<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>George </P>
<P>You are wrong IMAC is a rule book event at the NAT's just like Pattern, the IMAC now has an annex and changes their pattern every year as directed by the IMAC SIG. This is exactly what we NSRCA have asked the AMA/ rules change Committee to approve with the exception of changing our pattern every three years. But it now looks like our requested change will not even make it to the rules change committee as the Execuative Council wants to remove our request and not allow it to be considered.This in my opinion is a slap in the Rules Committee's and NSRCA's face by the Execuative Council. And before such action they should fully explain and justify their reason's for such action.</P>
<P>If this was some off the wall idea I could understand such action, but it is not and in fact the system already exist's in R/C Scale Aerobatics, It is almost like they are undermining the intent and action of the rules change committee which would be like The President of our country not allowing the Congress and Senate to consider an item prior to his approval.</P>
<P> I cannot find the place in the rules change proceedure that says that the Execuative Council has this right will someone point out where this action is authorised.<BR>Buddy</P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: "GeorgeF." <AV8TOR@FLASH.NET>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: discussion@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>>To: discussion@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: Annex Proposal
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 21:18:28 -0500
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>At 06:56 PM 12/7/2002 -0600, you wrote:
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>>Ron
<DIV></DIV>>>
<DIV></DIV>>>Are they also going to regain control of IMAC by setting the same
<DIV></DIV>>>and equal rules reguarding sequences for them in the future? If not
<DIV></DIV>>>there seem to be some lack of consideration on their part to
<DIV></DIV>>>repersent all SIG's equally. Could be that they are trying to
<DIV></DIV>>>justify their existance. which could start an internal controversy
<DIV></DIV>>>in spite of what we as a SIG"s have deturmined is best for us,
<DIV></DIV>>>After all the AMA board dosen't fly IMAC or Pattern, they only
<DIV></DIV>>>control the rules and may have deturmined that they are loosing
<DIV></DIV>>>control. Which in my view is a sign of weakness not strength. Good
<DIV></DIV>>>leaders lead. I will be waiting to hear the outcome of this and the
<DIV></DIV>>>reasons for their decission and sincerely hope that they make the
<DIV></DIV>>>right one.
<DIV></DIV>>>
<DIV></DIV>>>Buddy
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Does IMAC have any contests at the NATS? If I remember correctly
<DIV></DIV>>they don't (but I could be wrong). If the AMA Nats doesn't have any
<DIV></DIV>>IMAC events then I could see whey the AMA doesn't care to keep
<DIV></DIV>>tighter control of what IMAC does.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>However Pattern is a represented event at the AMA's NATS therefore
<DIV></DIV>>the AMA wants to have the final say in all rules governing pattern
<DIV></DIV>>flying included the sequences being flown.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I might be wrong but it was just a thought I had.....
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>George
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>=====================================
<DIV></DIV>># To be removed from this list, send a message to #
<DIV></DIV>>discussion-request@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>># and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
<DIV></DIV>>#
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Tired of spam? Get <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMHEN/2017">advanced junk mail protection</a> with MSN 8.</html>