[NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1/Prefer No Qualification

Mon Apr 30 10:22:23 AKDT 2007

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.comTo: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.orgDate: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:02:43 -0500Subject: 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 WallaceSent: Monday, April 30, 2007 12:47 PMTo: NSRCA Mailing ListSubject: 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 16Advanced trends DOWN from 22 to about 19Masters trends UP from abot 36 to about 41FAI 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 $.02Rick NSRCA 2972

From: ronlock at comcast.netTo: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.orgDate: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:13:06 +0000Subject: 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 FowlerSenior Principal Chemical EngineerRadomes and Specialty ApeturesTechnical Staff Composites EngineeringRaytheon 

--Forwarded Message Attachment--From: gfowler at raytheon.comTo: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.orgSubject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1Date: 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/20070430/77dbeab8/attachment.html 