<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>George</P>
<P> I have to agree with most of your openions but can not lump all of the rule change proposals as excuses in the same basket, some of them in my openion are justefied, you must analyze each one to deturmine what the rule change is for, it's effects and justify the need for change.</P>
<P>In that vein I have a personal openion, which I might add that the majority of those that voted on the rules change ballot do not agree with. </P>
<P>Most of the rules change items weather apprivod or not will have little effect on pattern.</P>
<P>One of the only changes voted on, that in my evaluation made sence was the one to change the weight limit and it did not pass.</P>
<P>One of the reasons that I believe it did not pass was the fear that the next item of change would be the size limit and by not allowing a weight change some measure of insurance exists which will preserve the status quoe.</P>
<P>I also believe that by denying the weight change we have limited the number of new recruits by eliminating the 12 to 13 pound ARF's now available at a reasonable cost, and driving the cost of most design's up by the requirement to purchase high priced light weight items to meet the weight limit.</P>
<P>Most of those in pattern know full well that many planes flying in local contests are over weight, and the only contest where the limit is obsurved is the NAT's</P>
<P> Now for my analisys of the weight change rule cause and effect.</P>
<P>First of all I do not link one rule to another ie. weight with size and if size is the limiting factor then the only weight consideration that would lead to an advantage would be less weight.</P>
<P> Added.weight will only be a disadvantage.Some will say it is a safety requirement and I believe that to be the reason that it was adopted. </P>
<P>The weight rule was passed years before the size and power change took place and we know that comparing the weight of present day aircraft in other areas of modeling that the safety reason is no longer relevent.</P>
<P> What purpose does the weight limit serve other than peace of mind to preserve the status quoe? I contend none!</P>
<P>Second will anything be gained by increasing the weight limit?</P>
<P>In our area alone I know of at least five people who would have attended the NAT's last year except they were slightly over weight. So I know that changeing the limit could possibly increase NAT's participation. <BR>As I stated before the weight change could possibly cut cost and increase our numbers.</P>
<P><BR> Increased numbers will influence the market!</P>
<P>The Pattern market is just not big enough yet to cause the manufacturers to get excited enough to start offering what we need at a reasonable cost, but if we increase our numbers they will jump on the band wagon and provide it. </P>
<P>When <STRONG>rules limit groth </STRONG>then we need to change the rules or be satisfied with continueing on our present course, <STRONG>Going nowhere fast. </STRONG></P>
<P>Buddy</P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: "GeorgeF." <AV8TOR@FLASH.NET>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: discussion@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>>To: discussion@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: RE: K-Factor Pattern an invisible group
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 13:25:17 -0500
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Got it and thanks.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Being that I was HEAVY into pattern many years ago and then quit the
<DIV></DIV>>results of that survey is not surprising at all. Local support and
<DIV></DIV>>interest just wasn't there.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>After moving to Florida I had thoughts of re-entering the sport and
<DIV></DIV>>again find that there is just no local support or interest not to
<DIV></DIV>>mention the sky high price of todays equipment to be competitive.
<DIV></DIV>>While for me money is not much of a concern however I feel it is the
<DIV></DIV>>high cost of being competitive which actually leads to the issue of
<DIV></DIV>>"no local support and interest". As shown by the survey the #2
<DIV></DIV>>reason was equipment costs.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>After seeing some of the rules that some members what changed in the
<DIV></DIV>>name of "allowing more people to fly pattern" these are simply
<DIV></DIV>>excuses to get a rule change passed. In the past nearly every rule
<DIV></DIV>>change (ie: engine size & aircraft size) which was meant to increase
<DIV></DIV>>pattern involvement has not. In fact the long-term effect of those
<DIV></DIV>>rule changes did nothing but increase the cost of being competitive.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>George
<DIV></DIV>>NSRCA member since 1990
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>At 12:07 PM 10/31/2002 -0600, you wrote:
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>>George
<DIV></DIV>>>
<DIV></DIV>>>rcuniverse.com go to 3D aerobatics and Pattern then search for
<DIV></DIV>>>surveys
<DIV></DIV>>>
<DIV></DIV>>>or go to one of Bob's previous post's and click on the URL
<DIV></DIV>>>
<DIV></DIV>>> >From: "GeorgeF."
<DIV></DIV>>> >Reply-To: discussion@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>>> >To: discussion@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>>> >Subject: RE: K-Factor Pattern an invisible group
<DIV></DIV>>> >Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 12:17:48 -0500
<DIV></DIV>>> >
<DIV></DIV>>> >Where is this survey found? URL?
<DIV></DIV>>> >George
<DIV></DIV>>> >
<DIV></DIV>>> >
<DIV></DIV>>> >At 08:41 AM 10/31/2002 -0800, you wrote:
<DIV></DIV>>> >> - yah, it tells me that the survey is not gear towards pattern
<DIV></DIV>>> >>flyers or those interested in pattern. The "jist" of it appears
<DIV></DIV>>>to
<DIV></DIV>>> >>be towards those who have not competed, or did and quit, and
<DIV></DIV>>>why.
<DIV></DIV>>> >>
<DIV></DIV>>> >>Jim
<DIV></DIV>>> >>-----Original Message-----
<DIV></DIV>>> >>From: Buddy Brammer [mailto:buddybrammer35@hotmail.com]
<DIV></DIV>>> >>Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 8:41 AM
<DIV></DIV>>> >>To: discussion@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>>> >>Subject: Re: K-Factor Pattern an invisible group
<DIV></DIV>>> >>
<DIV></DIV>>> >>For those intrested Bob's survey at RCU has already had more
<DIV></DIV>>> >>responses than the rules change survey and it has only been
<DIV></DIV>>>running
<DIV></DIV>>> >>a few days! Does that tell you something?
<DIV></DIV>>> >>
<DIV></DIV>>> >>Buddy
<DIV></DIV>>> >>
<DIV></DIV>>> >> >From: "Buddy Brammer"
<DIV></DIV>>> >> >Reply-To: discussion@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>>> >> >To: discussion@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>>> >> >Subject: K-Factor Pattern an invisible group
<DIV></DIV>>> >> >Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:27:23 -0600
<DIV></DIV>>> >> >
<DIV></DIV>>> >>
<DIV></DIV>>> >>
<DIV></DIV>>> >>----------
<DIV></DIV>>> >>Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband.
<DIV></DIV>>> >>Click Here
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>=====================================
<DIV></DIV>># To be removed from this list, send a message to #
<DIV></DIV>>discussion-request@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>># and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
<DIV></DIV>>#
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Choose an Internet access plan right for you -- try MSN! <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMMEN/2015">Click Here</a> </html>