<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<p class="MsoNormal">Apparently we can discuss the pros and cons of
a new weight
rule til hell freezes over without anyone changing their mind. I
would like to
share with you how I converted from from a no weight change
advocate to someone
pushing for an increase. I have always felt that most of the past
increases in cost
were due to rule changes on noise, on turnaround, on engine sizes,
for some
examples. While this is a factor, there are others at work.
Inflation and improved
quality of the equipment are also major factors. I’m also not
convinced that it
really costs that much more in terms of percentage of your
takehome income to compete than it did in the old days. However
there is a large increase in other activities, both in the hobby
and without, competing
for your dollars. Another point is that all those potentially
expensive rule
changes were initiated by the FAI and incorporated by the AMA. So
I came to the
conclusion that we could make adjustments to AMA rules without
upsetting the
apple cart.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
The main reason for change is that the status quo is not working.
Pattern has
changed from the central focus of many clubs and many flyers to
being a small
niche in both clubs and the marketplace. It used to be that club
sport flyers
that never attended a contest still built and flew simply
constructed Balsa or
balsa and foam pattern planes. This is gone. Even considering the
modern
equivalents of these planes such as the Excelleron and others,
most are now out
of production and not being replaced by new kits/ARFs. Just ask
any
manufacturer about the importance of pattern in their marketing
plans. Ask Jon
Bruml who sells ads in the K-Factor. I'm not privy to the figures
but I suspect
even the topline radios that we consider ours, sell better for
IMAC, Helis and
jets. Time was, your club members were interested in your new
radio/model/motor/engine. Now they just say “smooth flying model”
and ask about
the weather.<br>
<br>
The point is that we are now a bit player and in all probability
will never
occupy center stage again. See a lot of action in the modeling
press about last
years WC? Get real. Nobody else cares and we are all getting older
and slower,
dying off one by one and being replaced by only a few and most of
those are in
their forties. See the graph below? It shows a slow decline in
membership dues
and it gets worse the further back you go. While the NSRCA
membership decline
is not conclusive proof that pattern is declining in this country,
I am
convinced that they are related. What I see in contest attendance
in the west
is a steady decline over the last couple of decades and is a
confirmation of
the NSRCA numbers.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600"
o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f"
stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/>
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/>
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/>
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/>
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:313.5pt;
height:216.75pt'>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\WestEng\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image001.emz"
o:title=""/>
</v:shape><![endif][if !vml]--><img
src="cid:part1.03090607.07020400@comcast.net"
v:shapes="_x0000_i1025" height="289" width="418"><!--[endif]--><br>
<br>
So what should the NSRCA and the pattern community do? Maintain
the status
quo? I believe I've made a case that it's not working. Can we do
something
to get back on center stage? Very unlikely. Can we do something to
move from a
dying niche in the hobby to a growing niche? Perhaps.<br>
As a first step the NSRCA board has made rules proposals with the
<u>intent</u>
of increasing safety and making it easier/cheaper to participate.
Will these
rule changes have the desired effect? I believe so but they are
not a complete
answer by any means. We need more participation and more ideas not
more
accusations about our “hidden agendas” and “flawed surveys”.
Apparently we've
gored a few oxen in our proposals. I suggest everyone back off a
bit and
support the only group that is trying to move forward. I
understand that there
may be unwanted consequences along with the wanted ones. I doubt
it but even so
rules can be rolled back in two years.<br>
<br>
There are a lot of very smart people out there on this list
involved in
precision aerobatics and we really need to be putting our heads
together for
ideas on how to grow. Right now it looks like we only know how to
tear each
other down. There has been a lot of emotion out there on these
rules proposals,
lets apply it in a more positive direction. I urge everyone to
support these
proposals now and to stay engaged with us on what to do next. The
NSRCA is
always open to ideas.<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">John Gayer</p>
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11">
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11">
<link rel="File-List"
href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CWestEng%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml">
<link rel="Edit-Time-Data"
href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CWestEng%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_editdata.mso">
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style><br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>