[NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1/Prefer No Qualification

Mon Apr 30 10:12:33 AKDT 2007

I don't think it effects the demise of pattern at all. maybe it would have some effect, who knows.

I guess I just like the Nats the way they are now. I think qualifying in some form might be a good idea in theory, but in practice, I'm not sure we have the numbers yet to support a move like that. 

just my opinion, I could be wrong....

-Mike

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tony Stillman 
  To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' 
  Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 2:02 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1/Prefer No Qualification

  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

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

  _______________________________________________
  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/dc0212de/attachment.html 