Annex Proposal / editorial

Mon Dec 9 07:05:21 AKST 2002

It sounds like "AMA" does not want to relinquish control of the "sacred-cow"
(pattern).  Its such a dam* shame that we even have to use them.  The only
reason anyone from the "modern" era, or the ARF era of the last years joins
AMA, is because when you want to join a club, they say, "you can't join
unless you have AMA insurrance."  Then, you have to decide, "do I want to
fly from a street or field, or do I want to fly from a runway?"  Then, you
need AMA to enter a contest.  No body says, "join AMA because they represent
our needs and look out for our best interest."  I haven't heard of one
situation where a club was about to loose a field, and the AMA interviened
an the cclub was saved.

I have not been around "since-the-beginning," so I'm sure I don't have the
same appreciation that someone was there, then, has for the AMA.  It is for
certain that many rc fliers do not join ama, and many do only because they
HAVE to, to belong to a club, or want to attend a contest.  

The conference room at the AMA is totally over-the-top.  Anyone who had the
"judging" class there can attest to that. There were tall-back leather
chairs and microphones at each position.  I've been to a number of business
(that are profit driven), that have no where near that type of facility.  

Set me straight, but I just don't see the benefit we get from them anymore.
However, they are now catering to the "small field flyer" with a new column.
I don't think someone who buys a small plane they fly in the drive way is
going to join the AMA either.  

The editorial column states (paraphrasing), that they do not see the "arf"
assemblers as "modelers", and that the "arf" people don't have the same
concerns, and that they can't envision any serious issues for the "arf"
people.  Well, the people who buy ARFs, are usually at the club field flying
AEROBATICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!    Just this weekend, there
were all sorts of "ARFs" flying AEROBATICS, and in my humble opinion, they
are served well by an aerobatic column.  Plus, sometimes, they will scare
the sh*t out of you with an over the pits flyby with a manuever goes bad.
It would seem that a larger percentage of "risk" or "litigation" would come
from this type of flying, and that an effort to better train them would be
good to reduce insurance risks, versus turn a blind eye.  

Ranting,
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Terrenoire [mailto:amad2terry at juno.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 5:52 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Annex Proposal

I would think exactly the oposite would be true. SIGs do a lot of the work
that would have to be done by AMA. SIGs are actually 
SAVING AMA money, not costing!

Terry T.

On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 19:36:21 -0600 "Bob Pastorello" < rcaerobob at cox.net
<mailto:rcaerobob at cox.net> > writes:

For those not familiar - on RC Universe ( www.rcuniverse.com
<http://www.rcuniverse.com> ) there is an entire FORUM dedicated to "AMA
Issues"....If you have some time to kill, go browse...
    You'll see that there appears to be a "trend" developing in how the EC
views, endorses, legislates, controls and directs C-O-M-P-E-T-I-T-I-O-N....
perhaps there is waning interest on THEIR side for the "high maintenance"
(read administrative expense/overhead) SIGs....

Of course, I don't *know*....just speculating a bit....

Bob Pastorello  IMAC 1320
NSRCA 199, AMA 46373
rcaerobob at cox.net <mailto:rcaerobob at cox.net> 
www.rcaerobats.net <http://www.rcaerobats.net> 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Buddy Brammer <mailto:buddybrammer35 at hotmail.com>  
To: discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>  
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: Annex Proposal

Ron 

I think you should post your original of this thread on the NSRCA site with
bold letters and an eye catching Icon
<http://graphics.hotmail.com/emthdown.gif> of someone doing something un
appropriate to us,  just in case there are those who visit the site but
don't take part in the discussion forum who may be intrested.

Another place that it could be posted is R/C Universe I feel sure that it is
monitored by many who may be intrested also

Sorry I couldn't find the proper Icon 

Buddy

>From: "Mike Hester" 
>Reply-To: discussion at nsrca.org 
>To: 
>Subject: Re: Annex Proposal 
>Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 18:03:36 -0800 
> 
> 
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Ron Van Putte" 
>To: 
>Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 9:32 AM 
>Subject: Re: Annex Proposal 
> 
> 
> > Jerry Stebbins wrote: 
> > 
> > > Ron, it appears to me that we should let the AMA process run it's 
> > > course. Let them make their decision based on the facts, and put it
out 
> > > for all to examine. Then we should have the opportunity to demand a 
> > > truthful, and logical response to the process, and the basis for their

> > > decision. The Board is, by definition, supposed to be responsive to
the 
> > > Membership! 
> > > I am against any compromise that has no rationale as to why the
proposed 
> > > approach is wrong.We have the IMAC precident on our side.If we 
> > > compromise, then that says our proposal is not sound. 
> > > Because Steve and Dave have some kind of insight, I wonder what/who is

> > > driving this decision. I would rather have them ( the Board ) explain,

> > > if they reject the proposal out of hand, why they are discriminating 
> > > between the SIG's, and then we can determine the action, legal or 
> > > otherwise, that we want to take. 
> > 
> > Does anyone not agree with the above? 
> > 
> > Ron Van Putte 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ===================================== 
> > # To be removed from this list, send a message to 
> > # discussion-request at nsrca.org 
> > # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body. 
> > # 
> > 
> 
>===================================== 
># To be removed from this list, send a message to 
># discussion-request at nsrca.org 
># and put leave discussion on the first line of the body. 
># 

  _____  

MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL  <http://g.msn.com/8HMHEN/2023> VIRUSES. Get 2
months FREE*. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20021209/8492013c/attachment.html