wanted
the arming plug but agreed with the idea
behind the proposal. That's why the proposed
one was changed to mirror the FAI rule. That
one didn't even make the preliminary vote and
the one we requested be trashed was accepted.
Your arguments also are the same as others
and the reason why we changed it. I also
understand your point about be specific and
generic at the same time but I do not believe
that everything has to have a penalty. If it
ain't right, just make it so and be done with
it. If a competitor doesn't disarm the plane,
ask him to do so. You don't have to spank the
person with a penalty every single time.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">
Like John Gayer said concerning Telemetry,
there is no penalty in the current rules which
y'all approved so why now does there have to
be one in order to get it passed. Likewise,
if this was the whole problem to this proposal
or any of them, why didn't y'all just let us
know so we could fix it? John Fuqua says that
AMA doesn't want to blanket the entire AMA
community with a rule for electrics concerning
safety and wants the SIGs to do it yet ya'll
who are OUR rule makers for our SIG say it's
not your responsibility. This is certainly an
issue.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">
This type of communication that we are having
right here is extremely healthy and, in my
opinion, the exact conversations that should
have been happening during the process instead
of after. Again, I appreciate you and John
taking the time to hash this out. For me, my
frustrations are subsided knowing we can talk
about this. Thank you for that.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">
On a tangent, I would like everyone to pay
close attention to the Kfactor this year.
Mark Atwood is writing a monthly column for
the Kfactor. Mark is the Team Manager for our
Team USA F3A World Team. I think you'll like
what he's doing as each month, he is giving a
bio of each competitor. Things will progress
from there. I am truly looking forward to
this column. Sorry to stray but I think it's
important to realize how much he does for our
hobby as well as put his feet to the coals.
:)</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">Scott</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">On
Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Atwood, Mark
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com"
target="_blank">atwoodm@paragon-inc.com</a>>
wrote:</span></p>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">I
want to be clear that I'm speaking for my
view, not neccessarily the entire CB (though
I know of at least a few that share my
view). No one objects to the idea of
better safety. What's objectionable to
many, is making a rule that will either be
unenforced, unevenly enforced, or punitively
enforced. The idea of being able to see a
visible disconnection from the batteries
(and no, an arming plug does not provide
that) at all times would clearly fall into
that camp. The first person at the nats
that sets his canopy on his plane to prevent
it from blowing away and IS
disqualified...or ISN'T
disqualified...creates a problem. If we
don't prevent them from flying, then there's
no point in having the rule. If we do
prevent them from flying, we've really
broken the intent. And I completely
understand that there should be some common
sense in all of this. But our group isn't
so good about common sense when we start
picking apart the letter of the rule in a
protest. Just ask any former Nats CD.<br>
<br>
The idea of great safety procedures and
habits should more likely be outlined as
guidelines, strong recommendations, peer
pressure to comply, etc. That, or we need a
more cleanly crafted rule that doesn't get
someone disqualified for covering their
airplane with a white (opague) cloth to keep
it cool in the summer, thereby preventing me
from seeing if there are connected batteries
to the motor.</span></p>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"><br>
<br>
Mark Atwood<br>
Paragon Consulting, Inc. | President<br>
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130,
Cleveland Ohio, 44124<br>
Phone: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
tabindex="-1"
href="tel:440.684.3101%20x102"
target="_blank">440.684.3101 x102</a> |
Fax: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
tabindex="-1" href="tel:440.684.3102"
target="_blank">440.684.3102</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"
target="_blank">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"
target="_blank">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a>>
| <a moz-do-not-send="true"
tabindex="-1"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"
target="_blank">www.paragon-inc.com</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"
target="_blank">http://www.paragon-inc.com/</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">On
Dec 13, 2012, at 12:28 AM, John Gayer
wrote:<br>
<br>
Mark,<br>
<br>
on telemetry you mean a simple statement
like this in our proposal:<br>
Any form of automatic flight control loop
that utilizes aircraft flight parameter
feedback whether onboard the model or
through the transmitter is prohibited.
