Bigger issues--Long as usual from me

Wed Nov 19 11:50:58 AKST 2003

Tony:
I don't feel it necessary to totally break away from AMA.  They have 
been useful in the past, and still can be in the future, should they 
decide to be so.  At the least, they are a great secondary insurance 
company, for those who either can't, or do not wish to, carry a large 
liability policy.  And, it is only reasonable, as either a carrier or 
carrier's agent, that they have a say on safety related items.  (My 
opinion.)  They coordinate with the international community for 
competitions, etc. and work on frequency, noise, etc.  Nobody would 
gainsay that.  A total breakaway would cost much to both sides.
IMAC, (of which I was a board member when we achieved independence over 
many of our own matters) merely showed that AMA could either go with, 
and assist this progressive group, or, they could continue to be part of 
the problem.  Basically, it was going to be a situation where we were 
going to do those things for which IMAC was created, or, there wouldn't 
be an IMAC that any of us in the SIG wanted to be a part of.  The 
situation was intolerable.  It was rectified by a group of resolute 
folks who wanted results,  and would not settle for the same old stale 
reasons of  "1) we can't do it that way; 2) we don't do it that way, 3) 
it's never been done that way before, etc."  So, the new kid on the 
block got some attention.  And, the sky didn't fall. 
All for now; gotta rush.  (Weather's too bad for flying, go to catch up 
on some stuff so I can fly when and if the weather permits).

Bill Glaze

Tony Stillman wrote:

>John:
>
>IMAC is not out of the control of AMA.  They are a SIG, just like us.
>However, they put in an annex maneuver system from the start, so they could
>change schedules as they wanted.  We received quite a bit more trouble from
>the Contest Board when we wanted to install an Annex.  It has not been
>approved yet, but I think it will pass this time.
>
>We can get things passed as emergency rule changes, should that need to
>happen.  Otherwise, we are in the control of AMA, who sets the rules.
>
>Yes, it is a very slow system, but unless we completely break away from AMA,
>we will have to work to change what we have now.  Most people flying pattern
>now have NO IDEA how much work it was to put on N-PAC's!
>
>Tony Stillman
>Radio South
>3702 N. Pace Blvd.
>Pensacola, FL 32505
>1-800-962-7802
>www.radiosouthrc.com
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "John Ferrell" <johnferrell at earthlink.net>
>To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 10:31 AM
>Subject: Re: Bigger issues--Long as usual from me
>
>
>  
>
>>RE:
>>    
>>
>>>The first contests with the current rules changes were in 2002 yet
>>>      
>>>
>8months
>  
>
>>>later the changes for the next cycle were due.....How can this be
>>>      
>>>
>>evaluated
>>    
>>
>>>properly...I submit that it can't be properly evaluated. I know the
>>>      
>>>
>NSRCA
>  
>
>>>needs to be involved in the rules process.
>>>      
>>>
>>I do not propose anarchy, but I do think we need to do a reality check on
>>the subject. I know that IMAC is a dirty word here but when it comes to
>>competition they are leading the way. While we are looking at lead times
>>    
>>
>in
>  
>
>>the area of many years, they are making box dimension adjustments in real
>>time. They tweak and try changes and the world does not end.
>>
>>The AMA relationship to competition is changing from promotion of
>>competition to tolerating it. They are about one step away from forbidding
>>it. I cannot understand the reluctance of NSRCA to declare independence in
>>the same manner as the IMAC folks.
>>
>>Both organizations are recognizing that the high dollar airplanes are
>>driving the membership numbers at the moment. It is a real problem. If and
>>when the IMAC starts promoting a set of classes limited to 80 inch
>>airplanes, pattern as we know it will be threatened. The real problem is
>>that it will take this discipline five years or more to respond to the
>>    
>>
>"IMAC
>  
>
>>Competition"!
>>
>>Will Rogers said: "You have a choice. You can either deal with things as
>>they are or you can deal with things as they are not"!
>>
>>John Ferrell
>>6241 Phillippi Rd
>>Julian NC 27283
>>Phone: (336)685-9606
>>johnferrell at earthlink.net
>>Dixie Competition Products
>>NSRCA 479 AMA 4190  W8CCW
>>"My Competition is Not My Enemy"
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>From: "Troy Newman" <troy_newman at msn.com>
>>To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
>>Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 12:17 AM
>>Subject: Re: Bigger issues--Long as usual from me
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I'm not condemning your actions or the actions of anyone else....Rather
>>>      
>>>
>>I'm
>>    
>>
>>>saying the current process is poor.
>>>
>>>Its long and drawn out...I also know that the process caught us off
>>>      
>>>
>guard
>  
>
>>>this past cycle. There were so many huge changes the time before...We
>>>      
>>>
>were
>  
>
>>>still waiting for them to take effect. By the time the next cycle came
>>>      
>>>
>up
>  
>
>>it
>>    
>>
>>>seems like there is a very short time to evaluate the changes made the
>>>previous cycle...as in less than a single seasons flying and yet the CB
>>>      
>>>
>>and
>>    
>>
>>>the AMA process takes 2+ years to do its work....
>>>
>>>The first contests with the current rules changes were in 2002 yet
>>>      
>>>
>8months
>  
>
>>>later the changes for the next cycle were due.....How can this be
>>>      
>>>
>>evaluated
>>    
>>
>>>properly...I submit that it can't be properly evaluated. I know the
>>>      
>>>
>NSRCA
>  
>
>>>needs to be involved in the rules process.
>>>
>>>Just think we could do something better that's all.
>>>
>>>TN
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>=====================================
>># 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.
>#
>
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20031119/a5616000/attachment.html