<html><body>
<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>