Pattern & IMAC 2003 Nationals articles in AMA Mag.

Thu Oct 30 06:30:41 AKST 2003

John,
I agree.  I live a little over an hour away and have only flown at the AMA
site casually a couple of times.  I feared getting shot down by someone on
another portion of the site and I also witnessed no frequency control
whatsoever.  It also appears that the site is virtually open to the public
since no one checks membership.  Number of other flyers when I was there
also was very minimal.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Crozier" <sjcrozier at comcast.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: Pattern & IMAC 2003 Nationals articles in AMA Mag.

> Where did the notion that "AMA wants the facility available more to
regular
> members" originate?
> If that's true, I agree that it is a lame excuse to not extend the NATS.
> I live in the Muncie area, and fly there occasionally.
> Usually when meeting an out- of -town buddy, as my home field has a
no-guest
> policy.
> On any given week-day, we are almost always the only fliers there.
> Occasionally, a couple of glider pilots show up.
> Weekends will see a slightly larger turnout if the weather is "nice".
> Munsee SkyChiefs have "trainer night" on Tuesdays.
> The club offers trainers with buddy cords, and instructors, for people who
> are interested in learning.
> During the NATS, the club uses their home field at the Muncie reservoir.
> Approximately 50 of us fliers in this area are scattered among Three
"behind
> the barn" flying sites.
> These  sites are certified for insurance purposes, and used at the
pleasure
> of the farmer-land owner on a year-to-year agreement.
> In summery:
> The AMA has no registration procedure for site users, so I can only relate
> what I have seen.
> I have seen 0 to 4 fliers on weekdays, and as many as Six fliers on
> weekends.....croz
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gray E Fowler" <gfowler at raytheon.com>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 2:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Pattern & IMAC 2003 Nationals articles in AMA Mag.
>
>
> > Wow ! If the AMA wants the facility available more to regular members
then
> > that is a very lame excuse. The national flying site was built for the
> > NATS, not just in case someone is traveling thru the cornfields of
> > Indiana....with an airplane....I do believe Steve Maxwell(lives  nearby)
> > told me that people rarely fly there anyway...so if that was an official
> > excuse  to shorten the NATS, then it is just plain lame. The average AMA
> > member could get more flying time by staying home.  This just seems so
> > incredible if it is true....the world's largest site dedicated to RC
JUST
> > IN CASE you are in Indiana with a plane......Imagine if the AMA held no
> > competition and did not need the flying site, only an admin blgd, how
much
> > better off financially the AMA would be.
> > If this is true we should fire every AMA executive we know and replace
> > them with Dilbert managers...we would be much better off....
> >
> >
> >
> > Gray Fowler
> > Principal Chemical Engineer
> > Composites Engineering
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net>
> > Sent by: discussion-request at nsrca.org
> > 10/29/2003 12:24 PM
> > Please respond to discussion
> >
> >
> >         To:     discussion at nsrca.org
> >         cc:
> >         Subject:        Re: Pattern & IMAC 2003 Nationals articles in
AMA
> Mag.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Brian Young wrote:
> > Whats the reasoning behind wanting a smaller time
> > slot? We have this huge national facility....seems odd.
> >
> >
> > The AMA "rents" the facility to AMA members so they can stop by the
> > facility, visit the museum and fly an airplane on one of the sites.  The
> > Nats are held during the prime flying season (past Nats attenders may
> > argue that statement, based on bad weather), so the time for ordinary
AMA
> > members use the facility is reduced.  If they make the total duration of
> > the Nats shorter, more AMA members can use the facility.
> >
> > 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, October 29, 2003 10:35 AM
> > To: discussion at nsrca.org
> > Subject: Re: Pattern & IMAC 2003 Nationals articles
> > in AMA Mag.
> >
> >
> > One problem I see looming on the horizon is the AMA
> > will force NSRCA and IMAC to share the same 5 day
> > period at the Nats.  The AMA Executive Council has
> > already gone on record that it wants the Nats to be
> > done in a shorter time frame.  Initially this will
> > be implemented by pushing existing SIG time slots
> > closer together, but, sooner or later, they will
> > probably take note of the shrinking numbers of IMAC
> > pilots at the Nats and decide that the NSRCA and
