rules proposals final result
Bill Glaze
billglaze at triad.rr.com
Mon May 10 05:36:35 AKDT 2004
Ed:
I was on the IMAC board and was one of the instigators in getting the
Nats to Muncie. Obviously, Mark Jorgenson, the then-president of IMAC
did most all the spadework.
Muncie seemed, at the time, to be a good site for the IMAC Nats. It now
seems that the fit is no longer desirable. As far as AMA limiting
participants, I don't know about that , but I would tend to doubt it.
Based on factors I've seen, I believe that they would do well to take
the show on the road. Just my opinion.
BTW:
I was a judge last March at the JR Challenge at Punta Gorda Florida. At
that time, it was stated that IMAC would have IT'S OWN CONTEST BOARD.
I guess they got tired of fooling around with the present Board. Don't
know how it's progressing. It shouldn't be necessary if the existing
Board is responsive to the members wishes, but we know about that...........
Bill Glaze
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/20040510/9f6c738f/attachment.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list