RE: Re: New hub prototype
In reference to; “The recent NFFS issue is full of discussion on outdoor F1A/B/C rule changes. … not one of the proposals presented sounded like a positive change.” Those are “straw proposals” only, for the purpose discussion. The actual proposals will be a combination of ideas that come from the Technical Committee, discussion and proposals submitted by the member countries. All those involved with outdoor FAI in the US will have the opportunity to vote on the proposals and comment. The way the US votes on each proposal at the CIAM Plenary meeting will reflect “the will of the people.” The comments will be incorporated in the CIAM discussion leading up to the meeting.
John; in reference to; “Regardless of where you fall on the BOM topic, I suggest it would be in our collective best interest to have more of a voice in the process. … Indoor's lack of representation at CIAM is a serious problem for the FAI indoor classes.” What sort of increased representation are you proposing? More representatives? The US is allowed one. A US representative who is an indoor FAI flyer? The outdoor FAI classes would undoubtedly feel underrepresented. Put the US rep on the Technical Committee? That would cost $2,500 per year.
Last cycle Nick Ray took a poll on INAV that showed overwhelming opposition to the Hungarian proposal. Joshua Finn, Mike Kirda, Nick Ray, Brett Sanborn and Chuck Slusarczyk crafted a well-written letter outlining the US’s opposition to the proposal point by point. That was sent to each of the CIAM reps individually, Ian Kaynes and Bob Brown (who does the actual voting on behalf of the US). I vigorously lobbied for the US position and debated each element that was brought up. I also acted on all useful suggestions discussed on this forum. The vote in the Plenary meeting was 22 for, 8 against (one of which was the US). The only additional step I’m aware of that could have been taken would have been for me to travel to Lausanne Switzerland and debate the other reps and TC members face to face. That used to be the norm before AMA cut the funding (during George Batiuk’s term). I would be happy to go but who would pay for it? The US indoor FAI community? I can assure you that no previous US CIAM rep has pursued an issue as vigorously as I did with the Hungarian proposal. John; I would love to hear your ideas for the US indoor community to have more of a voice in the process. Let’s put your ideas to work and improve the process. Thanks.
Chuck Etherington
CIAM FF Rep
From: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com [mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 10:44 AM
To: Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Indoor_Construction] Re: New hub prototype
Mike Kirda wrote:
"The recent NFFS issue is full of discussion on outdoor F1A/B/C rule changes. Interesting reading. Reminds me a lot of the previous F1D changes."
I saw that too. It was rather chilling. I don't even fly those classes, and not one of the proposals presented sounded like a positive change. Every last one of them will have the effect of rendering hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of models obsolete.
John Kagan wrote:
"Regardless of where you fall on the BOM topic, I suggest it would be in our collective best interest to have more of a voice in the process."
This is extremely important. Indoor's lack of representation at CIAM is a serious problem for the FAI indoor classes.
Received on Fri Jan 09 2015 - 15:00:49 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:48 CET