[NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1/Prefer No Qualification

Mon Apr 30 10:03:24 AKDT 2007

I guess I don't understand.  How does the NATS effect the demise of pattern?
The NATS is a national championships.  If we have 400 or 20, how does that
lead to the increase or demise?  

All I am discussion is the WAY that we run the NATS.  

JUST FOR THE RECORD.  This is NOT on the table as a projected change for the
NATS for any time in the future.  This is just a discussion topic on how the
Nats COULD be changed.  

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 Rick Wallace
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 12:47 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1/Prefer No Qualification

Agree with Ron, Mike Hester  and others. What's broken here? What's the
problem we're trying to fix? 
For the record, Nats attendance from 1995-2006 has been dropping in all
classes except Masters - trend line shows: (based on Nats attendance
information from Don Ramsey's website)
Sportsman/ Intermediate trends DOWN from 21 to about 16
Advanced trends DOWN from 22 to about 19
Masters trends UP from abot 36 to about 41
FAI trends DOWN from about 39 to about 25 

So why are we discussing qualifiers? If anything we should be discussing how
to prevent the demise of Pattern? 

My $.02
Rick 
NSRCA 2972

  _____  

From: ronlock at comcast.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:13:06 +0000
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1/Prefer No Qualification

Whatever we are "fixing" with a NATS qualification system, doesn't seem
worth

the number of things that get broken by the qualification process.

Ron Lockhart

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Gray E Fowler <gfowler at raytheon.com> 

Tony 

I think any kind of qualifications for the NATS is a bad idea, for several
reasons. 

1. For 99.9% of us this is a hobby. We can call it a sport, but its a hobby.
Why? Because 99.9% of us work a real job, and very very few make any money
from participation in this hobby. 

2. Elevate the stature of the NATS? To who? The Canadians? The Mexicans? The
Anti AMA organization who does not have a NATS?  We have a "Worlds" and it
requires qualification, so in essence this is already what you are asking
for. Right now anyone who goes to the NATS has a higher (false) stature at
the local level anyway. 

3. Because it is a hobby, with contests run by hobbyist, and most AMA people
are volunteers, I cannot imagine how in the world the AMA or NSRCA could
ever organize and execute and fair qualification system.  I derive this
opinion based on the "many" (sarcasm) people within both the AMA and NSRCA
that line up at nomination time to serve as an officer.  Local AMA clubs,
AMA regional reps, and especially the NSRCA has a hard time finding anyone
to do day to day work. If you volunteer to be nominated, you can almost be
assured that you can be President.... Heck the NSRCA is so loaded with
politics  that officers quit in the middle of terms, and people execute
personal agendas both in the rules formation and even personal aspects at
the NATS. AMA and NSRCA should only promote to increase participation. 

4. There are some who may only attend the NATS and do well and even win. Why
would we want to make them a! ttend l ocal stuff to qualify when they do not
need it. This applies mostly the top FAI guys. They do not need the local
level to excel, and they can step in at the NATS and kick eveyone's butt.
Why inconvienience them from their job, family or whatever?  If they can
show up at the NATS and win is that not still getting the best? 

5. Last-I used to be much more involved with pattern than I am now. My kids
are of the age that it is more important to spend time doing their
activities than mine, as they will be gone before I realize it. I cannot
make 6-7 contests (in 6 months) like I used to, and making the NATS is tough
too, but if I did decide that I could make the NATS, the last thing I would
want to worry about is having to make 3 contests in a row to "qualify" for
the NATS. Actually this point is the same as #1-its a HOBBY. Those whom want
different move up to FAI  and "qualify" for the Worlds. 

A suggestion..... 
Start with the FAI USA team. Why does that selection contest allow whomever
wants to show up fly at that contest? Implement a qualification sytem for
the USA team selection contest first. The Semi-Pros (not so sure we have
100% "pros" anywhere) in these ranks should love it, because then those top
6 (who are we kidding... it may only be 5 who truly have a chance)
nationwide flyers going for those 3 spots do not have to sit thru 3 days of
wannabe FAI schmoes. 

I cannot imagine that a qualification system would do anything but hurt NATS
attendence. I do not understand the point of it at all. The NAT is not
overloaded.  I agree that it is not bad to discuss anything, but if you
really think this is a #1 priority topic (I have not seen any others tossed
out there), then I think it shows your personal disconnect with the AMA
pattern community,402,403,404. 

< FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Signed, 

Peace, Love and Smarter Missiles......... 

Gray Fowler
Senior Principal Chemical Engineer
Radomes and Specialty Apetures
Technical Staff Composites Engineering
Raytheon 

--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: gfowler at raytheon.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:21:39 +0000

_______________________________________________

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/20070430/9ead2598/attachment-0001.html 