<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Reading down this page...................I believe I am seeing some
clear-headed thinking here. A picture of a structure is starting to
appear. A few more of these and we just may have the framework of our
building. Bill Glaze<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Rcmaster199@aol.com">Rcmaster199@aol.com</a> wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid55.4b59d6d5.2ced7e3e@aol.com"><font
face="arial,helvetica"><font size="2" family="SANSSERIF" face="Arial"
lang="0">In a message dated 11/19/2003 6:52:04 PM Eastern Standard
Time, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jbudd@QNET.COM">jbudd@QNET.COM</a> writes:<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="CITE"
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 255); margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px;">>Am
I getting a signal from this mailing list that we need to remove <br>
>ourselves from AMA and do everything ourselves?<br>
<br>
I think the signal (read message) is that the NSRCA <br>
Officers/Leadership need to be willing to explore all reasonable <br>
possibilities concerning what is best for the NSRCA membership (the <br>
entire membership, not just the F3A community). If that means <br>
backing away from SIG status to achieve the results NSRCA needs then <br>
that ought to be considered. I suspect that it won't get that far <br>
though - AMA may be slow and bureaucracy laden, but they're not <br>
stupid (well... give me that one if only to make my point!).<br>
<br>
Thx, Jerry</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Jerry, et al<br>
<br>
Not sure how much financial support the AMA gives the various WC Teams;
for the Pattern Team, Tony should have a pretty good idea.<br>
<br>
Besides the insurance deal the AMA provides to all and the support for
the Team, what other benefit do they provide us? The main one I can
think of is the 160,000 +/-voice lobby in Washington, in regard to
flying sites for example. In my opinion, breaking totally away from the
AMA may not be in our best interest in the long run. <br>
<br>
Breaking away from the antiquated rules procedures is in our best
interest and I would support such a move. <br>
<br>
My thinking is this: if we were to make our own rules and enforce them
as we saw best, it would require that we ignore only the AMA's Pattern
related rules. Basically, it would make the AMA Pattern Contest Board
totally moot for our purposes. Would that make a difference to AMA? I
would guess that they wouldn't like it due to losing their control over
Pattern, but what could they really do about it? <br>
<br>
We would still need to abide by all safety related rules, but that's
it. Obviously, without a flying site, the whole excersize becomes moot.
The AMA's Washington voice may be feeble, but I'd like to believe that
it has helped some of us keep some of these.<br>
<br>
Contest Directors would still apply for the AMA sanctions as they do
now, but strictly for safety and insurance concerns. The rules we fly
under would be totally our own. The events could still attract
non-NSRCA members since they would still be advertised in the MA
magazine.<br>
<br>
It seems to me that AMA policy (lack of monthly reporting and coverage
of large Pattern events are two very recent examples) has done quite a
bit to alienate us from the fold. This isn't intended as a means to get
even or anything silly like that. It seems to me that many of the
members are simply fed-up with the ancient processes AMA requires, and
they (we) want some things done better, easier, faster. After all, my
car insurer isn't telling me how to drive my car. <br>
<br>
Matt K<br>
<br>
</font></font></blockquote>
</body>
</html>