Telemetry or feedback mechanisms intended
for use as safety functions may not be
used to create an unfair advantage over
other competitors.<br>
Not sure how you can find loopholes in
that second statement.<br>
There were no enforcement penalties listed
in the original equipment rule either. We
were proposing only to clarify what
telemetry could be allowed from a safety
POV. As it stands without revision,
everyone who walks to the line with
equipment that downloads and
monitors/alarms on airborne battery
voltage is in violation of the rule.
Fortunately, there doesn't appear to a
penalty for that in the current rule.<br>
<br>
The impression I am getting from both you
and John is that the CB tries to find
reasons to reject proposals on
technicalities rather than embrace the
intent of a proposal and find ways using
their experience with the rules and
communications with the proposers to make
the proposals work. Of course if the
intent is rejected as it appears it was
with the weight proposal, then a rejection
is clear and easily understood.<br>
<br>
I'm a bit confused by what you are saying
about the safety rules. Most radios these
days support failsafe. The rule proposed
does not apply if there is no failsafe
available. Size of plane is irrelevant if
the radio supports the function. I have
also seen many smaller aircraft with
arming plugs as well. I would have to say
that in this case, size does not matter.<br>
<br>
About the formal statement writing, we
have two CB members who care enough to
respond here. Leaning forward like that is
often taken as volunteering.<br>
John<br>
If anyone wants to reference the proposals
submitted, they can be found at:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/ruleproposals/rcaerobatics.aspx"
target="_blank">http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/ruleproposals/rcaerobatics.aspx</a><br>
<br>
On 12/12/2012 9:20 PM, Atwood, Mark wrote:<br>
<br>
I'll add a touch more specific to a few of
these.<br>
<br>
Telemetry... Consensus was overwhelming
that we need a SIMPLE rule, NOT a
technical one. DON'T CHEAT. Ok, sounds
too ambiguous, but it's really not. We
all felt strongly (and came up with a
several ways to cheat the details of the
proposed rule) that we need a rule based
on intent, not on technical specifics
otherwise we'll be chasing our tail as the
technology advances. Something that
simply says telemetry may not be used to
aid the pilot in piloting the aircraft.<br>
<br>
To John's point, any proposal that doesn't
outline the penalty for breaking the rule
is almost immediately abandoned.
Enforcement has to be both clear, and
reasonable from a logistical perspective.<br>
<br>
Lastly, regarding the safety rules...
we're not in a position to assume that
only 2 meter full blown pattern ships are
the only planes competing unless we plan
to make that a rule too. So any rules have
to apply to anything that fits in the 2
meter box and weighs less than 5Kgs.
The one proposal stated specifically that
there had to be a visible break in the
connection from the battery. That
requires Canopies to be left off the
aircraft (or Clear Canopies) at all times.
Not practical. Those were just some of
the easy reasons to vote no...there were
other considerations as well that weighed
against it.<br>
<br>
I like the idea of a formal "opinion"
statement from the majority. Not sure
who's burdened with writing it though.<br>
<br>
<br>
Mark Atwood<br>
Paragon Consulting, Inc. | President<br>
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130,
Cleveland Ohio, 44124<br>
Phone: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
tabindex="-1"
href="tel:440.684.3101%20x102"
target="_blank">440.684.3101 x102</a> |
Fax: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
tabindex="-1" href="tel:440.684.3102"
target="_blank">440.684.3102</a></span></p>
</div>
<p class=" MsoNormal">
<span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"
target="_blank">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"
target="_blank">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"
target="_blank">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"
target="_blank">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a>>
| <a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"
target="_blank">www.paragon-inc.com</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"
target="_blank">http://www.paragon-inc.com/</a>><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"
target="_blank">http://www.paragon-inc.com/</a>><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"
target="_blank">http://www.paragon-inc.com/</a>></span></p>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Dec 12, 2012, at 7:29 PM, John Fuqua
wrote:<br>
<br>
Maybe I can offer some insight.<br>
<br>
If a proposal says do something then there
needs to be a penalty or clear result that
the CD can enforce. For example both
safety proposal had no penalty/result if
not complied with. Also was concern that
although there may be a visible plug that
does not ensure that the system is really
disconnected. There was concern about
adding responsibility on the CD who may
not be electric smart. There is always
concern that opened ended rules create
confusion. If you will remember the last
cycle a lot of work went into defining
specific downgrades where to fore no
penalty was assigned.<br>
<br>
I did, in fact, contact the AMA Tech
Director twice on the safety issues. AMA
has taken the position that they do not
want to make a blanket rule for all
electric activity preferring to leave that
to the SIGs to implement for their
specific circumstances.<br>
<br>
On the telemetry issue there was a
consensus that we do not have the
technical means to validate that TM is
being used correctly. TM has great
potential for misuse. How does one
enforce only battery monitoring for
instance. I know that the vast majority
of folks do not cheat on the rules but I
know for a fact that it has happened.
