<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Jon,<br>
<br>
This problem is exactly what a failsafe safety check uncovers and
is the usual culprit. I don't understand why you consider such a
check unsafe. It is not the safety rule causing the problem here, it
is the failure of the pilot to set up his failsafe correctly. In
fact, in the checks we have done at our contests, that scenario is
the most likely. Failsafe turned on but throttle in hold. Throttle
in hold is not necessarily motor stopped when going into failsafe.
Safer than a misset throttle position but you still have a plane
with motor running and no control until you can get the TX back on
line. Many of the failsafe problems are caused by radios that take
the throttle position as the FS position when you rebind. Not
noticing that your throttle stick is not at idle or throttle cut on
can cause a problem.<br>
<br>
I would add that all attendees at a contest should be grateful for
this kind of safety check. The owner is the individual most likely
to be hurt and the most likely to be financially disadvantaged.<br>
<br>
John<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/13/2012 9:21 AM, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jonlowe@aol.com">jonlowe@aol.com</a>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:20121213162153.02F2A114AA@bridi.netexpress.com"
type="cite">
<style><!--.hmmessage P{margin:0px;padding:0px}body.hmmessage{font-size: 10pt;font-family:Tahoma}--></style><!-- HTC Mail Separation -->Meant
to send this to the list! <br>
<br>
Jon<!-- HTC Mail Separation -->
<div id="htc_header" style="">----- Forwarded message -----<br>
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jonlowe@aol.com">"jonlowe@aol.com"</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jonlowe@aol.com"><jonlowe@aol.com></a><br>
Date: Thu, Dec 13, 2012 10:18 am<br>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was Executive Board
voting<br>
To: "Randy Forbus" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rforbus@hotmail.com"><rforbus@hotmail.com></a><br>
<br>
</div>
<!-- HTC Mail Separation -->Sometimes failsafe is worse than
nothing. The incidents I am aware of were caused by the airplane
going into failsafe, set wrong, when the TX was turned off
prematurely. Things would have been better without failsafe, ie
throttle remaining in last commanded position. This points out
the problems with well intentioned safety rules; you can't cover
every case, and sometimes things are worse than if left alone. <br>
<br>
Jon<!-- HTC Mail Separation -->
<div id="htc_header" style="">----- Reply message -----<br>
From: "Randy Forbus" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rforbus@hotmail.com"><rforbus@hotmail.com></a><br>
Date: Thu, Dec 13, 2012 8:59 am<br>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was Executive Board
voting<br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">"nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a><br>
<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
With all the fancy smancy computer radios out there fail safe
seems to be the logical way to prevent a runaway.<br>
<br>
<div>
<hr id="stopSpelling">
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rforbus@hotmail.com">rforbus@hotmail.com</a><br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">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<br>
<br>
<style><!--
.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P
{padding:0px;}
.ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;}
--></style>
<div dir="ltr">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>
<br>
<div>
<hr id="ecxstopSpelling">
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:38:03 -0600<br>
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:scmcharg@gmail.com">scmcharg@gmail.com</a><br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was
Executive Board voting<br>
<br>
Mark and John,
<div> 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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> 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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> 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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> 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. :)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Scott</div>
<div class="ecxgmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="ecxgmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:36
AM, Atwood, Mark <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com">atwoodm@paragon-inc.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="ecxgmail_quote"
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px
solid">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.<br>
<div class="ecxim"><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" target="_blank">440.684.3101
x102</a> | Fax: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
target="_blank">440.684.3102</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a>>
| <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="%3Ca%20href="
http:="" www.paragon-inc.com="" ""="">http://www.paragon-inc.com/"</a>
target=_blank><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.paragon-inc.com">www.paragon-inc.com</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="%3Ca%20href="
http:="" www.paragon-inc.com="" ""="">http://www.paragon-inc.com/"</a>
target=_blank><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com">http://www.paragon-inc.com</a>/><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="ecxim">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" href="%3Ca%20href="
http:="" www.modelaircraft.org="" events=""
ruleproposals="" rcaerobatics.aspx""="">http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/ruleproposals/rcaerobatics.aspx"</a>
target=_blank><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/ruleproposals/rcaerobatics.aspx">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" target="_blank">440.684.3101
x102</a> | Fax: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
target="_blank">440.684.3102</a><br>
</div>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a>>
| <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="%3Ca%20href="
http:="" www.paragon-inc.com="" ""="">http://www.paragon-inc.com/"</a>
target=_blank><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.paragon-inc.com">www.paragon-inc.com</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="%3Ca%20href="
http:="" www.paragon-inc.com="" ""="">http://www.paragon-inc.com/"</a>
target=_blank><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com">http://www.paragon-inc.com</a>/><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="%3Ca%20href="
http:="" www.paragon-inc.com="" ""="">http://www.paragon-inc.com/"</a>
target=_blank><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com">http://www.paragon-inc.com</a>/><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="%3Ca%20href="
http:="" www.paragon-inc.com="" ""="">http://www.paragon-inc.com/"</a>
target=_blank><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com">http://www.paragon-inc.com</a>/><br>
<div class="ecxim"><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>
<br>
</div>
From: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>>
[mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Scott McHarg<br>
<div class="ecxim">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<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="ecxim">On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:16 PM,
Atwood, Mark <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com">atwoodm@paragon-inc.com</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com">atwoodm@paragon-inc.com</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com">atwoodm@paragon-inc.com</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com">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" target="_blank">440.684.3101
x102</a><tel:440.684.3101%20x102> | Fax:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank">440.684.3102</a><tel:<a
moz-do-not-send="true" target="_blank">440.684.3102</a>><br>
</div>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a>>>
| <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="%3Ca%20href="
http:="" www.paragon-inc.com="" ""="">http://www.paragon-inc.com/"</a>
target=_blank><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.paragon-inc.com">www.paragon-inc.com</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="%3Ca%20href="
http:="" www.paragon-inc.com="" ""="">http://www.paragon-inc.com/"</a>
target=_blank><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com">http://www.paragon-inc.com</a>/><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="%3Ca%20href="
http:="" www.paragon-inc.com="" ""="">http://www.paragon-inc.com/"</a>
target=_blank><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com">http://www.paragon-inc.com</a>><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="%3Ca%20href="
http:="" www.paragon-inc.com="" ""="">http://www.paragon-inc.com/"</a>
target=_blank><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com">http://www.paragon-inc.com</a>/><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="%3Ca%20href="
http:="" www.paragon-inc.com="" ""="">http://www.paragon-inc.com/"</a>
target=_blank><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com">http://www.paragon-inc.com</a>/><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="%3Ca%20href="
http:="" www.paragon-inc.com="" ""="">http://www.paragon-inc.com/"</a>
target=_blank><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com">http://www.paragon-inc.com</a>/><br>
<div class="ecxim"><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-----<br>
</div>
<div class="ecxim">From: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>>>
[mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>>]On
Behalf Of Jon Lowe<br>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 7:33 AM<br>
</div>
<div class="ecxim">To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">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-----<br>
</div>
<div class="ecxim">From: John Gayer <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net">jgghome@comcast.net</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net">jgghome@comcast.net</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net">jgghome@comcast.net</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net">jgghome@comcast.net</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net">jgghome@comcast.net</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net">jgghome@comcast.net</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net">jgghome@comcast.net</a>>>><br>
To: General pattern discussion <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">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 commi<br>
<br>
<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>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>