> > IMAC can be done during the same time frame.
> >
> > Henderson,Eric wrote:
> >
> >
> > Mike,
> >           I have always hated the split. I know how
> > and why it happened and also know that you can't
> > change the past.  I fly anything with wings and
> > especially like flying both types of planes. (The
> > real difference is the equipment specifications).
> > The classes flown and the styles do need separate
> > organizations to take care of their needs.
> >
> > I wrote this several months ago, "Create the USRCA -
> > United States Radio Controlled Aerobatics - A forum
> > for common and collaborative issues to provide
> > united national representation, (in particular to
> > the AMA). Core group would be two rep's from each
> > current and any new RC aerobatics SIG's".  (Nothing
> > nasty came up on Google with the acronym-BTW). today
> > this would be IMAC, SPA and the NSRCA forming the
> > initial umbrella organization.
> >
> >
> > The inherent problem with each discipline forming
> > its own SIG is that the word "special" leads to much
> > "specialization" and becomes a synonym for
> > separation. Forming a USRCA keeps the SIG identities
> > and operations fully functional, but creates a forum
> > for common issues such as, sound regulation, Nat's
> > locations, contest scheduling, rules cycles etc.
> > that affect us all.
> >
> > Howzat for food for thought.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Eric.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [
> > mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of
> > mike mueller
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 11:19 AM
> > To: discussion at nsrca.org
> > Subject: Re: Pattern & Imac 2003 Nationals articles
> > in AMA Mag.
> >
> >
> >  I feel that we have so much in common with the IMAC
> > guys. I really think that we would benefit if we
> > would merge into one group and bring in the SPA guys
> > too. It's RC aerobatics and 1 group would be more
> > effective from the standpoint of strength in numbers
> > and eliminating redundancy. If we would work
> > together we would be much better off. But hey that's
> > just my opinion. Mike
> >
> > george kennie  <mailto:geobet at gis.net>
> > <geobet at gis.net> wrote:
> >
> > Boy, I had a similar reaction. After all the hype
> > over the last several years about how Imac is the
> > fastest growing venue of the sport, they had a total
> > head count of 37??? C'mon, at a Nationals
> > event???????????  As far as representatives of a
> > SIG, it appears that they had absolutely zero
> > support people. You can't feel that this is due to
> > some economic condition, as all these guys seem to
> > have airplanes in the >$7500 category. It also
> > sounds like they do not have a judging program to
> > certify potential judges, as there were many
> > complaints regarding unfair scoring awards,
> > resulting in many pilots realizing that they had
> > been unduly cheated.
> > The overall tenor of the entire meet seemed to have
> > a great black pall decend upon Muncie for the
> > duration of their event with nobody leaving for home
> > with a good feeling.
> > This report certainly does not bode well as an
> > encouraging carrot regarding future attendance.
> > Their venue appears to require a super shot in the
> > arm of administrative influx, if they are going to
> > survive in a manner capable of sustaining any number
> > base.
> > It's very SAD!!!!!!!!
> > Georgie
> >
> > Woodward James R Civ 412 TW/DRP wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> >
> >
> > Have you read the write up by Eric and Ed regarding
> > the Pattern and IMAC nats results and event running
> > in general?  I really enjoyed reading Eric's
> > article.  When I read the IMAC article I thought,
> > "Ed has a lot of courage to describe the event the
> > way he did."  It once again made me think of how
> > lucky we are to have dedicated individuals running
> > our Nationals & NSRCA.  Lots of times we start
> > threads about what needs to be changed in pattern.
> > Given some things could be improved; we must overall
> > have a pretty good formula for getting people
> > involved & trained in judging.  The articles are
> > definitely worth a thorough read!!
> >
> >
> >
> > No flame suit, just starting dialog.
> >
> > Jim W.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   _____
> >
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney
> >
> >
> >
>
<http://launch.yahoo.com/video/?1093432&fs=1&redirectURL=http://launch.yahoo
> .com/promos/britneyspears/>
> >
> > Spears
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
> > http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
> > =====================================
> > # 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.
#