<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#cc0000" bgcolor="#ccffff">
<font face="Arial">Trouble is, it isn't!</font><br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Phil Spelt, KCRC President
AMA 1294 Scientific Leader Member
SPA 177 Board Member
(865)435-1476v, (865)604-0541c</pre>
<br>
On 12/13/2012 2:04 PM, Randy Forbus wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:COL125-W418977FA098CF53EC2F78FA24E0@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
<div dir="ltr"><i><big><big><u>Common</u> sense</big></big></i>?<br>
<br>
<div>
> From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com">atwoodm@paragon-inc.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 12:29:03 -0500<br>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Failsafe Check - was Contest board -
Was Executive Board voting<br>
> <br>
> Changing the subject line again so people can follow the thread
better.<br>
> <br>
> Two comments. One - TURNING OFF YOUR RADIO WHILE THE PLANE IS
ARMED IS A BAD IDEA. That's from me...not me as a CB member. Control
the plane the entire time that the batteries are plugged in. Have the
radio ON when you plug them in and until you unplug them. Electronics
are FAR from foolproof. I cringe everytime I fly with someone who's
habit is to plug batteries in with the radio off...and then arm the
plane but turning the transmitter on with the plane out on the runway
unsecured. Twice I have seen them turn on the radio with the radio set
to the wrong model... both with bad results. neither were pattern
planes.<br>
> <br>
> The same goes for turning off your radio following the flight
assuming that it disarms the plane. It does not. Fail safe or no
failsafe.<br>
> <br>
> 2) and this is as a CB member. Setting your failsafe, and having
the CD CHECK that you've set the failsafe is a great contest procedure.
But it's a crappy "Rule". Any more than taking your frequency pin prior
to 2.4 was a "rule" in the ama book. Having a helper hold your plane
while you start it is a great procedure. Verifying you're set to the
correct model is a great procedure. Checking that both Aileron servos
are plugged in after assembly is a great procedure. All impact safety.
None belong in the rule book for a contest.<br>
> <br>
> <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<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"><mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.
com></a> | <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.paragon-inc.com">www.paragon-inc.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"><http://www.paragon-inc.com/></a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On Dec 13, 2012, at 11:44 AM, John Gayer wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Keith, the idea is to have multiple systems in place to avoid such
an occurrence.<br>
> <br>
> A failsafe check at the contest would have prevented the problem.
Communication between the person removing the plane from the runway and
the pilot would have prevented the problem. An arming plug still
engaged in the pits might have been commented on by anyone standing
around.<br>
> <br>
> To check the power operation, I put the plane in a stand with a
fast idle and shut off the receiver to confirm the ESC shutdown works,
then turn the TX off and turn the receiver on to confirm that without a
failsafe or TX signal, the ESC stays shut down, then turn the TX back
on to confirm normal operation and shut the TX off to get failsafe
which should shutdown the motor as well(not hold). Finally turn the TX
back on and confirm that throttle cut both shuts the motor down and
disables the throttle stick. Presumably you already know that your
arming plug works if you have one unless it has been ejected.<br>
> <br>
> John<br>
> On 12/13/2012 9:13 AM, Keith Hoard wrote:<br>
> If I recall the story correctly, the offending aircraft was left
unattended after landing while the pilot “debriefed” with the judges.