TM will come up again. Newer radios
have it so it will be a fact of life.
Have no idea where we are headed.<br>
<br>
Weight is always contentious but we had
just implemented a weight change the last
cycle. I thinks the consensus was that
some experience with the current rule was
warranted.<br>
<br>
Advancement is also a contentious issue.
But I guess the majority felt that this
proposal was no better than what exists.<br>
<br>
We did have an initial vote and 3 failed.
Then we had a cross proposals phase and
then a final vote. I would be happy to
provide all vote results to NSRCA along
with why they failed (assuming I get that
insight) and would have done so this time
if requested. My bad for not being more
pro-active but having done this for a long
time with never a request I guess I did
not see this coming. AMA does post the
results but admittedly they are not always
timely.<br>
<br>
John Fuqua<br>
<br>
One last thought. Board members rarely
get feedback on proposals. A lot of the
time we just have to do what our
experiences tell is the right thing to do
for our sport.<br>
<br>
<br>
</span></p>
</div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">From:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>>
[mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Scott McHarg</span></p>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">Sent:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:00 PM<br>
To: General pattern discussion<br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest
board - Was Executive Board voting<br>
<br>
Mark and all CB members,<br>
I really doubt that anyone is upset
because the proposals got turned down.
The problem is in the lack of
communication between the author (whether
it be an individual or committee). There
was no report published as to what the
issues were, there was no communication
between the author(s) and the CB, there
was simply nothing. I watched online
daily to see what the results of the
interim vote was so that we could take
corrective action as necessary. Those
were never published and to be honest, I'm
not even sure there was an interim vote.
I spoke to a couple of CB members and I
will not call out their names in public as
I do not want to point fingers. I was
told that I would be hearing from the CB
as the process went on so that proposals
that warranted improvement could be
massaged into a rule that made sense. So,
I patiently waited along with the rest of
the folks. The next thing I know, all
proposals are turned down with no
explanation and final votes have been cas<br>
t.<br>
I received a brief explanation of the
thought process of one CB member right
before the final vote was to be taken (and
I mean right before). It was his opinion
that he was expressing and I respect that
but what was said was pretty amazing to
me. This person's words went something
like "This is the start of a great rule
but not close to being one yet. It is not
our job to help write the rules, simply to
vote on them and uphold the pattern
community". I do not think for one second
this is how the entire CB feels and
refreshed knowing this is not the case.
This simply tells me to submit what you
have and we'll make the decision. If it's
good or if it's a good start, the CB has
no obligation to help get it there,
that's the author's responsibility.
Please understand, the proposals didn't
pass and that's OK. Maybe next time, we
can all work together to come up with
proposals if they are warranted.<br>
I am slightly distraught about the
Advancement Proposal. This would have
made it so much easier for everyone to fly
in the class that they were competitive in
and/or felt comfortable in. This did not
change the pattern community and did not
warrant any extra work or duties,
especially for the CD. There would not be
any more trophy hunting going on with it
then there is now as most local events are
attended by the same individuals and we
all know who is flying in what class for
the most part. OK, so it got turned down
but why? What is the logic? Honestly,
that's what I want to understand more than
anything. I definitely get the weight
proposal. I even get the "safety"
proposal to some extent. This one, the
Advancement Proposal, I do not understand.
