<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19328"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=531255915-05102012><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Beats
me but I suspect the arming plug and failsafe may be looked at as an AMA safety
code issue rather than an 'RC Aerobatics" issue and the weight rule didn't
really need to be changed.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV dir=ltr class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left><FONT size=2
face=Tahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
nsrca-dist8-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-dist8-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]<B>On Behalf Of
</B>trexlesh@msn.com<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, October 05, 2012 7:54
AM<BR><B>To:</B> AK, ID, MT, OR, WA, WY<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-dist8]
2013-14 Rules Proposals<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>It would be interesting to hear
why each proposal was rejected. I suspicion some were because of the
wording used. Any time wording allows a can of worms to open, it will
automatically be rejected.<BR><BR>Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE
Smartphone<BR><BR>----- Reply message -----<BR>From: "J N Hiller"
<jnhiller@earthlink.net><BR>To: "NSRCA D-8 List"
<nsrca-dist8@lists.nsrca.org><BR>Subject: [NSRCA-dist8] 2013-14 Rules
Proposals<BR>Date: Fri, Oct 5, 2012 1:19 am<BR><BR><BR>The final vote on
2013-14 AMA RC Aerobatics rules proposals are
posted.<BR>http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/RCAerobaticsVotePostingFinal.pdf<BR><BR>Looks
like all proposals have been rejected. Is this a
first?<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-dist8
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-dist8@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist8<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>