I have been following a thread about cameras on this site and the NKN when I came across this comment.
Item 12:
New rule 25.16(b)
The use of any type of camera on a kart or driver during practice or racing at
permitted race meetings is banned.
For promotional purposes only, permission may be requested from the relevant SKC
in consultation with the State Technical Officer.
Already approved by the NKC
I can only assume that the Camera discussion was had in a previous NKC meeting because as the camera issue was discussed in the tech committee on the same weekend then it would not be on the agenda of the NKC meeting. Cameras were becoming popular and you would have thought that somebody from AKA would have said something.
Therefore I was wondering how these committees and AKA function.
Committees meeting at Darwin where Tech, Track, Admin, and Stewards then there was also the NKC meeting and the Special General Meeting. 6 meetings in total that I am aware of. Are the committees decisions binding or are they passed on to either NKC or AKA general. If they are passed onto either NKC or AKA then would it not be better for the committees to meet say three months prior to NKC or AKA meetings so that their discussions can be put on the agenda of these meetings.
I am on several Australian Standards Committees. Smaller working groups usually meet a couple of months before the main and all decisions made are placed on the agenda of the main committee so they can be discussed,passed or rejected.
Item 12:
New rule 25.16(b)
The use of any type of camera on a kart or driver during practice or racing at
permitted race meetings is banned.
For promotional purposes only, permission may be requested from the relevant SKC
in consultation with the State Technical Officer.
Already approved by the NKC
I can only assume that the Camera discussion was had in a previous NKC meeting because as the camera issue was discussed in the tech committee on the same weekend then it would not be on the agenda of the NKC meeting. Cameras were becoming popular and you would have thought that somebody from AKA would have said something.
Therefore I was wondering how these committees and AKA function.
Committees meeting at Darwin where Tech, Track, Admin, and Stewards then there was also the NKC meeting and the Special General Meeting. 6 meetings in total that I am aware of. Are the committees decisions binding or are they passed on to either NKC or AKA general. If they are passed onto either NKC or AKA then would it not be better for the committees to meet say three months prior to NKC or AKA meetings so that their discussions can be put on the agenda of these meetings.
I am on several Australian Standards Committees. Smaller working groups usually meet a couple of months before the main and all decisions made are placed on the agenda of the main committee so they can be discussed,passed or rejected.
Comments7
Ricky,
In theory, the states provide the committees items they think should be discussed. The relevant committee will approve or reject items and that advice goes to the NKC as only the NKC can make new rules or change existing ones. The committees meet once a year because that's as often as it needs be bearing in mind the necessity to maintain stability. The NKC then approve or reject the item.
The system comes unstuck when the NKC make rules off their own bat, usually reactively, rarely proactively, or they act contrary to the advice they've been given by the committees. Because they have never formulated a strategic plan and have no understanding of it's necessity, we get 50 or more rule changes from year to year by way of addendum.
Thanks Graeme
Correct - and we get those rule changes because the NKC tend to look after their mates - and not the advice of committees so that rule changes to suit their mates or industry without committee sanction happen on a regular basis ...!!
In the limited amount of online committee guff that I have read to date there is usually some discussion listed as to why a particular action is to be undertaken. As you note, what seemed peculiar on this occasion was that there was absolutely nothing, no reason or explanation, no warning of future intent, just an outright ban.
I was told last week that the reason for the camera ban was because someone had strapped a camcorder to their leg & it came flying off in an accident. Dunno how much truth there is to it, but there you go.... An incident like that would certainly explain the knee-jerk reaction by the AKA to have all camera's banned, seemingly out of the blue.
It'd be great to hear (from an official source) the reasons why they were banned though. Transparency in the decision making process can only be a good thing, I would've thought. Why the AKA are so adamant about keeping their cards close to their chest on this one (and everything else it must be said) is beyond me........
You can have you're thread back now... sorry!
I though I uploaded this earlier..
Here is the camera situ:
About 18 months ago Harold Arnett complained about cameras being used in a Victorian meeting - he was instructed by the NKC to get details about cameras - sizes - fixings- details etc etc and report back to the Technical Committee so we could review the issue ..guess what - no details - no nothing and after repeated requests still no details - then last month in Darwin they vote to ban them all ...no details - no written report from Arnett nothing 18 months of nothing .. So whatever was said to ban them must have been connived by someone to convince the NKC because not one item of report has ever hit my desk or any other desk as a member of the National Technical Committee in 18 months ..now Arnett has his hand up for a position as a coordinator when he could not produce anything in all this time ...I know what we need to ban ....!!
R
the plot thickens.....!