If there were arguments or heated
discussions within the CB for those that
supported it and those that didn't, why
wouldn't the author(s) be included in the
communication to help explain the intent
of the proposal so th<br>
at it c<br>
ould be made clear?<br>
As far as the safety proposal is
concerned, I really do get why that
shouldn't be a pattern rule but, did the
proposal get passed to the AMA Safety
Committee? If it did, great! Why didn't
we know? I agree with some of y'all also
that sometimes it "seems" that safety
procedures don't need a rule because most
of us are very careful and incorporate
some safety device. In racing
motorcycles, you have to safety wire the
majority of your bolts and nuts at all
times. Especially the oil drain plug.
Imagine a drain plug backing out and
hitting turn 6 at 120 mph and a fellow
competitor going through that. Trust me
as I've seen oil and coolant on the track
and what happens, it's ugly. I do not
agree, however, that because most people
are safety conscious and have something in
place, that a rule doesn't need to be
made. Imagine that case in the example
above. The premise that most do it so
it's OK is not the correct mindset. We
wrote and rewrote that proposal to give
the majo<br>
rity wh<br>
at they wanted. People didn't want an
arming plug to be required. Cool, we
said. Let's make it so that the
requirement is just that the plane is
disarmed. Most loved the new proposal
because it directly reflected the FAI rule
and it did not require any added equipment
or weight or drilling holes in the side of
your plane. Not only did that proposal go
down in flames but the original proposal
submitted by someone other than the NSRCA
Rules Committee requiring an arming plug
passed the initial vote from the CB. How
did this happen after all the uproar?<br>
It seems to me that it is easy to place
blame on the NSRCA but ask to take the AMA
to task is a big no-no. We pay dues to
the NSRCA and therefore we have a voice!
I agree 100%. But, we are also members
of the AMA and should have a voice there
as well. We do not (or so it seems).
This is what, if anything I would like to
accomplish as a volunteer of the NSRCA; to
increase visibility of our community and
have wide open communication with our
members and equally important, with the
AMA who really has the ultimate say-so in
every facet of this hobby. I want to know
how to "fix it" for next time and have the
true open door policy where communication
flows both ways. One group or the other
should not be required to make the first
call. We should want to work together for
the betterment of our hobby.<br>
<br>
Thank you for reading,<br>
Scott</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">On
Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Atwood, Mark
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com"
target="_blank">atwoodm@paragon-inc.com</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com"
target="_blank">atwoodm@paragon-inc.com</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com"
target="_blank">atwoodm@paragon-inc.com</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com"
target="_blank">atwoodm@paragon-inc.com</a>>>
wrote:<br>
OK, As a CB member I want to throw a few
quick things out there. First and
foremost, Just like the NSRCA Board, we're
a group of volunteers that love modeling
and Precision Aerobatics, and we do the
best we can with fulfilling our charter.
