<html>
<head>
<style>
P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
Agree with Ron, Mike Hester and others. What's broken here? What's the problem we're trying to fix? <BR>
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)<BR>
Sportsman/ Intermediate trends DOWN from 21 to about 16<BR>
Advanced trends DOWN from 22 to about 19<BR>
Masters trends UP from abot 36 to about 41<BR>
FAI trends DOWN from about 39 to about 25 <BR>
<BR>
So why are we discussing qualifiers? If anything we should be discussing how to prevent the demise of Pattern? <BR>
<BR>
My $.02<BR>
Rick <BR>
NSRCA 2972<BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<HR>
From: ronlock@comcast.net<BR>To: nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:13:06 +0000<BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1/Prefer No Qualification<BR><BR>
<DIV>Whatever we are "fixing" with a NATS qualification system, doesn't seem worth</DIV>
<DIV>the number of things that get broken by the qualification process.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ron Lockhart</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: Gray E Fowler <gfowler@raytheon.com> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Tony</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>I think any kind of qualifications for the NATS is a bad idea, for several reasons. </FONT><BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>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. </FONT><BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>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.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=s! size=2>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.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>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?</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>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.</FONT> <BR><BR><BR><FONT face=sans! size=2>A suggestion.....</FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>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.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>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><BR><BR>< FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Signed,</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Peace, Love and Smarter Missiles.........</FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2><BR><BR>Gray Fowler<BR>Senior Principal Chemical Engineer<BR>Radomes and Specialty Apetures<BR>Technical Staff Composites Engineering<BR>Raytheon</FONT> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>--Forwarded Message Attachment--<BR>From: gfowler@raytheon.com<BR>To: nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1<BR>Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:21:39 +0000<BR><BR><PRE>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR><A href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target=_blank>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></body>
</html>