Bigger Issues

[spbyrum]

Gene

Sanctioning as a non-rule book Class C event covers the insurance issue
and still allows patterns that are not in the rule book.  SPA sanctions
all events this way.

Steve Byrum

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]
On Behalf Of Gene Maurice
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 9:12 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: RE: Bigger Issues

Ron,

Why is insurance an issue? If I'm an AMA member, I'm insured. If I hold
a
contest at my AMA Chartered club's field, I'm insured. I don't believe
there
is anything that prohibits us from having a "non-sanctioned" event and
still
being covered, as long as everyone meets the AMA's requirements for
coverage
to be inforce. But that's true even if the event IS sanctioned.

If I didn't post a sanction at the contest would anyone ask to see it?
If I
advertised non-sanctioned would anyone NOT come?

Gene Maurice
gene.maurice at comcast.net
Plano, TX
AMA 3408
NSRCA 877

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 5:18 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Bigger Issues



On Nov 19, 2003, at 2:55 PM, Jerry Budd wrote:
>
>> I don't think it was because the IMAC people were willing to break
>> away from AMA.
>
> I'd love to hear directly from some of the IMAC community on this this
> 'cause that's not the story I'm hearing (hindsight being 20-20 and
> all).  I don't want to speak for them (IMAC), could someone who is/was
> active in IMAC (and was witness to what actually happened) please
> "back brief" us on the history of this?

They may have been willing to break away from AMA.  We don't quite have
the same choices that they did/do.  They don't have a World
Championships option; we do.  If we want to participate in F#A on a
World level, AMA is the conduit.

>
>> As long as we operate under AMA, we are subject to the AMA rules and
>> regulations.
>
> Understand that we operate under AMA by choice, not by legislation (or
> even necessity).  NSRCA is a Special Interest Group (SIG) recognized
> by AMA, but NSRCA is not formally a part of AMA, nor does AMA have any
> regulatory jurisdiction or direct control over NSRCA. It's an
> affiliation, not a superior/subordinate type of arrangement.

True.

>
>> My rule change proposal to have NSRCA control the maneuver
>> descriptions and maneuver schedules was rejected by the AMA Executive
>> Council.  Short of bolting AMA, I don't think NSRCA has any choice in
>> this matter.  If that is a demonstration that "we (NSRCA) are willing
>> to simply lie down and get run over on this by AMA", I guess we're
>> stuck with it.
>
> Only if we choose to be.  We have options;  I just wonder if the NSRCA
> Officers are cognizant of them and willing to consider them as such.


I am an NSRCA officer and assume that the other officers understand our
options as I do.  The first big stumbling block is liability insurance
for contests.  The second is participation in F3A World Championships.
We could handle our own rules and contest coordination, probably
better/faster than the AMA.  Do we have the resolve and will to do it?
Most pattern pilots probably don't care.  Otherwise, they'd flood the
contest board and AMA HQ with letters and e-mails about the situation.
They haven't done it so far.

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.
#



=====================================
# 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.
#