If there are issues, mistakes, bad
choices, GOOD choices, they are all the
result of a dedicated group TRYING to do
their best. There is no hidden agenda or
malicious intent...ever.<br>
<br>
That said I think one of the clear
disconnects is our Charter. We are
selected to the contest board based on our
years of experience in the hobby, the
sport, a demonstration of our
understanding of the AMA and its rules,
and an active participation and
understanding in the niche within which we
are representing.<br>
<br>
We have some obligation to preserve
Pattern, as Pattern. I.e. if the ENTIRE
NSRCA membership voted unanimously to
change the rules such that whom ever could
fly 10 laps the fastest wins... We would
have an obligation to vote NO, regardless
of that unanimous support. I.e go fly
Pylon. Occasionally we are presented
with rules that we collectively feel are
not in the best interest of maintaining
Pattern competition and this then comes
into play. This is especially true when
rules are put forth that strongly alter
the lower classes (Often championed by
someone with heavy interest and
enthusiasm, but minimal years of
experience to know how these things
manifest).<br>
<br>
We also have an obligation to the
logistics of the sport. Rules that place
an unreasonable burden on running an event
bare a much higher level of scrutiny prior
to being passed.<br>
<br>
We have an obligation to the AMA to keep
some consistency with their general rules,
and with similar rules in other
disciplines. Safety issues fall squarely
into this camp. The AMA has long stated
that they do not support legislating out
stupidity, or creating burdensome rules
that punish the masses simply to protect
against carelessness (Unless of course the
result of such error is catastrophic).<br>
<br>
Also regarding safety, if the safety issue
is somewhat generic to the hobby, then
those regulations are pushed up to the AMA
safety board for review unless they are
very specific to the individual
discipline.<br>
<br>
Bottom line... Just because the majority
of the NSRCA wants it, doesn't mean we
should be approving it.<br>
<br>
Lastly, the statement "The majority of the
NSRCA" does NOT necessarily mean the
survey results. That is a VERY small
subset of our group. It's typically a
subset of the vocal, or the opinionated,
or both. I can't speak for the entire CB,
but I WILL speak for Verne (Sorry Verne)
and me, in that we both query as many of
our district members that we see or can
solicit. MANY times an issue that has
been fired up on the list or via the
survey gets a very different 'vote' when
it's discussed in the actual setting of a
contest, and when all the inputs are
weighed (I.e. everyone standing there
discusses it).<br>
<br>
All that said, there's no reason why we
couldn't collectively write an assenting
or dissenting opinion much in the way a
court does, to at least convey the logic
that was used to make our vote.<br>
<br>
Anyhow, the entire CB is online and our
names are published. One need but ask...
and many do. But we're sometimes remiss
to post too much on the discussion boards
about a proposal. Rather most of us take
a back seat to the discussion and simply
listen.<br>
<br>
-Mark<br>
Mark Atwood<br>
Paragon Consulting, Inc. | President<br>
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130,
Cleveland Ohio, 44124<br>
Phone: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
tabindex="-1"
href="tel:440.684.3101%20x102"
target="_blank">440.684.3101 x102</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="tel:440.684.3101%20x102"
target="_blank">tel:440.684.3101%20x102</a>>
| Fax: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
tabindex="-1" href="tel:440.684.3102"
target="_blank">440.684.3102</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="tel:440.684.3102" target="_blank">tel:440.684.3102</a>></span></p>
</div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"
target="_blank">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"
target="_blank">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"
target="_blank">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"
target="_blank">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"
target="_blank">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"
target="_blank">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"
target="_blank">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a>>>
| <a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"
target="_blank">www.paragon-inc.com</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"
target="_blank">http://www.paragon-inc.com/</a>><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"
target="_blank">http://www.paragon-inc.com</a>><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"
target="_blank">http://www.paragon-inc.com/</a>><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"
target="_blank">http://www.paragon-inc.com/</a>><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"
target="_blank">http://www.paragon-inc.com/</a>></span></p>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Dec 12, 2012, at 12:19 PM, J N Hiller
wrote:<br>
<br>
I'm not too old to remember what it was
like before the NSRCA. If you traveled
very far you could find yourself competing
in an unfamiliar event.<br>
The NSRCA has matured since those early
days and contributed greatly to
standardized judging, rule proposal
screening and national unity. YES the
NSRCA has value well beyond the K-Factor.<br>
<br>
Yes it would be nice to get the rest of
the story from the AMA contest board as to
why safety related rules were voted down.
