Yawn!!!!!!!!!

Gary

Scott, I know everybody means well, but it is significant to mention..... We did ask. We asked what they all thought with the poll. That's all we can do. We polled, we proceeded with the simple majority results. End of story, if someone doesn't like it, contact your buddies that feel the same way you do and get them to take part in the survey. Obviously, there are people that failed to take the survey seriously. Maybe next time they will, this one is done.

Brian Clemmons

So there were 107 survey respondents...

How many NSRCA members are there? How many AMA pilots who fly Pattern but aren't NSRCA members?

How many follow RCU and were tuned in to the debate, or even knew about the poll?

I really and truly do appreciate all the volunteer effort that goes into getting things done. I have been a board member/club officer in a few organizations and have some inkling of all the work and thought and behind-the-scenes communication of which the general membership is completely unaware. Scott, although I disagree with just about everything you are trying to do with regard to these rules changes, I don't doubt that your intentions are sincerely focused upon the promotion of Pattern and an effort to increase participation.

However, with all due and sincere respect, this whole exercise has a rushed feel about it and contains a slapdash basket of proposals that do not appear to be ready for prime time.

Sometimes the best option is to step back, take a deep breath and figure out how to inform and involve more of the people that will ultimately be affected.

Brian
The actual wording of the saftey rule as sent to AMA was never published in the survey.
It was only posted on the NSRCA website after it was submitted to the AMA. I support the no arming until you present the aircraft for a flight. I just don't support the proof by observation aspect!
Dick

Here are the results of the survey as posted on NSRCA website:

Contestant Classification (Advancement) = Yes - 69 No - 27 No Opinion - 11
Telemetry (Equipment) = Yes - 85 No - 14 No Opinion - 8
Safety Proposal (With arming plug) = Yes - 51 No - 50 No Opinion - 6
Weight Proposal = Yes - 55 No - 48 No Opinion - 4
<br type="_moz" />

Well this is funny - I registered for NSRCA site so I could do the poll, but it never worked, so I never voted. I would have voted NO on the safety proposal. I would need discussion and some clarification before voting yes.

Hi Bob,
First, thank you for taking the time to recognize the effort. To be honest, the whole exercise was rushed a little and we have talked about this before. The Rules Proposal Committee was put together in January with "candidate ideas" given to the BoD at the beginning of February and voted on by the BoD as a "place to start" working on candidate proposals. In one month's time, we put together the proposals, took a survey and had another BoD meeting to vote on the proposals and get them to the AMA. Did we do the right thing in my opinion? Yes sir, we did. Could it have been done better? Absolutely We, as the BoD, will be implementing proceedures and timelines for the "next crew" so that they will be prepared as to when to form committees with deadlines as the driving factor. The NSRCA is committed to doing right by and for you all. Sometimes, we disagree. That's to be expected. I think we all agree that the intent is certainly there for the promotion of pattern. I have been in contact already with the AMA Rules Committee via email and there have already been some suggestions on how to do some things. As the BoD is discussing their options, I am not at liberty to say at the time of this post however exactly what is being discussed. I will have an update for this thread by the end of the day as to exactly what is happening. No holds barred.

Answers to your questions:
Out of the 107 survey results, 95 were 2011 or 2012 current NSRCA members. 12 were non-NSRCA members. According to the questions asked, out of those 12 non-NSRCA members, 3 of them were non-competing. Over 55% of the total said they attended 5+ contests per year.

I cannot answer how many follow the thread here on RCU. Please remember that RCU is not an official means of communication for the NSRCA yet we still felt it important to put it here and honestly, I personally have done more "explaining" here than even our own NSRCA Discussion list. The BoD certainly feels an obligation to support, include and listen to the entire pattern community regardless of membership status. Considering the length of time we had and the fact that, aside from the Kfactor, we put the announcement in all possible media we could think of that the pattern community regularly checks, I'd say we did everything we could to get the information out there.

In the 11th hour as the deadline looms, the BoD is listening and trying to make decisions based in part on some recommendations from some members, this thread and even some non-members to make sure we are doing the right thing as a whole. Yes there are people against certain aspects of each proposal, the safety proposal being the biggest at this point. We will continue to work on this until it is out of our hands and THEN, I'm taking a long vacation to my flying field so that I can catch up to y'all in practice. My 4950g, safety plug having, electric De Ja Vu has been missing me.

Regards,
Scott
<br type="_moz" />

Hi Joe,
We did have a problem on the "back-end" with some survey takers being able to log in and take the survey. At first, we had it locked down to being able to take the survey only once. In order to let these folks take the survey, our webteam opened it open competely so that anyone could go in and take the survey. Those 3 individuals that decided it would be "funny" to take the survey multiple times simply had their second through {insert a 2-digit number here} results deleted without looking at the results. These results were deleted based on user id, ip address and time stamps.

