[NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1

Fri Apr 27 15:26:57 AKDT 2007

I have to assume the costs to run the pattern event would basically cost the same to put on as it currently does. Reducing the number of participants would raise the cost per individual. My suggestion to have those that do the most flying pay a more pro rated fee didn't go over well. I would think that reducing the entrants and raising the fees isn't going to be well received either. Let alone putting a bigger workload on those that do attend. Similar amount of work with less participants to distribute the work.

    Del
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tony Stillman 
  To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' 
  Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1

  I would like to have a points program where you earn points at each event.  If you have enough points, you can qualify for the NATS.  I don't like the idea of a single qualifier.  A bad weekend can keep a good pilot from earning his/her way.

  Tony Stillman, President

  Radio South

  3702 N. Pace Blvd

  Pensacola, FL 32505

  1-800-962-7802

  www.radiosouthrc.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Fred Huber
  Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:26 AM
  To: NSRCA Mailing List
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1

  This will cause some complaints...

  I would support having district qualifiers to reduce the number of contestants at the NATS.

  One contest appx 15 to 30 days before the NATS, appx centered within the district (go by either the AMA districts or the NSRCA districts, pick one)  

  Go through the full weigh-in, measurements and noise testing. (which tend to get skipped at local contests) 

  Top 10 from each district in each class go to the NATS.

  They have Scale Qualifiers...

    ----- Original Message ----- 

    From: vicenterc at comcast.net 

    To: NSRCA Mailing List ; NSRCA Mailing List 

    Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 9:57 PM

    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1

    IMAC does not offer the Basic class in the Nats.  It appears that the situation is similar.  Looks like you can ask for your money back from at least two SIG. 

    --
    Vicente "Vince" Bortone

      -------------- Original message -------------- 
      From: "Mike Robinson" <shineyobject at gmail.com> 
      Matt - at least you make a valid point about time and making room for other events etc. But, WHO decided Sportsman Class was less important? I pay my dues just like everybody else! It is my dues, in part, that helps put the NATS on to begin with. Some say 'intent' is an issue. OK, I intend not participate in the NATS. I should get my 'not intended' portion of my dues back from AMA. 
      Some things are just wrong. Just because 'it is written' or 'the intention was'  does not make exclusion of the Sportsman class at NATS the  right.
      And, that's all I got to say about that. 
      Peace. 

      On 4/25/07, Rcmaster199 at aol.com <Rcmaster199 at aol.com> wrote: 

      It's a matter of time allocation. Trying to get some 700 flights in during the time available is no trivial task. Ask any Nats Event Director near you.

      I would love to see our time increased by 2 days and Sportsman Class allowed....but that ain't gonna happen at an AMA Nats. AMA puts on a great deal of other events, many of which require the same site. The allotted time is divided as appropriate 

      NSRCA has put on it's own NATS (in lieu of and much to the chagrin of AMA) a bunch of year ago now. To do it again requires a whole lot of motivation, volunteers and money. It's doable but it's no trivial matter either 

      MattK

      In a message dated 4/25/2007 8:45:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, shineyobject at gmail.com writes:

        Don't worry about it Keith, we Sportman are just to freaking dangerous to be around!

        On 4/25/07, Keith Hoard < mailto:khoard at gmail.com> wrote: 

        Has anyone ever estimated how many more people would attend the Nats
        if Sportsman class was offered?

        On 4/25/07, Mike Robinson < shineyobject at gmail.com> wrote:
        > With as much respect as I can muster...Translation is...
        > "The governing body don't think Sportsmen are good enough to fly the NATS". 
        > Safety?...gimme a break!
        > And we wonder why people think we aerobatic pilots are snobs! Not only are
        > we snobs, we are often full of sh%@!
        >
        >
        >
        > On 4/25/07, Keith Hoard < khoard at gmail.com> wrote:
        > >
        > > You weren't at the GMA contest last weekend. . .
        > >
        > > . .  .<snip>. .  Also, I doubt that a
        > > > true Sportsman would be very comfortable flying at the Intermediate 
        > level at
        > > > the NATS.
        > > . . .<snip>. .
        > > _______________________________________________
        > 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

      See what's free at AOL.com. 

      _______________________________________________
      NSRCA-discussion mailing list
      NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
      http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    _______________________________________________
    NSRCA-discussion mailing list
    NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
    http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No virus found in this incoming message.
    Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
    Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/776 - Release Date: 4/25/2007 12:19 PM

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070427/2a1e92af/attachment-0001.html 