<!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></HEAD>
<BODY>
<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></BODY></HTML>