Did you have any luck with emailing any of the email addresses for the BoD or the webteam when you couldn't take the survey? I'm sure we would have been able to help you. Secondly, DUE, in part to the results of the survey and discussions here and on the NSRCA Discussion list on Safety, the original Safety Proposal was thrown out and a new one was developed. Did we get the 2nd proposal in the survey? Due to time restraints, we did not. At the time, the major point that was discussed thoroughly here and on the NSRCA Discussion list was the inclusion of the arming plug. Although the survey was 50/50 even at the end, that candidate proposal was still dropped and the one submitted to the AMA was put in it's place. The new one, as you've seen, leaves the option of how in all cases to the competitor. Now, the complaint is different. As you can see from my previous post, we are still working even now to make sure we are doing the right thing. So, with that being said, your "no" vote succeeded without submission because the candidate proposal in the survey was removed and although not defeated, subsequently changed. In essense, the point is moot.
<br type="_moz" />

<span style="font-size: small; ">With a passing vote of the NSRCA BoD, we respectfully submit to you the new Safety Proposal. Essentially, the Safety Proposal that is currently with the AMA is being retracted and two new proposals put in its place. The first one is simply the Fail-safe proposal that was part of the submitted Safety Proposal. Then, the second new proposal will replace 6.9(a) as 6.9.1 and <u style="font-weight: bold; ">directly quoted and out of the current FAI Sporting Code</u>. The referred section is on page 16 in 5.1.11 of the FAI Sporting Code for 2012. Please note that in FAI, in order to follow the rule, the disconnect must happen right after landing before the helper picks up the plane. A disarm plug is NOT allowed to demonstrate a disconnect - there has to be a physical disconnect of the wiring and must be seen by an official. Interesting huh!</span><div><span style="font-size: small; ">
</span></div><div><span style="font-size: small; ">Before anyone says it, I disagree that the arming plug does not constitute a physical break in the wiring. Through some consideration and advice from people that have run the Worlds, the plug is external and does not constitute proof that the physical connection internally has happened. That's the FAI rule. As submitted, that part is <u style="font-weight: bold; ">not</u>written into the proposal. It is simply the direct quote from the FAI Sporting Code. Here is the exact verbiage of the new proposals as submitted to the AMA. I don't know when AMA will get the physical proposals up on their site.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: small; ">
</span></div><div><span style="font-size: small; "><u>New Proposal for 6.9</u></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small; ">
</span></div><div><span style="font-size: small; "><span times="" new="">6.9 &ndash; Propeller safety - All contestants using radio equipment with a failsafe function shall be able to demonstrate that propeller rotation will either stop or reduce to an idle RPM when the transmitter is powered down while the aircraft receiver system is powered on. Idle RPM for this purpose is defined as an RPM during which the model will remain stationary when already motionless.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small; "><span times="" new="">
</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small; "><span times="" new=""><u>New Proposal for 6.9.1</u></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small; "><span times="" new="">
</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small; "><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">6.9.1 &ndash; For electric powered models, the electric power circuit(s) must not be physically connected, before the starting time is begun and must be physically disconnected immediately after landing.</span><span times="" new=""></span></span></div>

I would like to thank Scott and the NSRCA board of directors for doing a great job. I was going to remain silent on this issue because I don't fly electric, and then I thought, myself or my plane could be involved in a bad situation should one of these planes be accidentally turned on. So it does involve me. If this were a gun we were talking about the only way it could be safely handled by the group is by the chamber being open so all can see that it is not loaded. Common sense tells me that the plane should not be armed until it is ready to take off. People don't always use common sense, this is why people get shot with unloaded guns. I would like to see proof that the plane is unarmed. I really can't understand the big problem here. If you approve this new rule I encourage you to post here or contact your district VP to let your voice be heard also. It seems that the ones against something are the only ones you read about on this site. Maybe I can help change that and truly the changes that are best for the organization will be made.
Thanks, Randy Hicks

District 6 int. pilot
Designer of the Talon and soon to be Talon extreme

Scott and the NSRCA BoD
You all deserve a great deal of thanks from the entire NSRCA membership for having the capacity and courage to listen to it's membership and then take action. With this new proposal you resolved every saftey issue and resolved the differences between AMA and FAI SAFTEY RULES! Great, Great effort by ALL involved!!
I personally want to thank Scott as he was the one taking all the fire over this issue and not once did he respond in other than the most professional and respectful manner. You are the "MAN"!!
Dick

Immediately after landing? Is that immediately at the point where the helper retrieves the airplane on the runway or is that immediately after it is removed from the runway and brought back behind the flightline. Immediately after being brought back behind the flight line seems the smart way to go.

