<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I am disappointed at the prospect of flying the
same maneuvers in the Sportsman/intermediate and Advanced classes for the next
three years but I suppose it will all work out. Them who get tired of it
will move on, the Masters & Fai will continue. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>However, I am acquainted with all but three of the
Contest Board members and I feel they must have had reasons for voting as they
did. I hope those reasons were for the good of all. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>At any rate, what you see is what we got. The time
for bickering is past. Clearly, the AMA wants direct communications rather than
the assistance of the NSRCA and in the future I expect we need to all send them
the detailed communications and let them deal with it. Failure to endorse the
survey is a simple statement that we are not allowed to play in their
sandbox.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The proposals are at <A
href="http://www.modelaircraft.org/Comp/2005rulesproposals.htm">http://www.modelaircraft.org/Comp/2005rulesproposals.htm</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If you compare the T&L sequences with FAI's you
will see they are not near as rigid.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Note there is no longer a penalty for an aborted
takeoff(whatever the reason), and no need to call the maneuver. The need to call
the landing is removed as well. I hate to show my ignorance in public but I am
still trying to figure out what "upwind and downwind markers" are. In this
district we normally mark the boxes, the centers and the landing zones. If the
terrain is rugged, sometimes the box markers are pretty close on one side, and
not so close on the other.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>John Ferrell <BR><A
href="http://DixieNC.US">http://DixieNC.US</A><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=vanputte@cox.net href="mailto:vanputte@cox.net">Ron Van Putte</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, May 10, 2004 10:36 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Rules Proposals Final
Vote</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>John Fuqua asked me to forward the following to the NSRCA
discussion list.<BR><BR>Ron Van Putte<BR><BR>Begin forwarded message:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><B><?color><?param 0000,0000,0000>From: <?/color></B>"John
Fuqua" <<A
href="mailto:johnfuqua@gdsys.net">johnfuqua@gdsys.net</A>><BR><B><?color><?param 0000,0000,0000>Date:
<?/color></B>May 10, 2004 9:09:23 PM CDT<BR><B><?color><?param 0000,0000,0000>To: <?/color></B>"Ron Van Putte"
<<A href="mailto:vanputte@cox.net">vanputte@cox.net</A>><BR><B><?color><?param 0000,0000,0000>Subject:
<?/color>RE: rules proposals final result<BR></B><BR><?fontfamily><?param Arial><?color><?param 0000,0000,FFFD><?smaller>Please
pass on to the group that the Board is an AMA Board not a NSRCA Board.
If we were an NSRCA Board Ron Van Putte's proposal on the annex system would
not have been rejected by the AMA Excutive Council. While I
respect the NSRCA survey and look at the results I represent AMA District V
not NSRCA District 3. Same for the other Board members. Just as
the Board is not in lock step with me, or anybody else for that matter, the
Board is not in lock step with the NSRCA nor should it be. Each
District member must feel out his District. If he gets input from
NSRCA members from his District than all the better. Just for the
record I received zero, nada, 0 written or email inputs from my District
members on these proposals. Others in my District have talked to me
and there was no clear consensus one way or the other leaving me to vote my
feelings.<?/smaller><?/color><?/fontfamily><BR><?fontfamily><?param Arial><?color><?param 0000,0000,FFFD><?smaller><?/smaller><?/color><?/fontfamily> <BR><?fontfamily><?param Arial><?color><?param 0000,0000,FFFD><?smaller>I
submitted the takeoff and landing proposal, again, having had another of my
district members submit it the last cycle where it failed. Just like
flying by class vice frequency of some years ago, some ideas take time to
develop. I think the proposal is superior to what we have now for a
lot of reasons. Go look at the rationale in the proposal to see the
issues. One last thought. If takeoff and landing were aerobatic
manuevers, the FAA would require all airline passengers to wear parachutes.<?/smaller><?/color><?/fontfamily><BR> <BR><?fontfamily><?param Arial><?color><?param 0000,0000,FFFD><?smaller>John
Fuqua<?/smaller><?/color><?/fontfamily><BR><?smaller>-----Original
Message-----<?/smaller><BR><B><?smaller></B></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>