Bigger issues--Long as usual from me

[Bill Glaze]

Reading down this page...................I believe I am seeing some 
clear-headed thinking here.  A picture of a structure is starting to 
appear.  A few more of these and we just may have the framework of our 
building.  Bill Glaze

Rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 11/19/2003 6:52:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> jbudd at QNET.COM writes:
>
>
>> >Am I getting a signal from this mailing list that we need to remove
>> >ourselves from AMA and do everything ourselves?
>>
>> I think the signal (read message) is that the NSRCA
>> Officers/Leadership need to be willing to explore all reasonable
>> possibilities concerning what is best for the NSRCA membership (the
>> entire membership, not just the F3A community).  If that means
>> backing away from SIG status to achieve the results NSRCA needs then
>> that ought to be considered.  I suspect that it won't get that far
>> though - AMA may be slow and bureaucracy laden, but they're not
>> stupid (well... give me that one if only to make my point!).
>>
>> Thx, Jerry
>
>
>
>
> Jerry, et al
>
> Not sure how much financial support the AMA gives the various WC 
> Teams; for the Pattern Team, Tony should have a pretty good idea.
>
> Besides the insurance deal the AMA provides to all and the support for 
> the Team, what other benefit do they provide us? The main one I can 
> think of is the 160,000 +/-voice lobby in Washington, in regard to 
> flying sites for example. In my opinion, breaking totally away from 
> the AMA may not be in our best interest in the long run.
>
> Breaking away from the antiquated rules procedures is in our best 
> interest and I would support such a move.
>
> My thinking is this: if we were to make our own rules and enforce them 
> as we saw best, it would require that we ignore only the AMA's Pattern 
> related rules. Basically, it would make the AMA Pattern Contest Board 
> totally moot for our purposes. Would that make a difference to AMA? I 
> would guess that they wouldn't like it due to losing their control 
> over Pattern, but what could they really do about it?
>
> We would still need to abide by all safety related rules, but that's 
> it. Obviously, without a flying site, the whole excersize becomes 
> moot. The AMA's Washington voice may be feeble, but I'd like to 
> believe that it has helped some of us keep some of these.
>
> Contest Directors would still apply for the AMA sanctions as they do 
> now, but strictly for safety and insurance concerns. The rules we fly 
> under would be totally our own. The events could still attract 
> non-NSRCA members since they would still be advertised in the MA magazine.
>
> It seems to me that AMA  policy (lack of monthly reporting and 
> coverage of large Pattern events are two very recent examples) has 
> done quite a bit to alienate us from the fold. This isn't intended as 
> a means to get even or anything silly like that. It seems to me that 
> many of the members are simply fed-up with the ancient processes AMA 
> requires, and they (we) want some things done better, easier, faster. 
> After all, my car insurer isn't telling me how to drive my car.
>
> Matt K
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20031119/aef4d9c3/attachment.html