Maybe I missed it but at this point I can
only guess. I could probably ask directly
and get a reply but I trust they had a
valid reason.<br>
<br>
I also trust our BOD to lead the NSRCA on
my behalf without having to explain,
discuss or endlessly argue details in an
open forum. Open discussed can be
extremely time consuming with limited
productivity. There is no making everyone
happy especially if their' participation
is hit and miss continuously requiring
covering old ground.<br>
<br>
Those of us that wish to be involved in
the details can get actively involved.<br>
<br>
Enough. On to the shop!<br>
<br>
Jim Hiller<br>
NSRCA 376<br>
.<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal">
<span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">From:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>>>
[mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>>]On
Behalf Of Jon Lowe<br>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 7:33 AM</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">To:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>>><br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Executive
Board voting<br>
<br>
John,<br>
I have never intentionally attacked
anyone, either on this forum or on the
discussions over on RCU. I've asked
questions, seeking answers. I tend to be
direct in my emails and they may appear to
be harsh, probably comes from my
background dealing with the military. I
have not accused anyone of having an
agenda, nor do I think anyone on the board
does. If you or anyone else thinks that
is what I've implied or am implying, I'm
sorry.<br>
<br>
I think after seeing what you said here,
seeing the complete NSRCA survey results,
and several private emails and phone
calls, that there is a general apathy in
NSRCA which seems to have its roots in
people questioning the relevancy of the
organization. If NSRCA is not relevant
and doesn't provide added value to the
membership, we can turn the sequences back
over to the AMA and disband. I'd like to
see NSRCA viewed as returning far more in
value to the membership than the few
dollars they invest each year. A question
we all need to constantly ask ourselves is
"If someone asks me why I should join the
NSRCA, what do I tell them?"<br>
<br>
The K-Factor is a recurring theme in the
survey and people I have talked to in
terms of value to the members. I would
like to congratulate Scott McHarg and the
rest of the K-Factor crew on the December
issue of the K-Factor. I everyone reading
this hasn't looked at it, it has a lot of
how-to in it. Good job!<br>
<br>
I didn't mean to imply that the AMA
competition board should not have been
much more transparent during the rules
proposal process. They should have been,
and that communication is one thing I'd
work on to improve if elected. I am an
advocate of follow-up, follow-up,
follow-up. And if we are going to ask
others to be transparent to us, then we
need to walk the talk.<br>
<br>
Again, sorry if I offended anyone. I was
asking questions that I didn't see anyone
else asking, and I wanted to know the
answers. I hope the membership will see
this continuing discussion as
constructive, and offer their thoughts.<br>
Jon<br>
-----Original Message-----</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">From:
John Gayer <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net"
target="_blank">jgghome@comcast.net</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net"
target="_blank">jgghome@comcast.net</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net"
target="_blank">jgghome@comcast.net</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net"
target="_blank">jgghome@comcast.net</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net"
target="_blank">jgghome@comcast.net</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net"
target="_blank">jgghome@comcast.net</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net"
target="_blank">jgghome@comcast.net</a>>>><br>
To: General pattern discussion <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>>>><br>
Sent: Tue, Dec 11, 2012 11:16 pm<br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Executive
Board voting<br>
[quote]ORIGINAL: jonlowe<br>
Transparency. I think the spilled milk has
been discussed enough, from the AMA rules
change proposal process by the board, to
the bylaws, to the aborted officer
election.<br>
[/quote]<br>
<br>
<br>
I certainly agree that there were
processes that could have been improved
relative to the bylaw changes and officer
election. However to call them aborted and
imply in various other posts that the
board has a hidden agenda is over the top.
