<!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 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Last one out, please turn off the
lights....</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </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=atwoodm@paragon-inc.com href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com">Atwood,
Mark</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, February 08, 2005 2:47
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: *SPAM* Re: Rules
Survey</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327051919-08022005><FONT face=Arial size=2>I have to agree
100% with Dave on this one. I'd also like to add that in addition to
raising the cost...it doesn't acheive the objective. Any and all sports
that have limitations of this type (Sailing comes to mind with complex
formulas that define the class of boat) ALWAYS have one critical limiting
factor. For us it USE to be the engine. We had a weight
restriction...but it was meaningless because you couldn't approach it with the
power options that we had. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327051919-08022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327051919-08022005><FONT face=Arial size=2>Now, with
unlimited engine size...weight, and in some cases size, has become the
constraining factor.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327051919-08022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327051919-08022005><FONT face=Arial size=2>In all
cases...there are always those with the talent and money to take the rules to
the limit. We will always be chasing them, and trying to acheive what
they acheive. It's great to say that raising the weight limit will
allow more "stock" models to compete... But my bet is that someone
creative and talented will make use of that rule in a way that others can't
easily follow...and will again have competitive advantage.
And as Dave so aptly pointed out...it will cost the rest of us more
money.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327051919-08022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327051919-08022005><FONT face=Arial size=2>Steve Maxwell has
made the best suggestion to date. I for one have NEVER seen a
sportsman pilot denied admission to an event based on the weight of their
plane. Size, yes (we turned away a few 30% planes for safety reasons)
but never just on weight. In fact...I've never seen ANYONE weight a
plane at any event other than the Nat's finals. So I think we
could EASILY acheive the objective with a simple statement that alters the
current "intent" from one where the CD CAN change the rule...to one that
implies the CD USUALLY changes the rule. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327051919-08022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327051919-08022005><FONT face=Arial size=2>I dont recall
Steve's language, but it was simple and to the point so I'll paraphrase... "
CD's often/usually alter (or wave) the weight restriction for the sportsman
class...please contact them for details". </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327051919-08022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=327051919-08022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2>-Mark</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> discussion-request@nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org]<B>On Behalf Of
</B>DaveL322@comcast.net<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, February 08, 2005 1:01
PM<BR><B>To:</B> discussion@nsrca.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> *SPAM* Re: Rules
Survey<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>Buddy,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Deliberately segregating FAI and AMA is counterproductive. We need
all the pattern fliers we can get, and we need a common target for the limited
number of manufacturers and suppliers we have. I would never suggest AMA
pattern rules blindly follow FAI, but there would have to be a huge benefit to
US pattern before I would advocate moving away from the FAI in the US.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>FAI pilots in the US have made many contributions to AMA pattern in the
US and I think most pattern pilots in the US would agree that the FAI pilots
are a resource to all of pattern in the US. Cutting FAI pilots out of
AMA pattern issues is losing a resource. And I think you'd have a hard
time doing it in practice - many pilots bounce back and forth between FAI and
Masters - there is no rule against it as they are different systems with
common elements.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If there is no valid reason to oppose an increase in the weight limit, it
seems strange to me that the majority has repeatedly voted to keep the weight
limit as is. Anyone who chooses to look at the history of the "limiting"
rules for pattern (weight, size, displacement) can pretty easily see what the
net result has been anytime the limits have been increased. For those
not familiar with the rules history of pattern, the most basic of points I am
alluding to is cost - any increase in the limits results in an increase in the
cost of the average pattern plane - not something that is productive for our
event.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This list and numerous other publications have contained many ideas,
rationales, and discussions opposed to increasing the weight limit for close
to 20 years (that I know of). Perhaps you could share your thoughts as
to why those ideas, rationales, and discussions are not valid?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Dave Lockhart</DIV>
<DIV><A href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">--------------
Original message -------------- <BR>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#8000ff size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 2/8/2005 8:02:54 AM Central Standard Time,
donramsey@cox-internet.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Ok everyone, here's your chance. What would you
like to see changed in the regulations for precision aerobatics? Up
the weight limit, change the box, score takeoff and landings,
etc?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Email me offline at <A
title=mailto:donramsey@cox-internet.com
href="mailto:donramsey@cox-internet.com">donramsey@cox-internet.com</A>
with your ideas.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Don</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Don</DIV>
<DIV>As an after thought it would be interesting for those who oppose a
weight change to state their reasons for opposing it so the benefits to
pattern can be evaluated for each case. I cannot come up with a valid
reason <STRONG>not </STRONG>To change the rule. It would also be interesting
to know if opposition comes from a specific group. Since this change does
not apply to FAI it is my opinion that votes from those in that group should
not be used to sway the vote in Any NSRCA survey that would effect the
submission of an AMA rules change proposal since these do not apply
to FAI rules changes. </DIV>
<DIV>Buddy </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>