<!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>Rules of our event can either be made to be
"inclusive" or "exclusive", and can be written to guarantee costs of operation
that Joe Average GOOD Aerobatic pilot (the guy that we DESPERATELY want in the
game) simply will not afford, given his two job, two kids, two mortgage, two car
lifestyle demands.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>We either face the perception (notice my choice of
words, gentlemen, please!!!!) of being "exclusive" (read "prohibitively costly")
or "inclusive" (read the Joe Average Aerobat can afford to play).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Unfortunately, it is OUR choice, and that means a
choice from within the game, and that means it probably will not change, because
we are corporately POSITIVELY, ABSOLUTELY *BLIND* to the perceptions that are
out there.</FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><BR>I expect practically none of you to agree. But perhaps you will
ponder to possible factuality of my statements.</DIV>
<DIV></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2> Thanks for reading.
Flame suit on.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR>Bob Pastorello<BR>NSRCA 199 AMA 46373<BR><A
href="mailto:rcaerobob@cox.net">rcaerobob@cox.net</A><BR><A
href="http://www.rcaerobats.net">www.rcaerobats.net</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
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=natpenton@centurytel.net href="mailto:natpenton@centurytel.net">Nat
Penton</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 6:06
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: *SPAM* Re: Rules
Survey</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Gray, you're making me cry.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
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=gfowler@raytheon.com href="mailto:gfowler@raytheon.com">Gray E
Fowler</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 3:25
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: *SPAM* Re: Rules
Survey</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Here comes the dreaded
weight debate again....</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Consider
this-Anyone in the upper level classes would not be too smart to have a
plane heavier than it needs to be. But, lets pretend there is a hot
new Sportsman named uh lets see..... Chuck. Chuck tears up 401 after 3
contests, and he is flying his best airplane that most FAI guys would
consider a toy (and I do not mean the "foamie toys" pictured in last months
Model Aviation being held by a guy named "Chuck") and so moving
up to Intermediate halfway thru his first season, last 3 contests were quite
a challenge, BUT he places in 402 anyway!</FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=2>In the off season, he saves his pennies, keeps his wife happy and
gets a used REAL pattern plane, built by someone who has a slight heavy
hand, and alas it weighs 11.5 lbs. Now this here Chuck is good and pumped up
and I would place money that this theoretical person could place at the
NATS, but his plane is over weight!!!!! one more !</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT
face=sans-serif size=2>Sorry Chuck, even though you are flying at a
disadvantage, we will not let you play at the NATS........Oh unless you can
spend $2k more on another plane. </FONT><BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=2>The story you have just read is about to be true, once we do not let
Chuck fly at this years NATS. But at least the French FAI rule makers are
happy.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Consider a weight change.
It does not need to be across the board and for the life of me I cannot
imagine why it needs to align with FAI. Chuck will have a 5Kg plane
<B>BY THE TIME HE REACHES FAI-</B>and the French can be happy
then<B>.</B><BR><BR><BR><BR>Gray Fowler<BR>Principal Chemical
Engineer<BR>Composites Engineering</FONT> <BR><BR><BR>
<TABLE width="100%">
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD>
<TD><FONT face=sans-serif size=1><B>"Atwood, Mark"
<atwoodm@paragon-inc.com></B></FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=1>Sent by: discussion-request@nsrca.org</FONT>
<P><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>02/08/2005 01:47 PM</FONT> <BR><FONT
face=sans-serif size=1>Please respond to discussion</FONT> <BR></P>
<TD><FONT face=Arial size=1>
</FONT><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>
To: <discussion@nsrca.org></FONT>
<BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=1> cc:
</FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=1> Subject:
RE: *SPAM* Re: Rules
Survey</FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR><BR><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><BR><FONT size=3> </FONT>
<BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Now, with unlimited engine size...weight, and in
some cases size, has become the constraining factor.</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=3> </FONT> <BR><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>
<BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><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> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT>
<BR><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> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>-Mark</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original
Message-----<B><BR>From:</B> discussion-request@nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org]<B>On Behalf Of
</B>DaveL322@comcast.net<B><BR>Sent:</B> Tuesday, February 08, 2005 1:01
PM<B><BR>To:</B> discussion@nsrca.org<B><BR>Subject:</B> *SPAM* Re: Rules
Survey<BR></FONT><BR><FONT size=3>Buddy,</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT size=3>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.</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT size=3>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.</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT size=3>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.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT size=3>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?</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT size=3>Regards,</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=3><BR>Dave Lockhart</FONT> <BR><A
href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net"><FONT color=blue
size=3><U>DaveL322@comcast.net</U></FONT></A> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT>
<BR><FONT size=3>-------------- Original message --------------
</FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial color=#8000ff size=2>In a message dated 2/8/2005
8:02:54 AM Central Standard Time, donramsey@cox-internet.com writes:</FONT>
<BR><FONT face=Arial 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> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Email me offline at </FONT><A
href="mailto:donramsey@cox-internet.com"><FONT face=Arial color=blue
size=2><U>donramsey@cox-internet.com</U></FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>
with your ideas.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT> <BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>Don</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT>
<BR><FONT face=Arial color=#8000ff size=2> </FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
color=#8000ff size=2>Don</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial color=#8000ff size=2>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
<B>not </B>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.
</FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial color=#8000ff size=2>Buddy </FONT>
<BR><FONT face=Arial color=#8000ff size=2> </FONT> <BR><BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.<BR>Checked by AVG
Anti-Virus.<BR>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.0 - Release Date:
1/17/2005<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.<BR>Checked by AVG
Anti-Virus.<BR>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.0 - Release Date:
1/17/2005<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>