<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type
content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><DEFANGED_META
content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" http-equiv="Content-Type"><DEFANGED_META
content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)" name="Generator"><!-- <DEFANGED_STYLE>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2737.800" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US vLink=purple link=blue bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Paul,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>You are suggesting that entering proposals outside
of the NSRCA would be preferable?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'm aware of 2 major "fiascos" (fiascii??) from the
last rules cycle -</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>1) The new wording for the spin
entries.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2) The new takeoff/landing
procedures.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Both were generated outside of the NSRCA.
Both have required huge expenditures of time by Don Ramsey and anyone with
knowledge of the rules attempting to explain just how these new rules/criteria
are to be applied. The general consensus is that both are poorly worded
and create conflicts with the existing guidelines and rules. It is a
simple matter of fact that the wording (and supporting rationale) regarding
spins is self contradicting, contradictory to general criteria/guidelines in the
rules, and describes a scenario which is </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>technically impossible. Another simple fact is that the majority do
not support unscored takeoffs and landings.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we
would be far better off if the 2 referenced proposals were never
submitted. Just my singular opinion, but I'm willing to be the majority
agree.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The NSRCA survey, rules committee, and proposal
process to the AMA is not perfect - however, it is much better than the process
previously. As has been stated on this list, membership in the
NSRCA does not prohibit an individuals option to submit proposals outside of the
NSRCA - however, I think it is pretty clear what an individuals priorities are
when they submit competing proposals. The process certainly doesn't
benefit from competing proposals by NSRCA members (Officers in some cases) which
only serves to weaken and undermine the efforts of the NSRCA.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>BTW - I agree landing is more difficult than taking
off - of course many maneuvers of differing difficulty have the same K-Factor -
a different discussion entirely.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><BR>Dave</FONT></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=paul.horan@sbcglobal.net href="mailto:paul.horan@sbcglobal.net">Paul
Horan</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> Monday, June 13, 2005 9:22 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: Landing Direction</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Seems to me that landings
should have a higher K factor than take offs. A k of 2 for landing would
be good or maybe even higher. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> As far as entering a rules
proposal outside of NSRCA - the last fiasco seems to be a major PLUS for doing
so. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Paul</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>