Annex Fresh Idea

[Chuck Czarnik]

I agree with Troy's thoughts below and elsewhere in proceeding slowly or not
at all with the annex.   All of the issues that Eric et. al. have mentioned
that were concerns of AMA with the Annex seem valid to me and it seems to be
a tall order to figure all of it out and get written up for this rules
cycle, assuming that AMA lets us revise in the first place before 2005.  I
do have two thoughts on the AMA response that I haven't seen addressed.
 
First, the discussion has focused on a comparison between us and IMAC.  But
the CB's and EC handle 13 other sets of competition regulations.  I haven't
read them all, but I haven't found annexes referenced in any that I have
checked other than IMAC.  And in the last rules change cycle, the initial
vote showed IMAC being turned down in an attempt to move the Judging /
Flying school to the Annex.  Given that IMAC has ties to both the IAC and
AMA, and lack of annexes elsewhere, and has failed in at least one of their
attempts, should we treat the IMAC annex as an anomaly and regard the AMA as
generally unresponsive to the annex idea?
 
My second thought regards the responsibility of the AMA to its modelers that
it represents.  It has been made very clear in this forum that the NSRCA is
not interested in AMA input on its rules change proposals.  That point was
demonstrated to me personally several months ago when I mistakenly offered
to fill out an NSRCA survey and provide an AMA opinion before I joined the
sig.  And it has been made clear again in our stance in not wanting any CB
involvement in a proposed annex.  Creating an annex with no CB oversight
removes input from the AMA and its members through the rules change process
for everything that gets moved from the AMA rulebook.  And there appears to
be no mechanism or current climate to solicit those opinions if there were
an annex without CB involvement.  NSRCA Constitution Article III Section 2
item a. states that the purpose of the society is to "Act as a focal point
for rules development and progression.  Gather intelligence from the AMA
precision aerobatics community to provide the basis for AMA rules change
proposals."  Isn't the RC Aerobatics CB and the AMA membership base that
they represent the "AMA precision aerobatics community" that we are supposed
to gather intelligence from?  I'm sure this isn't going to make me popular,
but it looks to me like we either need to write an annex proposal that
includes the input of this community through proposal and/or voting rights,
or re-write our own constitution.
 
Apologies if this is a naive view.  I would like to take the approach of
asking how the AMA can help us and how we can partner with them instead of
trying to figure out how we can get them out of our way!  If the issue is a
rules change cycle that is too long, or limited URP's, move relevant parts
of the rulebook verbatim to an annex, add a change mechanism modeled from
the AMA's that moves more quickly, and keep a CB vote in.  I just don't see
why it is so critical that we get the CB out of our hair.  My $.02  Chuck
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Troy Newman [mailto:troy_newman at msn.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 12:42 AM
To: discussion
Subject: Re: Annex Fresh Idea



I have this idea...Why don't we the NSRCA work out an Annex and make it and
go through all the steps......have all the details worked out.....A giant
list of maneuvers all the descriptions....and everything in place using what
we already have had in the past.....The when its time for new schedules
there is a list of maneuvers and descriptors and everything is right at
hand.....Then when we have worked it for a while maybe until 2005...we could
present it to the AMA and say this is what we developed to help us pick the
sequences...Maybe you should let us have our own freedom now.....Or maybe by
then we will have another magic cure for the pattern blues!
 
<snip!>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20021211/376cad6d/attachment.html