Annex Proposal

[Bill Glaze]

All:
I am putting this forth as a question, more than a statement of fact.
It seems to me that I read (somewhere) that AMA insurance didn't cover
unsanctioned contests.  A contest was defined, as I recall, as an event where
prizes were given "for proficiency."  (or something of that nature.  Quotes
mine.)
The implication was that, if a "contest" was being held, without sanction, it
would not be covered by AMA Insurance.  Just a bunch of people out flying,
however, would, in fact, be covered.  Gives them a nice loophole to require
sanctions.  Anybody else have this understanding?

Bill Glaze

John Ferrell wrote:

> FWIW, the District 2 Championship Contest held in October was not a
> sanctioned event. For whatever reason, a phone call to AMA on Contest Friday
> revealed that they had only received the application that morning. I wrote
> the check in July. The contestants were advised and the consensus was that
> we had done our part, and if there any objections, we needed to hear them
> before the contest. There were none.
>
> Since we were AMA flyers at an AMA field there were no insurance problems.
> As club treasurer, I have been asked several times if we really need to
> bother with sanctions in the future.
>
> John Ferrell
> 6241 Phillippi Rd
> Julian NC 27283
> Phone: (336)685-9606
> Dixie Competition Products
> NSRCA 479 AMA 4190  W8CCW
> "My Competition is Not My Enemy"
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Terry Terrenoire" <amad2terry at juno.com>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 7:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Annex Proposal
>
> > SCREW the Council! Let's tell them that if they don't approve, EVERY CD
> > will state in their sanction that he will be flying the NSRCA sequence.
> > It is the CD's right to make changes, if advance notice is given. Then we
> > quit submiting sequence changes to AMA, and let them swing in the wind!
> >
> > Terry T.
> >
> > On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 16:18:24 -0600 Ron Van Putte <vanputte at nuc.net>
> > writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > Emory Schroeter wrote:
> > >
> > > > Do you have any email address for these board members? I'd love to
> > > write
> > > > them a little note and let them know how I feel about their
> > > decisions. I
> > > > would like to know why the annex is fine for IMAC, but not for us.
> > > Are they
> > > > somehow better able to decide their sequences? I would imagine
> > > few, if any
> > > > of these board members fly pattern (I know Dave Brown once flew
> > > pattern).
> > > > So, what is their problem?
> > >
> > > The Executive Council members' email addresses are in header of
> > > their
> > > Model Aviation columns.
> > >
> > > The 'sticking point' appears to be their loss of control of the
> > > maneuvers and sequences.  I agree that IMAC already has the freedom
> > > we
> > > want and the Council does not want to relinquish any more control.
> > >
> > > Ron Van Putte
> > >
> > > > From: "Ron Van Putte" <vanputte at nuc.net>
> > > > To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 3:46 PM
> > > > Subject: Annex Proposal
> > > >
> > > >>I sent the following two messages to the NSRCA board yesterday
> > > for
> > > >>comment.  After you've read the messages, you will see why 'time
> > > is of
> > > >>the essence'.  Since the board members have already had the
> > > information
> > > >>for more than a day, I thought it was time to make subscribers of
> > > the
> > > >>NSRCA Discussion List aware of what was happening regarding the
> > > annex
> > > >>proposal so that there's some time for appropriate comment and
> > > action.
> > > >>
> > > >>The first - 12/6/02, 9:51 A.M.
> > > >>
> > > >>"I just got a call from Steve Kaluf (AMA's Competition Director).
> > > Steve
> > > >>told me that the annex proposal had been reviewed by the AMA
> > > Executive
> > > >>Council and they were taking a vote about whether to reject it out
> > > of
> > > >>hand, without sending it to the contest board.  The deadline for
> > > the
> > > >>vote is next Monday, but the voting is strongly for rejecting the
> > > >>proposal.  He offered me a compromise - if I withdraw the proposal,
> > > we
> > > >>would be given the opportunity for submitting multiple sets of
> > > maneuver
> > > >>schedules, like FAI has for F3A schedules.  I offered him a
> > > compromise -
> > > >>insert a contest board veto in the process before maneuver
> > > schedule
> > > >>publication.  I am going to call Dave Brown and discuss this with
> > > him. I
> > > >>wanted you to know what was going on because, even though I am
> > > the
> > > >>proposer, I did it for NSRCA, based on the rules survey results."
> > > >>
> > > >>The second - 12/6/02, 2:42 P.M.
> > > >>
> > > >>"I had a long talk with Dave Brown.  As written, the annex
> > > proposal is
> > > >>dead.  We talked about possible compromises.  The only one I was
> > > able to
> > > >>support is to rewrite the proposal to include Contest Board
> > > approval of
> > > >>whatever changes to the maneuver descriptions or maneuver
> > > schedules we
> > > >>come up with.  The board approval would extend the time required
> > > for the
> > > >>change process to be accomplished.  We would have to give AMA at
> > > least
> > > >>60 days to approve what we would want to publish.  This means we'd
> > > have
> > > >>to get the changes to the board by about the Nats time frame to
> > > make an
> > > >>October 1st publication date.
> > > >>
> > > >>"One big point he made was that the annex proposal should be
> > > withdrawn
> > > >>before the final AMA Executive Council vote was accepted on
> > > whether to
> > > >>reject the proposal.  That date is next Monday.  He said that it
> > > would
> > > >>be more difficult to submit an urgent rule change annex proposal
> > > if the
> > > >>vote deadline to reject it had passed.  As the proposer, I would
> > > really
> > > >>like to have the Council go on record as rejecting the annex
> > > proposal.
> > > >>As an NSRCA member who would like the annex proposal to pass, that
> > > would
> > > >>probably not be the best option.
> > > >>
> > > >>"Comments?"
> > > >>
> > > >>Roin 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.
> > > > #
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > =====================================
> > > # 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.
> > #
> >
>
> =====================================
> # 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.
#