<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Frank: <br>
I see some good thinking here. Some proposals reflecting the
statements below should be implemented--I feel, anyway. I like to see
anything that would add to the effectiveness of the NSRCA and its
efforts to improve the sport. Bill Glaze<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RCSkyraidr@aol.com">RCSkyraidr@aol.com</a> wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid134.2efe31d8.2dd4eeff@aol.com">
<meta charset="US-ASCII" http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; ">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name="GENERATOR">
<div>While I read the discussion list a lot, I usually do not post
here too much. But I have noticed a lot of discussion about who knew
what and when. Most non-D-1 fliers probably are not aware that we in
NSRCA D-1 took our own rule change survey of ALL D-1 active Pattern
pilots. At every contest, Ann and I searched out pilots who had not
already taken the D-1 survey and got their input. In the end, EVERY
pilot who flew at a 2003 contest was polled.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I tabulated the results and sent them to Ron Lockhart and Scott
Melville. My fault, but I forgot that PA was in Mark Atwood's area and
did not send the results to him. I will not make this mistake again.
Except for RCA-05-8, about removing forced advancement, the survey was
definitive. Results were overwhelming for each proposal. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, the effect on the CB members was just mixed:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>For RCA-05-5, T/o & landing, 72% of D-1 fliers were
against this change yet Scott voted for it anyway. </div>
<div>For RCA-05-7, any plane in Sportsman, 82% of D-1 fliers wanted
any plane to fly, but Ron voted against this change.</div>
<div>For RCA-05-17, bring back the snap roll, 82% of D-1 fliers
wanted the two maneuvers back in the schedule. Both Ron and Scott
represented their constituents on this one, but I wish I had sent the
survey to Mark as he voted against the restoration. His was the
deciding vote and might have been different had he known about the
survey.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I am especially bothered by the fact that our own national
survey closely parallels D-1's results yet some national NSRCA board
members decided to propose changes that the members apparently did not
want anyway. And the answer that "we will get used to it" is probably
not the best way to address the members' concerns on this issue.
However, NSRCA members do have a voice here as there are elections. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>We have no voice regarding AMA decisions, however. So what
should we do? Complete anarchy? It is possible since each CD sets all
the rules for his own contest and, with prior notification, can make
just about any change he feels would benefit his contest. In practice,
this would be a problem if CD's change schedules and judging criteria. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, one area I urge CD's to consider is to <strong><em>ignore
RCA-05-7</em></strong> and open their Sportsman class to any AMA legal
aircraft. Many CD's in D-1 have done this for years and it has helped
build attendance and gain us pilots. Off hand, I know of several active
D-1 fliers who started this way. Rick Wallace flew his Hangar 9 Cap in
Sportsman his first year and flew at several major contests. He is now
Advanced D-1 champion. Current JR team member Dan Landis flew his first
few contests with a somewhat loud, .60-size "Half-Troublemaker." </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Judging by the Pattern Primers we have in D-1, most of
the pilots fly their sport aerobatic planes, Venus 40's , etc., using
sport mufflers that cannot meet the noise requirements. When they come
to their first contest, we are going to tell them they can't fly
because their plane is too loud? Get serious.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Any D-1 CD who wants to open the Sportsman class at his contest,
let me know. I will send that notification to the D-1 mailing list
and publish it in my D-1 column and that helps to meet their
notification requirements. I'll even fill out the AMA notification
forms for them and send them in if they wish. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>As for survey results, CB members are free to vote as they wish.
One problem is that current board members can submit AMA rule change
proposals that run counter to the NSRCA membership wishes, but have the
appearance of coming from the NSRCA since the proposer is an official
of the SIG. This gives the proposed rule change undeserved "weight" as
it looks "official" when, in reality, it is decidedly unpopular with
the SIG members.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I wonder if the NSRCA could not devise a better system. We need
to establish a system that polls the membership for suggested rule
changes, presents the proposed rule changes for a NSRCA membership
vote, and then presents the suggested changes to the AMA CB.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Once the NSRCA membership approves a set of rule changes, <u>no
NSRCA board member can submit contradicting proposals to AMA without
first resigning from the board</u>. That way, the NSRCA speaks with one
official voice. Individual NSRCA members retain the right to submit
cross-proposals, however. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>These are some thoughts. What does the list think?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Frank Granelli</div>
<div>D-1 VP</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>