<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>Thanks Tom</P>
<P>Yes I got it back then but at that time I was trying to get other information and never studied each item in detail, then when I finally did It was somewhat confusing to me so I thought that I may save someone a little time by passing my accumilated findings on to anyone who may be intrested.</P>
<P>Buddy <BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: "Thomas C. Weedon" <WEEDON@WWNET.NET>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: discussion@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>>To: <DISCUSSION@NSRCA.ORG>
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: RE: rules change decodeing
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:53:13 -0500
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Buddy,
<DIV></DIV>>I posted all the rules proposals on October 9th, 2002 on this discussion
<DIV></DIV>>list. You should have gotten them then. Therefore you didn't need to wait
<DIV></DIV>>for the K-Factor. Just wanted to help out knowing that the K-factor was in
<DIV></DIV>>trouble at that time. I think it's fixed now.
<DIV></DIV>>Tom
<DIV></DIV>> -----Original Message-----
<DIV></DIV>> From: discussion-request@nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org]On
<DIV></DIV>>Behalf Of Buddy Brammer
<DIV></DIV>> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 6:35 PM
<DIV></DIV>> To: discussion@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>> Subject: RE: rules change decodeing
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> Tom
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> I stand corrected for the second time and you are correct.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> Buddy
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> >From: "Thomas C. Weedon"
<DIV></DIV>> >Reply-To: discussion@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>> >To:
<DIV></DIV>> >Subject: RE: rules change decodeing
<DIV></DIV>> >Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:06:01 -0500
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >Buddy,
<DIV></DIV>> >You forgot the rule change to remove the "No Retract" from Sportsman
<DIV></DIV>>Class.
<DIV></DIV>> >Tom W.
<DIV></DIV>> > -----Original Message-----
<DIV></DIV>> > From: discussion-request@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>>[mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org]On
<DIV></DIV>> >Behalf Of Buddy Brammer
<DIV></DIV>> > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 9:31 AM
<DIV></DIV>> > To: discussion@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>> > Subject: rules change decodeing
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > If anyone is interested
<DIV></DIV>> > After receiving the latest K-Factor and studying the results of the
<DIV></DIV>>rules
<DIV></DIV>> >change request survey and trying to decipher the the results I thought it
<DIV></DIV>> >may be nice to compact the results into a readable and understandable
<DIV></DIV>> >summary. This summary is my interpetation of the results and if I am
<DIV></DIV>>wrong
<DIV></DIV>> >please correct me.
<DIV></DIV>> > As a SIG we (NSRCA) are asking AMA to consider the following changes and
<DIV></DIV>> >clarification to the Pattern rules.
<DIV></DIV>> > 1. Remove the maneuever schedules from the rule book and place them in
<DIV></DIV>>an
<DIV></DIV>> >Annex
<DIV></DIV>> > 2.Allow the NSRCA to decide what maneuevers should be flown and placed
<DIV></DIV>>in
<DIV></DIV>> >the Annex
<DIV></DIV>> > 3. Maneuver schedules used will be decided by a vote of the membership
<DIV></DIV>>of
<DIV></DIV>> >the NARCA on a set of proposed schedules.(Who will prepare the set's of
<DIV></DIV>> >proposed schedules has not been deturmined. the vote on question 4 seems
<DIV></DIV>>to
<DIV></DIV>> >indicate that the membership does not want the NSRCA board to do it.but
<DIV></DIV>>is
<DIV></DIV>> >not conclusive due to the lack of a 60% majority vote.)? The proposed
<DIV></DIV>> >schedules will provide stability in the Sportsman and Intermediate class
<DIV></DIV>> > 4. Any new schedules should be structured as building block schedules,
<DIV></DIV>> >however each proposed schedule should stand on it's own at a set degree
<DIV></DIV>>of
<DIV></DIV>> >difficulty reguardless of maneuevers employed
<DIV></DIV>> > 5 The schedules in all classes will potentially change every three
<DIV></DIV>>years.
<DIV></DIV>> > 6.Change the Intermediate schedule to include the 45-degree down line
<DIV></DIV>> >positive snap and immelmanturn to the end of the current sequence.
<DIV></DIV>> > 7. Change the masters sequence as approved in question 28.
<DIV></DIV>> > 8. Add the generial defenition in all classes that straight and level
<DIV></DIV>> >flight means flight parallel to the flight line at constant altitude with
<DIV></DIV>> >wings level.
<DIV></DIV>> > 9. Clariify the downgrade system for multi-radii manuevers.
<DIV></DIV>> > 10. Change the downgrade description for spins to allow the pilot to
<DIV></DIV>> >point the plane down after the spin.
<DIV></DIV>> > 11.Add to the spin entry definition to read, stall may occur while still
<DIV></DIV>> >having forward progress relative to the ground .
<DIV></DIV>> > 12. Define the end box spin entry as point of stall.
<DIV></DIV>> > 13 Clarify any downgrades for errors less than 15 degrees.
<DIV></DIV>> > 14 Clarify that centered maneuevers must have the same altitude for
<DIV></DIV>>entry
<DIV></DIV>> >and exit if that is a condition of the specific maneuever being
<DIV></DIV>>performed.
<DIV></DIV>> > 15. Specify that there it is not a requirement that all manuevers within
<DIV></DIV>>a
<DIV></DIV>> >sequence have to be performed at the same top and bottom altitude. ( but
<DIV></DIV>>the
<DIV></DIV>> >same top and bottom altitude does apply to individual maneuvers)
<DIV></DIV>> > 16. Clarify that takeoff is a centered maneuver.
<DIV></DIV>> > 17. Clarify that there is a landing zone and landings are only downgrded
<DIV></DIV>> >for centering when outside of the 30 meter landing zone.
<DIV></DIV>> > 18. Define that judging starts 15 meters before comencement of the first
<DIV></DIV>> >manuever after box entry and ends 15 meters after the last manuever
<DIV></DIV>>followed
<DIV></DIV>> >by box exit.and that line excursion within the sequence will result in
<DIV></DIV>> >downgrades on the next manuever.
<DIV></DIV>> > 19. Correct the rule book description ie. two rolls.
<DIV></DIV>> > 20. Add an exception to the rules that states that people who have not
<DIV></DIV>> >aquired or cannot aquire the necessary skill level will not be forced to
<DIV></DIV>> >move up. However all others will be forced to move up according to the
<DIV></DIV>>point
<DIV></DIV>> >system. except if you are 60 years old or older you can fly any class you
<DIV></DIV>> >want to fly.
<DIV></DIV>> > 21. Allow AMA legal Airplanes to fly in the Sportsman Class.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > There seems to be a contradiction between the results because of the 60%
<DIV></DIV>> >majority required (Reference Vote results Question 51 and Question 57)
<DIV></DIV>>but
<DIV></DIV>> >it seems that we are requesting that the point system will allow a three
<DIV></DIV>> >year moving window and only the current three years point accumilation
<DIV></DIV>>will
<DIV></DIV>> >effect a move to the next class?
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > Pardon my poor english and spelling and if I missed an item or if my
<DIV></DIV>> >interpetation is not correct let me know. my eyes and brain are so
<DIV></DIV>>scrambled
<DIV></DIV>> >after trying to figure this out that it is entirely possible.
<DIV></DIV>> > Buddy
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<DIV></DIV>>-
<DIV></DIV>> >--
<DIV></DIV>> > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<DIV></DIV>>--
<DIV></DIV>> Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Tired of spam? Get <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMMEN/2017">advanced junk mail protection</a> with MSN 8.</html>