rules proposals final result

Sun May 9 18:21:19 AKDT 2004

That's cool then.  Have been out of the IMAC loop for only one year.  

My point about AMA vs the sigs is still here.  I see similarities.  Another area is the turbine guys and their battle to fly their planes, within the AMA guidelines.  Ongoing as I understand it.

Some of my previous poss is supposition from the 5 years of intense competition in IMAC.  So I still question, as we are right now with the rules proposals, how much of this is simply what was "thought best" vs what info was put out after decisions made, vs we'll do things out way.

ps the 2 new IMAC fliers here in Lubbock have new planes, without cannisters and are every bit as loud as planes 5 years ago, so no from what I see and here they are not in mass changing, only some and probably related to the regions.

Ed
Robert Mairs <robertm at sssnet.com> wrote:
IMAC's not leaving the nats.  They just started an extra roving contest for those who consider it to far to drive to muncie.  60 limit was set by IMAC, not the ama.  IMAC wanted to use just one site, thus the limit, that's what the membership wanted.

On the contrary, practically all the imac guys have gone to pipes and have tried to quiet down their planes.  Just because it's a big plane, doesn't mean it's an imac plane.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Ed Deaver 
To: discussion at nsrca.org 
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: rules proposals final result

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/20040509/4ee4372c/attachment.html