The connecting part is the way we have been running things at the Nats for a number of years and should be no issue.

Wonder if the NSRCA board communicated with anyone at AMA about this proposal? Seems to me if there is a problem needing a solution that it should be a part of the AMA safety code and not included in the Pattern rules and should apply to all propeller flying.
Dave

Dave,<div>   In fact we have.  The process is this gets submitted to Greg Hahn at AMA.  Greg then sends these proposals to the appropriate chair person on the appropriate committee.  If the Rules Committee decides that this is not a rule to be enforced as such or requests AMA HQ to get involved, it then gets sent to the AMA Safety Committee and then, it is left up to them to decide.  It is possible that this gets indoctrinated into pattern and the AMA Safety Committee proceeds to adopt it to their guidelines. </div><div>
</div><div>   This is what I've been explained.  I have no proof of this but this is how the process works from the explanation given to me from AMA.</div>

I am very glad I made that phone call to Jon Carter last night and made the recommendation that the NSRCA proposal adopt the wording of the FAI F3A Sporting Code. I sent him the wording and he looked at it then emailed the rest of the NSRCA BOD that he recommended adopting their wording. They obviously agreed. Glad it has worked out.

I am assuming that what Scott has been referring to as the Rules Committee he is referring to the AMA R/C Precision Aerobatics Contest Board? Is that correct?

Yes Tony, that is correct. I am speaking of the official name "Academy of Model Aeronautics Radio Controlled Precision Aerobatics Contest Board". Once again....my apologies to all for not saying it correctly.

Ok so these rule proposals bring us right back to what we're doing already. Common sense seems to have prevailed. These rules will just put it in writing.

Thanks Scott,Tony and all involved.

Now can we get back to our normally scheduled Snap and Spin entry argument?


Tim

Thanks Scott -I too appreciate everything y'all are doing

New Proposal for 6.9.1

6.9.1 – For electric powered models, the electric power circuit(s) must not be physically connected, before the starting time is begun and must be physically disconnected immediately after landing.


This proposal is much better, a good requirement specification and is quite achievable.

My remaining concern is with the weight increase proposals currently on the table, which is kind of arbitrary. I would bet that if a survey were conducted, the mean increase would be around 100-150 grams.

First and foremost, I would like to thank Scott and the rest of the NSRCA board for their volunteering to do what is, for the most part, a thankless job.

That being said, the whole rules proposal cycle this year was done bass-ackwards. Now that I have decided to become a full-fledged NSRCA member again I don't have to hold back letting the board know when they did something wrong. It is not the job of the board to provide a solution to a problem that has not been clearly defined. This year a committee was formed and they came up with rules proposals based on grumblings at the field, or complaining here on RCU or other online forums or mailing lists. None of that constitutes a problem. If the NSRCA board thinks a problem exists the first thing they need to do is poll its membership directly. Unfortunately the polls should not be open to just anyone at all because then we'll have the problem of people who don't fly pattern at all or don't fly in the USA participating. Their opinions are irrelevant, and the only way the NSRCA can filter them out is to keep it to active membership. The content of this poll should not be specific rules proposals, but simple questions regarding how people feel about the rules that are being called into question: Do you think the weight limit should be changed in pattern? (YES/NO) If you think the weight limit should be changed should it go up or down? How much do you feel it should go up or down? Once the polling is completed the data should be crunched to see how many people actually think something needs to be done. I've seen in the past it took a 60% affirmative before the Board would push a proposal through to the AMA. This year simple majority was used. Frankly, given the long-lasting ramifications of making rules changes it should require a 2/3 majority before any rules are even looked into. Once it is verified there is a problem, the detail questions on each "issue" could then direct the committee on how to word the proposal with their members' interests in mind. Finally, the proposals should be presented to the membership for discussion, re-working if needed, and a final poll done to make sure 2/3 of the community actually wants the change proposed.

While I appreciate the board's work, I do not appreciate the product they produced this year. Frankly, they should ask the AMA Contest Board to ignore all proposals from the NSRCA this year and gear up now for the next rules cycle.

The problem with statistics is that 92.357% of them are made-up on the spot. Your assertion that the mean would be 100-150 grams might be true amoung those that want a specific increase. That means nothing given probably 45 - 50% (perhaps more) don't want a weight increase at all, and maybe 25 - 35% want the weight limit removed altogether. That being said, up to 85% of pattern pilots don't fall into the category of wanting a 100 - 150 gram increase in the weight allowance.

See how much fun it can be to make up statistics?

Well, what you described is one possibility statistics outcome. But I disagree the assertion that 92.37% is made up on the spot. More than likely one would provide a number based on his situation: what extra weight allowance will take to go to Nats. Of course, he could say 0 grams if his plane can meet the current weight limit requirement.

That kind of data is more convincing, in my opinion.

