[NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1/Prefer No Qualification

Mon Apr 30 10:28:48 AKDT 2007

This thread was originally talking about having sportsman level compete
at NATS effectively increasing participation. 

- Robert Beaubien

- AMA #618061

- NSRCA #4121

-

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 11:22 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List; Bill Markovitz
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1/Prefer No Qualification

Tony - thanks for the clarification. 

Here's my train of thought -which led to looking at the numbers I sent -

>From the time I was a kid in the 60's I used to read about National
Champ's where anyone could go to the Nats who wanted to. And that was
really cool. I also remember, as an R/C enthusiast and Pattern wannabe
driving long distances to places like Seguin, TX and Westover, MA just
to be at the Nats for a little while, and maybe see some great flying. 

That was a real kick for me - just to be there while the contest was
happening. --and to be able to compete that was a whole new level of
high! 

The ability for anyone to go and compete in the Nats seems like a
tremendous 'plus' for Pattern. Conversely, if there are qualification
'gates', then that closes off another possible attraction of Pattern,
and makes the Nats just another dis-incentive for a guy considering
flying Pattern - or continuing to fly Pattern. 

The whole idea of 'qualifiers' seems to be a path to limiting Nats
attendance - yes? Is that not the main idea of the 

And if we're talking about limiting Nats participation, then I assumed
that there are 'too many' (by some measure) guys attending the Nats.  If
there aren't 'too many' guys attending the Nats, then why is there a
discussion about qualifiying or limiting attendance? 

If I've misunderstood the thrust of the conversation, I apologize, but
believe strongly that there's a good reason to keep the Nats open to
all. If anything we should be working to get out 'rain day' back to
prevent guys in some future Nats from driving a loooong way, only to
have a day of rain wipe out theit finals.... 

Thanks- 
Rick 

________________________________

From: tony at radiosouthrc.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:02:43 -0500
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070430/51e99ae5/attachment.html 