<!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>John:<BR><BR>One thing that might help you a little
is that AMA has gone back to the 2-year cycle.... That means in 2007 we
can look forward to a new sequence, once one is proposed when the next cycle
starts later this year...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Tony Stillman<BR>Radio South<BR>3702 N. Pace Blvd.<BR>Pensacola, FL
32505<BR>1-800-962-7802<BR><A
href="http://www.radiosouthrc.com">www.radiosouthrc.com</A></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=johnferrell@earthlink.net
href="mailto:johnferrell@earthlink.net">John Ferrell</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> Tuesday, May 11, 2004 1:55 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Rules Proposals Final
Vote</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>