Pattern & IMAC 2003 Nationals articles in AMA Mag.
Jeff Hughes
jhughes at hsonline.net
Thu Oct 30 07:13:31 AKST 2003
I can't imagine that the original intent of the site was for
individuals to use the site for regular old flying time. We pay a lot
of dues if we're going to limit the site for national events just so
some locals can fly whenever they want.
> By definition it is a National site - so it should have priority for
National events.
>
> To take it a step further the AMA should have several National site
strategically situated around the USA.
>
> Enough of the Muncie centric mentality!!!!!!!!!!
>
> AND, while I am on this rant, it should have AMA satellite sites,
leased to clubs, in the Muncie area for running parallel events and
so that, back up and preparation and practice sites are guaranteed
for contestants!
>
>
> End of rant!.
>
> Eric.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Tony Stillman
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 10:55 AM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: Pattern & IMAC 2003 Nationals articles in AMA Mag.
>
>
> I was told by people at AMA that President Dave Brown had received
quite a
> few messages about this (about 200) form pilots complaining that the
> National Site had too many events, making it unavailable for everyday
> flying.
>
> Tony Stillman
> Radio South
> 3702 N. Pace Blvd.
> Pensacola, FL 32505
> 1-800-962-7802
> www.radiosouthrc.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Crozier" <sjcrozier at comcast.net>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 10:17 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.
> #
>
> # 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.
> #
>
>
>
--
CoreComm Webmail.
http://home.core.com
=====================================
# 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.
#
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list