Clearly the board could have and should
have done a better job on the elections
and, for that matter, the treasurer's
audit but there was no intent to hoodwink
or put one over on the membership. We are
nothing but a bunch of volunteers with a
love of pattern. When the call went out
two years ago, noone else stood up and
said "I want to run for office". Various
coercions were applied to get Ed Alt to
run for President and Scott McHarg to run
for Secretary.I will admit to calling
Derek and asking if they had found a
Treasurer in mid-December. When he said
yes, I thanked him and was about to hang
up when he said "you". Later that year Ed
Alt resigned due to the press of work and
Jim Quinn who was then VP reluctantly
assumed the reins of presid<br>
ent. Go<br>
od choice or not, there was noone else
champing at the bit to take the job and
the board gratefully accepted Jim as
president. I didn't see anyone jumping up
and down to get on the board at that time
or, for that matter, now. Kind of wonder
where all the current contrarians were
then. Jon, I guess you were still
recovering from your retirement so that
excuses you but there are plenty of others
making derogatory comments about the
actions of the current board. Where are
you when we need help? Apparently looking
the other way. Right now John Bruml has
been trying to get out of being the
Advertising Manager almost as long as I’ve
been on the board. Where are those
clamoring to help out? Apparently using
their energies to bash those who did throw
their hat in.<br>
<br>
<br>
LOWE>>Oh, and about the Contest
Board. Their process is well documented
by the AMA and follows a strict time
table. We all had the opportunity to
provide inputs and cross proposals after
the initial vote. We also had the
opportunity to talk to the CB members, and
I did talk to a couple of them. The CB
members are mostly active members of the
pattern community, are well known, and are
charted by the AMA, not the NSRCA, to look
at rules proposals to benefit all AMA
participants, not just NSRCA members.
Problems with the NSRCA proposals were
hashed out here, and the submitters had
the opportunity to fix issues during the
cross proposal process. How much
follow-up contact did the NSRCA board
initiate with the CB during the process?
Were any cross proposals
submitted?<<LOWE<br>
<br>
Jon, this seems to have provided the
impetus for your presidential campaign. I
can only say that the NSRCA Rules
committee operated openly, if with a late
start, and solicited input from the
membership on RCU and this list(and
outside the membership as well), ran a
survey, modified proposals to meet
objections and finally submitted proposals
to the contest board. More open you cannot
get. I find it fascinating that to you,
the NSRCA board must be open and direct
with its membership(as it should) but when
dealing with the contest board we are
expected to dig, pry and canvas the board
members in an effort to find out how our
proposals are doing and what objections
might have been raised. Why is the same
openness not required in both cases in
your mind?? While it is clear in the
published process that cross-proposals
could be submitted within a window, we had
no way of knowing which or what part of
our proposals were causing difficulty.
There was no contact initiated by the cont<br>
est boa<br>
rd. Adding insult to injury, there was no
“report out” published, listing the pro
and con votes by district and any
discussed objections. As I have said
before, I have no more idea what it takes
to get a proposal passed through the CB
then I did a year ago before the NSRCA
rules committee formed. How do you explain
the dichotomy between your views of the
contest board and the NSRCA board?<br>
<br>
Relative to the Nats, it is clear to
everyone on the board that the Nats are in
the control of the AMA which has been true
ever since NPAC went away. We, the board,
present a candidate to the AMA, who has
always been accepted. After that we lose
any control. Although since I’ve been on
the board, there have been various
problems at the Nats which many blame on
the NSRCA not the AMA. Arch has been good
about keeping us in the loop but he makes
it clear who he reports to. He and
previous EDs and the AMA staff have been
great about providing logistic support for
the banquet, ice cream social, etc.
However there is no question about the ED
having two bosses, AMA is it. The NSRCA is
responsible for using the funds collected
by the AMA on our behalf to purchase the
necessary scoring equipment and paying the
volunteer staff what we can. This is never
enough to even cover their expenses at the
Nats much less travel.<br>
<br>
John Gayer<br>
NSRCA Treasurer<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list</span></p>
</div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>>></span></p>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list</span></p>
</div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>>></span></p>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal">
<span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">--<br>
Scott A. McHarg<br>
Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<font color="#888888">
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"><br>
<br clear="all">
</span></p>
<div>
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<p class=" MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">--
<br>
</span><b><span
style="color:rgb(51,51,255);font-family:"Comic
Sans MS";font-size:13.5pt">Scott A.
McHarg</span></b><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"><br>
Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure</span></p>
</font></div>
<font color="#888888">
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"><br>
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list <a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></span></p>
</font></div>
</div>
<font color="#888888">
<p class=" MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"><br>
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list <a
moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></span></p>
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" tabindex="-1"
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>