If you looked at the survey on weight increase proposal, a high percentage voted yes. But we do not know what is individual's target increase number. Seems a link is missing even for AMA to decide the actual increase number.

Hi Matt,
Since you have just rejoined (and I'm very happy about that), let me give you a little insight into a few items. The NSRCA is the special interest group to the AMA for precision aerobatics. That means that, regardless of affiliation, the NSRCA is responsible not only to its members, but to the whole pattern community as well. It is our position to take everyone in the community into account and not just its member as everyone should be heard. When the results of the poll were submitted to the NSRCA BoD, there were both numbers given; those of just current 2011-2012 NSRCA members and all persons who decided to take the poll regardless of affiliation. 12 non-members took the survey and 95 were NSRCA members.
Secondly, you are absolutely right about what should have been done. This committee was put together at the end of January, suggestions submitted to the BoD at the beginning of February, candidate proposals drafted, survey set up and results given to the BoD the first week of March and results of the BoD decision submitted to AMA by March 15. As I'm sure you are aware, we were changing our submissions to more fit the needs of the pattern community in the 11th hour of the deadline. This year, it is the board's intention to rewrite the By-Laws and set specific time frames when any of these committees shall be formed and processes started so that the perceived "rush" does not happen again. You, of course, are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else. Jim Quinn, Don Atwood, John Gayer and myself went back through years of BoD Minutes and could not find anything that constituted a 60% rule or a 2/3 majority in order to pass. We also contacted Derek Koopowitz who sat on the board from 1999-2010 and he was not aware of any rule like that either. If we were to have found that, we would have pulled those proposals that did not fall within those limits. There are many conversations that happen behind the scenes, that was one of them. Each of the 8 DVPs had a vote and that vote should be in line with his/her district member's desires. All DVP's, save one, voted in favor of these proposals. The Executive Officers shall vote with all persons in mind and should side with the majority as well as the DVPs personal opinions in mind. There should definitely be a distinction between a DVPs personal opinion and his/her constituents wishes and we feel confident that each of the DVPs voted with their district's opinions in mind as a whole.
Lastly, the NSRCA does not make the rules, the AMA Precision Aerobatics Contest Board takes care of that. The NSRCA merely submits its findings and suggestions to the AMA Precision Aerobatics Contest Board. On that board, sits a member from each district of AMA. Your representative is Lance Von Nostrand. These individuals are appointed by the AMA's District Vice President to hold a seat on the board. The board's chair is John Fuqua. There are also other proposals submitted by other individuals whether they are NSRCA members or not. The AMA Precision Aerobatics Contest Board will now take all submitted proposals and go through them, contacting the authors of the proposal to first, try to take similar proposals and come to a consensus and see if they can be "merged", and then proceed with the process.
Although there have been a couple of suggestions (meaning two, both of which submitted here and not through official means of communication) to the NSRCA to remove the submitted proposals, the BoD feels confident that the proposals submitted support the pattern community and are looking out for the betterment of our sport. It is quite obvious that "status-quo" is doing nothing to improve attendance at competitions or to help our community grow. This can be seen not only in attendence, but how many different manufacturers are building items for pattern and how few of them are gearing advertising dollars to pattern. In actuality, I feel the job of the NSRCA is to promote pattern and look out for the betterment of our sport. Resistance to change is not always the right thing to do. In my opinion, the NSRCA Rules Committee, as well as the NSRCA BoD,did a great job with these proposals and now it is in the hands of the AMA R/C Precision Aerobatics Contest Board to take our suggestions and move forward by means set forth in the instructions of the AMA itself.
<br type="_moz" />

Unfortunately the NSRCA should not be polling anyone but its members. I understand the position that you represent pattern as a whole, but that's only partially true. While the NSRCA is the recognized SIG for pattern, the organization should not promote rules proposals that come from or are supported by a non-member majority. I'm not saying that's the case here, I'm speaking in generalities to fix the process for the future. Those who chose not to join NSRCA have other avenues to voice their opinion (as you pointed out), but the NSRCA should not make it their business to seek their opinions because they didn't pay for the ability to be heard within the group. As in any rule-making process (even real laws) special interest groups are formed by like-minded people to have one loud voice instead of a small voice.

I'm aware there is no hard-and-fast "rule." The 2/3 majority was my recommendation for what the rule should be due to the long-lasting ramifications of rules changes.

I'm aware of that, and this is the avenue for those who are not members, and those member who disagree with what the NSRCA chooses to do as a whole.



Well, change just for the sake of change isn't always the right thing either.

To quote J. Peterman from Seinfeld, "Congradulations on a job... done." Like I said previously, I appreciate the efforts, but given the way we ended up with the proposals, we would have been much better served by the NSRCA if they had just sat out this rules cycle.