Mr. Steve - Thank you but I am not understanding.  Would it not be sufficient then in order to meet this proposal for an observer to walk by and request removal of your canopy to prove your batteries are disconnected?  Forgive me, Americans have a different view of things.  My view is that if I am asked to show my batteries are disconnected, I simply show them.  It is of no consequence or hassle as you say.  This rule seems more of a police by self more than a problem that will have to be solved by officials maybe a guideline as it were.  I see how this would also protect the AMA from potential insurance claims as well.

Riley

I should also add that there are many things that are done at a contest that are unwritten rules and are stated by the CD. Simple reminders can be given to everyone that they shouldn't arm their packs in the pits, if so desired by the CD. Your peers at the event will help to remind you if you go astray. We don't need to over complicate this or, worse yet, garner a false sense of security from mandates that don't solve the root cause of the perceived problem.

Hi Riley, I'm trying to look past the fact that you are new to pattern and have very little in depth knowledge to support your argument. It might be prudent on your part to step back and look at the "big picture" before you take Tony to task. I've known Tony for more than 20 years and can assure you he has always been the "rudder" time after time in an effort to keep pattern honest!IMHO, Tony and Steve pretty much summed it up. You don't know just how much opposition there is to this behind the scenes and are very likely to see some real pressure applied to the AMA Aerobatic Board members in the very near future. Like Tony and Steve, some of us did not fall off the pumpkin wagon yesterday! Just thought you might like to know, Everette

Mr. Everette - I am new to America but not to pattern.  I am offended after offering my respect to Mr. Steve and Mr. Tony you would say such things.  I see many posts where you, who are just like me, take people to task.  I am trying to understand this and I will speak what I have to say regardless of what you feel about me.  Mr. Steve has been kind enough to open up dialogue with me and is helping me to get understanding.

As far as opposition, I believe I know exactly how much opposition there is based on the survey which appears to be identical to those who support it.  This was also prior to the submitted proposal which removed requirements.  If you will recall, the complaint originally was about the requirement of an arming plug.  Now, it is not, it is something different.  I see very little difference in what was submitted compared to Mr. Tony and Mr. Steve's ideas.  If I can help find some peace, then it is my prerogative to do so.  I show my respect when that respect is given which doesn't seem to be known by you as evident in many other posts.  Mr. Steve and Mr. Tony have begun to explain their side and I am asking for more information so that I may form a valued opinion of my own without a bully such as yourself.

Riley

OK Riley, so now you want to take me to task? I could care less what you think about any of my past responses. I'm going to give you one of two choices, " like it or lump it" or better yet, move to BC Canada with the rest of your "nanny state" kind! How's that suit you? Bully? You just don't get it do you?................

I begin to see why there is so much rift here.  Is that guy a real person??  Mr. Steve and Mr. Tony, if we could continue please and with all due respect.  My intention is not to task you but to understand.

Riley

Yes Riley, I'm for real! I am your worst nightmare! I've never been one to "go along to get along" and at my age, I'm not about to take any BS off you or anyone else! Now do you get it?........

Enough. Closing it down.

CGr.

Ok, guys. As per your requests, I have re-started the thread.

Please report ANY and ALL offensive posts via the ticket (reporting the offensive post). Just click on "report" and provide me some information.

Thanks for your input. I hope to resolve this issue soon.

CGr.
Moderator, Beginners, Pattern, and Classic Pattern Forums.

CG Retired
Thanks for removing the offending post and unlocking the thread.
Dick

Thank you

You're welcome, guys. Just keep me in the loop if something comes up again.

CGr.

Hey Scott
Is there any chance the NSRCA BoD or whom ever sponsored the saftey rule could be pulled, rewritten, and specifically discussed here in an attempt to get a consenus on how this rule should be worded. I do not feel it is in the best interest of NSCRA to submit a rules proposal to AMA and then have a significant numbers of it's members contacting their District AMA VP's and Competition Director opposing such a rule! As a national organization and and the official pattern Sig to AMA we should present a united front! There has been no opposition to the other proposals NSRCA submitted that I am aware. We have plenty of time to get this done. We are a dwindling group and I feel if this rule is passed it is going to seriously split the current NSRCA membership. We cannot afford such an event.
Several things that have not been considered:
1. How would this rule be enforced? AMA pattern rules do not apply to FAI pattern.
2. What about an aircraft inside a pop up canopy located away from the sheltered pit area.
3. What about aircraft in the parking area on the ground next to their motor home or car.
4. What about all of that have invested over $100 for an exspensive cloth cover for our aircraft that sit all day in the 100 degree sun. Even with an arming plug or the
canopy off you won't meet the rule as written!

Scott and all the BoD please reconsider the submission of the saftey rule and consider something a long the lines of what Tony submitted to you on this forum. His wording puts the responsability for enforcement on the individual where I feel it should. This issue has the potential of terring our organization apart!
Dick

I am interested in this disarming requirement.

