<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY
style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none; FONT: 10pt verdana; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><SPAN class=594485612-11122002><FONT face=verdana>I agree with Troy's
thoughts below and elsewhere in proceeding slowly or not at all with the
annex. All of the issues that Eric et. al. have mentioned that were
concerns of AMA with the Annex seem valid to me and it seems to be a tall order
to figure all of it out and get written up for this rules cycle, assuming that
AMA lets us revise in the first place before 2005. I do have two thoughts
on the AMA response that I haven't seen addressed.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=594485612-11122002></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=594485612-11122002><FONT face=verdana>First, the discussion has
focused on a comparison between us and IMAC. But the CB's and EC handle 13
other sets of competition regulations. I haven't read them all, but I
haven't found annexes referenced in any that I have checked other than
IMAC. And in the last rules change cycle, the initial vote showed IMAC
being turned down in an attempt to move the Judging / Flying school to the
Annex. Given that IMAC has ties to both the IAC and AMA, and lack of
annexes elsewhere, and has failed in at least one of their attempts, should we
treat the IMAC annex as an anomaly and regard the AMA as generally unresponsive
to the annex idea?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=594485612-11122002></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=594485612-11122002><FONT face=verdana>My second thought regards
the responsibility of the AMA to its modelers that it represents. It has
been made very clear in this forum that the NSRCA is not interested in AMA input
on its rules change proposals. That point was demonstrated to me
personally several months ago when I mistakenly offered to fill out an NSRCA
survey and provide an AMA opinion before I joined the sig. And it has been
made clear again in our stance in not wanting any CB involvement in a proposed
annex. Creating an annex with no CB oversight removes input from the AMA
and its members through the rules change process for everything that gets moved
from the AMA rulebook. And there appears to be no mechanism or current
climate to solicit those opinions if there were an annex without CB
involvement. NSRCA Constitution Article III Section 2 item a. states that
the purpose of the society is to "Act as a focal point for rules development and
progression. Gather intelligence from the AMA precision aerobatics
community to provide the basis for AMA rules change proposals." Isn't the
RC Aerobatics CB and the AMA membership base that they represent the "AMA
precision aerobatics community" that we are supposed to gather intelligence
from? </FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=594485612-11122002><FONT face=verdana>I'm
sure this isn't going to make me popular, but it looks to me like we either need
to write an annex proposal that includes the input of this community through
proposal and/or voting rights, or re-write our own
constitution.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=594485612-11122002></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=594485612-11122002><FONT face=verdana>Apologies if this is a
naive view. I would like to take the approach of asking how the AMA can
help us and how we can partner with them instead of trying to figure out how we
can get them out of our way! If the issue is a rules change cycle that is
too long, or limited URP's, move relevant parts of the rulebook verbatim to an
annex, add a change mechanism modeled from the AMA's that moves more quickly,
and keep a CB vote in. I just don't see why it is so critical that we get
the CB out of our hair. My $.02 Chuck</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=594485612-11122002></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Troy Newman
[mailto:troy_newman@msn.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, December 11, 2002 12:42
AM<BR><B>To:</B> discussion<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Annex Fresh
Idea<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>I have this idea...Why don't we the NSRCA work out an Annex and make it
and go through all the steps......have all the details worked out.....A giant
list of maneuvers all the descriptions....and everything in place using what
we already have had in the past.....The when its time for new schedules there
is a list of maneuvers and descriptors and everything is right at
hand.....Then when we have worked it for a while maybe until 2005...we could
present it to the AMA and say this is what we developed to help us pick the
sequences...Maybe you should let us have our own freedom now.....Or maybe by
then we will have another magic cure for the pattern blues!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=594485612-11122002><FONT
face=verdana><snip!></FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>