[NSRCA-discussion] IMAC Vs Pattern Participation?Does the DogHunt on points made?

[Ron Van Putte]

On Mar 2, 2006, at 6:23 PM, Ed Alt wrote:

> Several sites formerly used for SA contests have been lost here in  
> the NE due to noise  / neighbor complaints during contests. I heard  
> that another contest went away due to liability concerns after a  
> severe injury involving a contestant and his own airplane, then  
> there's another which very sadly is going away because of real  
> estate development (PGRC field).  There's a lot of history at that  
> field.  Anyway, the noise footprint concern is huge.  We had a  
> request for our club to host a 2nd SA contest this year because of  
> the loss of so many other sites.  We turned it down in part because  
> of the fact that the noise rules are now ignored, the box  
> boundaries went away and the sequences are insane, making the noise  
> footprint problem worse than it's ever been. Even as wide open as  
> we think our contest field is, we've had complaints and we didn't  
> want to increase the exposure and risk.  They better figure out  
> what is plainly obvious to at least some of us, because the current  
> profile of the event is fairly obnoxious to alot of people.  The  
> hovering next to the pits also has the club member volunteers  
> pretty darned annoyed and with them as well as being concerned with  
> liability, but the attitude by some is that it's their right - to  
> paraphrase - "it's IMAC, it's what we do".

IMACers, the snowboarders of R/C aerobatics.  <VBG>

BTW, I have some history with the PGRC field; I was a member back in  
1969 to 1972 and flew at "the Pea Patch" across from Silver Hill, the  
old Croom airport and the Bowie flying fields.

Ron Van Putte
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060302/f8632ad6/attachment.html