Ideally, I would arm my system as the previous pilot is on approach, with the plane facing the runway, downwind of the judges chair. Arm the system, engage my throttle cutoff, and pass yo my caller. Would this be allowed? When and where does the restraint rule begin and end?

I think things should be equal with wet fuel planes; neither should be running/armed in the pits without a restraint - that's common sense, but we need clarity as to exactly when and where this new rule comes into play.

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>

And what would happen if you walk up to me, want to see if my batteries are connected, and I tell you to go pound sand? Just the concept that pilots would be walking around asking to see the insides of your model is just ridiculous!

Scott, you say for every person that is against this there is one for it. How do you know that?

And as far as I know, the President of the NSRCA does not have the authority to unilaterally make this decision. It would have to be by a vote of the NSRCA BOD. Article VII, Section 1, paragraph d of the Bylaws says,

All significant policy statements, acts and expenditures must be approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the Board of Directors, excluding abstentions. This shall be a representative form of Government, which must, at all times, be responsive to the main body of the membership.

Scott
A couple of things real quick as I just got to the field to become a better pilot! :-)
1. It would be a huge mistake to think that the approx 50% that originally voted no on the survey will support the curren saftey rule as submitted. IMHO that would not be a prudent poition for NSRCA BoD to take.

2. Proposals may not be able to be submitted now but they can surley be with drawn by the sponsor. We have lived without this rule for many years and I think with drawing the rule would give us year to come up with a better rule and then actually try the different versions at various contests and get some real feedback on howt the rule should be worded for submission next year so that all the detais, questions, and unforseen problems can be "vetted" properly by the NSRCA MEMBERSHIP!
Dick

Tony,
I'm sorry that my words aren't specifically correct and that I don't speak exactly how you want me to. I'm just a human man that voluteered to help. My question back to you is how do you know there isn't? I'd say the survey for my reasoning but I'm sure that's not good enough or the emails that I DO get personally that say "Good job". What I meant by that is that's a decision the President needs to make whether he decides to bring the recall up to the board. Again, I apologize for these errors. As a suggestion since I was really just trying to help get ya'lls message to the board is speak with your D7 Representative Jon Carter, your friend, who helped write these proposals. He should be able to help you better than myself it appears.

As an edit: I sent the email to the entire BoD asking them to review this thread and not just to Jim. I decided this after writing the post in answer to Dick's question and before Tony brought up his points. If a BoD member elects to make a motion on the recall, he may then ask for it.<br type="_moz" />

I have spoken to Jon, at length, about this issue. I did when I first saw the proposals and I have continued to talk to him about it.

I can only react to what you post here. Since you are the Secretary of the NSRCA and the initiator of this thread, your posts could be construed as an official position of the NSRCA. That is why I said what I said regarding the Presidents authority.

Until the entire membership of the NSRCA is properly polled, assuming how many are for and how many are against would be just guesswork. The survey was far from scientific and IMO the results are not reliable. We have already seen posted here many who say they misunderstood things and now would vote differently. My guess on the actual majority opinion would mean nothing just as yours would.

Thank you for the effort you have made. As I have said previously, I support the majority of the proposals. I just see big problems with this part of the safety proposal. I hope you can accept that.

.Just a curiosity. Was the safety proposal ever discussed with the AMA Safety Committee for an opinion on whether it was a good idea or whether it might from a legal standpoint potentially open a can of worms?

To me something like this would best be placed in the general section of the competition guidelines for it to apply for all areas of competition that use electric propulsion.

Another thing to consider is if this thing flys, it might eventually lead to forcing other disciplines into adopting this and then you will start hearing other people complain about them darn pattern flyers ruining their fun.

I believe the general rules with regards to safety only spell out to use common sense. Been a while since I've read through the general section.

I'd still like to see the Polls raw vote totals in a plain easy to read format.

Tim

Hi Tim,<div>  Tell me how you want them presented and I will do my best to deliver the raw data (not how each person voted) in the manner requested.</div><div>
</div><div>Hi Joe, </div><div>  Your idea was actually discussed in detail and it was decided to deliver it to the AMA and let the AMA team decide how to deal with it.  Ultimately, the AMA must make that determination.</div>

Scott
Have you been able to talk to Jim as you indicated you wanted to make sure he had in fact kept up with this thread?
Dick

Proposal #1 Yes-xxx No=xxx

Proposal #2 Yes-xxx No=xxx

Proposal #3 Yes-xxx No=xxx

It may be too late but in the NSRCA survey, there is no option for surveyer to express the extra grams each would like to increase. The current two proposals of 5200 and 5500 grams (total) are from the originators of the proposals. This is my current understanding. maybe I am wrong.

I would hope that the NSRCA/AMA can poll pattern pilots on their preferred gram increase numbers, and analyze it, before considering a reasonable weight limit increase.

Considering the other issue discussed above, maybe NSRCA could ask for an extension? Let us collect the right data first.