Bigger Issues

[gene.maurice at comcast.net]

Maybe a way to look at this is not a complete divorce of the individual from AMA but only a separation of the competition. As a CD of a non-sanctioned event, I could still require AMA membership in order to take advantage of the insurance. I could also require NSRCA membership. In order to not eliminate non-NSRCA members from the contest, NSRCA could offer a "2 Day Membership" for, let’s say, $2.00. 

I believe the objective of this discussion is to explore ways to avoid the interference that AMA / Contest Board interject into the rules process. OK, ignore the AMA rules. I understand the magnitude of what we would be biting off: the Nats, Team Trials, support for the Worlds, etc.. But what other leverage to we as an organization have? Logic and reason certainly haven’t worked! 

Again, if we are just a pimple on the AMA’s butt, why are they so adamantly opposed to relinquishing some level of control? Or, at least be more considerate of the fact that this three-year rule cycle stifles the advancement of the discipline. 

BTW, it’s not three years, it’s six! On January 1, 2005 rules that we discussed three years past go into effect for three years to come! Then, almost immediately, the process starts all over again!!!!! This is ludicrous!!!! This is bureaucracy run amok.


--
Gene Maurice
gene.maurice at comcast.net
Plano, TX
> 
> On Nov 19, 2003, at 7:11 PM, Gene Maurice wrote:
> >
> > 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?
> >
> >
> 
> The subject was reasons not to break away from AMA.  If you do that, 
> you don't have AMA insurance.
> 
> Ron Van Putte
> 
> > -----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.
> #
> 
=====================================
# 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.
#