<!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's comments are interesting, but not totally
correct. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I would assume that the info on the survey was
"districtable" and therefore each rep could/should have found out how his
membership voted. If not, one could assume a % by allocation and be close. In
any case you would not expect the proposer to vote against his own proposal, or
those of his compatriots. Also I would generally not expect the board members to
vote against the Chairman's proposal, supported by NSRCA execs. or on their
poposals, unless they had some very strong opposition expressed to
them.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I expressed my comments verbally to John several
times at contests, both factual rebuttals of his "rationale", and the legal
implications of someone getting hit under a new rule that reduced the
criteria, and need for takeoff "control". My mistake was to delete the long,and
specific, comments I wrote and then deleted, after deciding they had all
been previously expressed. I should have, at least , documented them
for the record.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> I have been hit, and had to duck
several times, while judging, over the past 11 years, and did not like it.
Demonstration of control of the plane on the ground, and in the air is a basic
Safety precept, and I think this sends the wrong message to the pilots. One
takeoff this year at Pensacola was at right angles to the runway--luckily out,
but the judges sure flinched!!!!!!!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>No reason to duck, jus don"t
judge!!!!!!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jerry</FONT>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=patterndude@comcast.net href="mailto:patterndude@comcast.net">Lance
Van Nostrand</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 12:12
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Rules Proposals Final
Vote</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ron,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>John's post is interesting, and provides insight
into his perspective. My response is:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>1. We recognize that the AMA CB is independent
and should vote in a way that represents their district. It is part of
the CB member's job to understand the sentiment of his district. It's
not the members responsibility to find him. Without this input, he is
voting personally from an appointed position (not democratic).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2. It is totally reasonable that he
might prefer non-judged TO/L. In fact 17% of the survey respondents
agree with that position. However, with "nada" input from his district,
how can he conclude that an overwhelmingly unpopular opinion is the will
of his constituents?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>--Lance</FONT> </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 9:36
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>From:<?/smaller></B><?smaller> Ron
Van Putte [mailto:vanputte@cox.net]<?/smaller><BR><B><?smaller>Sent:<?/smaller></B><?smaller>
Monday, May 10, 2004 6:38 PM<?/smaller><BR><B><?smaller>To:<?/smaller></B><?smaller> John Fuqua<?/smaller><BR><B><?smaller>Subject:<?/smaller></B><?smaller> Fwd:
rules proposals final result<?/smaller><BR><BR>John -
FYI.<BR><BR>Ron<BR><BR>Begin forwarded message:<BR><BR><BR><B>From:
</B>patterndude@comcast.net<BR><B>Date: </B>May 10, 2004 6:27:11 PM
CDT<BR><B>To: </B>discussion@nsrca.org<BR><B>Subject: Re: rules proposals
final result</B><BR><B>Reply-To:
</B>discussion@nsrca.org<BR><BR><BR>Joe,<BR>and what would you do as a
board member if your board chairman used his bully pulpit to submit a
proposal at odds with the NSRCA?<BR>--Lance<BR><BR>--<BR>District 6
AVP<BR>www.aeroslave.com<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>