<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
That is why a failsafe check at each contest tends to work.
Rechecking failsafe after making changes should be done but often
falls through the cracks. I found a failsafe check Saturday morning
to be more of an educational process. We had something like 40% of
planes fail when checked although not full throttle. Some of the
pilots were embarrassed and some didn't have any idea how to fix the
problem. Getting everyone familiar with failsafe at a contest tends
to spread back into their clubs where the problem is even worse.<br>
IF this is in the rulebook, CDs are much more likely to perform
these checks before releasing planes and pilots to compete. The
NSRCA would glad to publish a howto for CDs but we have no clout
compared to the rulebook.<br>
John<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/13/2012 8:48 AM, John Fuqua
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:02f701cdd949$47ff3500$d7fd9f00$@com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
panose-1:3 15 7 2 3 3 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">mailto: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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board -
Was Executive Board voting<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">With
all the fancy smancy computer radios out there fail safe
seems to be the logical way to prevent a runaway.<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<hr id="stopSpelling" size="2" width="100%"
align="center"></span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:rforbus@hotmail.com">rforbus@hotmail.com</a><br>
To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">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>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<hr id="ecxstopSpelling" size="2" width="100%"
align="center"></span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Date:
Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:38:03 -0600<br>
From: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:scmcharg@gmail.com">scmcharg@gmail.com</a><br>
To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
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. :)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">Scott<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">On
Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Atwood, Mark <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com">atwoodm@paragon-inc.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><br>
<br>
Mark Atwood<br>
Paragon Consulting, Inc. | President<br>
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland
Ohio, 44124<br>
Phone: 440.684.3101 x102 | Fax: 440.684.3102<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="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"
target="_blank">www.paragon-inc.com</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"
target="_blank">http://www.paragon-inc.com/</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">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="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: 440.684.3101 x102 | Fax: 440.684.3102<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><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="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"
target="_blank">www.paragon-inc.com</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"
target="_blank">http://www.paragon-inc.com/</a>><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"
target="_blank">http://www.paragon-inc.com/</a>><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"
target="_blank">http://www.paragon-inc.com/</a>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><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>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">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<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">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<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">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: 440.684.3101 x102<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:440.684.3101%20x102">tel:440.684.3101%20x102</a>>
| Fax: 440.684.3102<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:440.684.3102">tel:440.684.3102</a>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><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="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"
target="_blank">www.paragon-inc.com</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"
target="_blank">http://www.paragon-inc.com/</a>><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"
target="_blank">http://www.paragon-inc.com</a>><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"
target="_blank">http://www.paragon-inc.com/</a>><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"
target="_blank">http://www.paragon-inc.com/</a>><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"
target="_blank">http://www.paragon-inc.com/</a>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><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-----<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">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<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">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-----<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">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 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<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><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>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><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>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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"
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>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">--<br>
Scott A. McHarg<br>
Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<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>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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"
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>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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"
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>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><br>
<br clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">--
<br>
</span><b><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Comic
Sans MS";color:#3333FF">Scott A. McHarg</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><br>
Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><br>
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><br>
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</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>