rules proposals final result

[Chris Moon]

Ed:
My understanding is that they wanted a "roving" NATS  like the old days, 
and want it to travel around the country from yr to yr.
Chris

Ed Deaver wrote:

> Don't know if anyone has heard but IMAC is leaving Muncie for the Nats 
> starting next year, posted on the IMAC website.
>  
> I am curious as to the why and wherefor and could it have something to 
> do with this current discussion???
>  
> IMAC has in my mind totally left the noise issue and planes are once 
> again getting loud.  They have changed their rules to a zoneless box 
> which I only see as making the box bigger(not smaller as wished)  
> Also, in my experience, this group of fliers typically HATE RULES and 
> despise rules enforced.  Also, the IMAC Nats had been limited to a 
> specific number of pilots now, by the AMA(I think)
>  
> So, possibly, the sentiment is simply rather than comply, we just 
> won't play anymore!!!
>  
> Whereas Pattern guys and NSRCA has tried to enforce, change rules, 
> reword mukky areas to get to as clear a set of guidelines as 
> possible.  Of course this procedure will never be done, only a work in 
> progress.
>  
> All of this begs the question, do we want to have the Nats in Muncie 
> every year?  Is the approval of AMA really needed, or how can we work 
> with them etc etc.
>  
> This is not a blast to IMAC or trying to bring IMAC to the NSRCA List 
> but felt the info may fall along the same lines.
>  
> ed
>
> Lance Van Nostrand <patterndude at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>     Really? And what about the individuals that submit their own
>     proposals in
>     direct conflict to member survey and with no known team
>     discussion. Are
>     they "us"? And what about all the discussion over whether the
>     member survey
>     had "leading" questions or didn't ask someone's favorite question.
>     Did it
>     truly represent "us"?
>     Truth is, we is all us. We need ethical and competent behavior from
>     everyone if this organization is to thrive because of us (and not
>     despite
>     us).
>
>     --Lance
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: "george kennie"
>     To:
>     Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 12:29 PM
>     Subject: Re: rules proposals final result
>
>
>     > I, for one, contacted my Contest Board Member expressing my
>     viewpoint on
>     "all"
>     > the proposals listed for consideration by the Board.
>     > In my opinion, the Contest Board has demonstrated, by it's
>     actions, that
>     it is
>     > definitely NOT "us"!!!!!
>     >
>     > Lance Van Nostrand wrote:
>     >
>     > > bob, I agree with you. I wonder how many people actually contacted
>     their
>     > > AMA contest board member to remind them of the survey results
>     and to
>     > > represent? We are in a volunteer organization where a few
>     activists can
>     > > have disproportionate influence. This can be good or bad.
>     > > --Lance
>     > >
>     > > ----- Original Message -----
>     > > From: "Bob Pastorello"
>     > > To:
>     > > Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 9:04 AM
>     > > Subject: Re: rules proposals final result
>     > >
>     > > > Considering that many of the contest board members are "us",
>     what
>     would it
>     > > > accomplish by negating their efforts, however we may feel
>     about it?
>     > > > Would not it be more effective to attempt to build
>     relationships WITH
>     the
>     > > CB
>     > > > members, rather than risk alienating them by ignoring the
>     rules they
>     voted
>     > > > in?
>     > > >
>     > > > Or am I just showing my naivete?
>     > > >
>     > > > Not arguing, just posing a question that occured to me....
>     > > >
>     > > > Bob Pastorello
>     > > > rcaerobob at cox.net
>     > > > www.rcaerobats.net
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > ----- Original Message -----
>     > > > From: "John Ferrell"
>     > > > To:
>     > > > Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 8:56 AM
>     > > > Subject: Re: rules proposals final result
>     > > >
>     > > >
>     > > > > Control freaks get pretty mad when you ignore them..Of
>     course that
>     is
>     > > part
>     > > > > of the fun of ignoring them!
>     > > > >
>     > > > > But it is counter productive to injure the game.
>     > > > >
>     > > > > John Ferrell
>     > > > > http://DixieNC.US
>     > > > >
>     > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>     > > > > From: "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
>     > > > > To:
>     > > > > Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 7:35 AM
>     > > > > Subject: RE: rules proposals final result
>     > > > >
>     > > > >
>     > > > > > --On Sunday, May 09, 2004 5:31 AM -0400 "Thomas C. Weedon"
>     > > > > wrote:
>     > > > > >
>     > > > > > > ... take offs and landings are just as aerobatic as a
>     loop of
>     roll
>     > > and
>     > > > > should be
>     > > > > > > judged as such.
>     > > > > >
>     > > > > > Agreed.
>     > > > > >
>     > > > > > > Perhaps AMA is pushing us back to the NPAC idea where
>     we can be
>     in
>     > > > > charge of our
>     > > > > > > own destiny; ya think?
>     > > > > >
>     > > > > > Yes, I do.
>     > > > > >
>     > > > > > The best thing to do with control freaks is to walk
>     > > > > > away from them.
>     > > > > >
>     > > > > > Marty
>
>     =====================================
>     # To be removed from this list, go to
>     http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
>     and follow the instructions.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20040509/4d515f48/attachment.html