HI Dick,<div> That decision would have to be made by our President, Jim Quinn. Here's what I can tell you (because this is what I know):</div><div></div><div>1. Proposals are due to AMA by the 15th of March (tomorrow)</div><div>2. <u>To my knowledge</u>, the DVPs as well as the Exec. Officers have not directly received any emails or phone calls related to a request to pull the proposal as written. PLEASE understand, this is to my knowledge and I am NOT trying todissuadeyou or anyone else from doing so. If you feel that strongly, I would suggest you start doing so immediately. This forum (which many officers do not frequent or monitor) is not considered an official means of communication. Yes, I listen closely as do many others but I'm trying to help you get your points across and try to do things the right way. I do want you to know that for every individual that doesn't like this proposal, there is one that does. Again, I'm not trying to talk you out of anything. I'm just saying the "For" folks don't comment half as much as the "Against" folk either on the discussion list or in this forum. I will send Jim an email asking him to look at this thread as soon as I finish typing this.</div><div></div><div>3. As to your questions</div><div> a.) I would suggest this rule would be enforced, just like any other rule by the CD as he sees fit to enforce it. You're right FAI is not covered under AMA rules but think that this, as a safety concern and as written, still fall under the jurisdiction of the CD. We would have to consult AMA/FAI should this proposal become a rule.</div><div> b.) The proposal is clear,<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 10pt; ">Except when airborne, physically restrained or on the runway, all models shall have any batteries which drive the propeller disconnected from the Electronic Speed Controller and/or motor. This disconnected state must result in a break in the wiring and indication of the disconnected state must be visible at all times to observers.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 10pt; ">
</span></div><div><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 10pt; ">In my very humble opinion this means to me that if the plane isn't physically restrained, in flight, or on the runway, your batteries need to be disconnected from your ESC regardless of location. How you decide to do the disconnection is entirely up to you. When the proposal says that it must be visible to observers, I would say if I walked up to your plane and said "Dick, are the batteries disconnected to your ESC?" you say "Yes (while removing the canopy), they are. Here you go". Based on the wording, the proposal does not say how but clearly says what (which is what y'all wanted). How you choose to visibly show to observers that this is the case is again, totally up to you.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 10pt; ">
</span></div><div><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 10pt; ">Whatever happens here, I hope you all understand that the 13 BoD members are trying to do right by and for you. There are those that are against it but clearly, there are those for it as well. I am truly sorry that this has caused so much grief but I do stand for what the proposal is intended to accomplish and that's a safer flight area, spectator area and pits.</span></div>