If there was nobody to physically secure that airplane, then there
would have been nobody to pull the arming plug either.<br>
> <br>
> Unless the arming plug had a “self-ejection after landing”
feature, it would have still been installed in the airplane and it
STILL would have gone to full power into the pits when the Tx was
turned off.<br>
> <br>
> Sent from Windows Mail<br>
> <br>
> From: John Fuqua
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:johnfuqua@embarqmail.com">johnfuqua@embarqmail.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:johnfuqua@embarqmail.com"><mailto:johnfuqua@embarqmail.com></a>><br>
> Sent: ‎December‎ ‎13‎, ‎2012 ‎9‎:‎49‎ ‎AM<br>
> To: General pattern discussion <
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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"><mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>><br>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was Executive
Board voting<br>
> <br>
> 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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!.<br>
> <br>
> From:
<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-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto: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><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org></a>]
On Behalf Of Randy Forbus<br>
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:59 AM<br>
> To:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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"><mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a><br>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was Executive
Board voting<br>
> <br>
> With all the fancy smancy computer radios out there fail safe
seems to be the log ical way to prevent a runaway.<br>
> <br>
> ________________________________<br>
> From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rforbus@hotmail.com">rforbus@hotmail.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rforbus@hotmail.com"><mailto: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><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto: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>
> 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>
> ________________________________<br>
> 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><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:scmcharg@gmail.com"><mailto: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><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a><br>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest boa rd - Was Executive
Board voting<br>
> <br>
> Mark and John,<br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> Like John Gayer sai d 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.<br>
> <br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> On a tangent, I would like everyone to pay close attention to the
Kfactor thi s 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. :)<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Scott<br>
> <br>
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Atwood, Mark
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com">atwoodm@paragon-inc.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com"><mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com></a>>
wrote:<br>
> 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 p lug 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 co nnected batteries to the motor.<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<tel:440.684.3101%20x102> | Fax:
440.684.3102<tel:440.684.3102><br>
>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"><mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com></a><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"><mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com></a>>
|
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.paragon-inc.com">www.paragon-inc.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"><http://www.paragon-inc.com/></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"><http://www.paragon-inc.com/></a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> 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 c reate 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>
> <b r="">> 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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext" 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: 440.684.3101 x102<tel:440.684.3101%20x102> | Fax:
440.684.3102<tel:440.684.3102><br>
>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"><mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com></a><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"><mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"><mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"><mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com></a>>
|
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.paragon-inc.com">www.paragon-inc.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"><http://www.paragon-inc.com/></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"><http://www.paragon-inc
.com/></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"><http://www.paragon-inc.com/></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"><http://www.paragon-inc.com/></a><br>
> <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 a ll 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 a nd 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>
> From:
<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-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto: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><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto: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><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.o">mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounc
es@lists.nsrca.o</a>
rg<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto: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><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org></a>]
On Behalf Of Scott McHarg<br>
> 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 membe rs 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. Thi s 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 wei ght 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 tha t 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>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Atwood, Mark
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com">atwoodm@paragon-inc.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com"><mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com></a><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-in">mailto:atwoodm@paragon-in</a>
c.com<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com"><mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com">mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com"><mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com">mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com"><mailto: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 m
embers 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<tel:440.684.3101%20x102><tel:440.684.310 1%20x102> |
Fax: 440.684.3102<tel:440.684.3102><tel:440.684.3102><br>
>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"><mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com></a><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"><mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"><mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"><mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freete
xt" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"><mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com></a><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"><mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"><mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com></a>>>
|
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.paragon-inc.com">www.paragon-inc.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"><http://www.paragon-inc.com/></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"><http://www.paragon-inc.com/></a><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.paragon-inc.com">http://www.paragon-inc.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"><http://www.paragon-inc.com/></a>><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"><http://www.paragon-inc.com/></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"><http://www.paragon-inc.com/></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"><http://www.paragon-inc.com/></a><br>
> <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 continuousl y 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>
> From:
<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-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto: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><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto: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><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion-bou
nces@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto: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><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto: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><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto: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><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">
<mailto:ns
rca-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><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto: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><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto: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><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org></a>>]On
Behalf Of Jon Lowe<br>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 7:33 AM<br>
> To:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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"><mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mail
to:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.n
srca.org></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto: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 membershi p, 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 u s,
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>
> From: John Gayer
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net">jgghome@comcast.net</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net"><mailto:jgghome@comcast.net></a><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net">mailto:jgghome@comcast.net</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net"><mailto:jgghome@comcast.net></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net">mailto:jgghome@comcast.net</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net"><mailto:jgghome@comcast.net></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net">mailto:jgghome@comcast.net</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net"><mailto:jgghome@comcast.net></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net">mailto:jgghome@comcast.net</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jgghome@co
mcast.net"><mailto:jgghome@comcast.net></a><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net">mailto:jgghome@comcast.net</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net"><mailto:jgghome@comcast.net></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net">mailto:jgghome@comcast.net</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net"><mailto:jgghome@comcast.net></a>>>><br>
> To: General pattern discussion
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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"><mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists
.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto: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 di d
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 ope n 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 Nat s, 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<br>
>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mail
to:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>>><br>
> <br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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"><mailto:NSRC
A-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="m
ailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>>><br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>><br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> --<br>
> Scott A. McHarg<br>
> Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mail
to:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>><br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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"><mai
lto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>><br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>><br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a><br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> --<br>
> Scott A. McHarg<br>
> Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure<br>
> <br>
> ________________________________________ _______ 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-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto: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><br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________ 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-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto: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><br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a><br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a><br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
> <br>
> ___________________________________ ____________<br>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a><br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
</b></div>
<b r=""> </b></div>
<pre wrap=""><b r="">
</b><fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset><b r="">
_______________________________________________
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></b></pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>