<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bill:<BR><BR>In this particular case, I don't think
so. Because of the fact that the AMA Executive Board was in on this
process (which is very strange in itself!), they are aware of why we wanted
this. <BR><BR>It was worked out so that we have to pick maneuver schedules
from a pre-approved listing (annex). The Contest Board has already
approved these maneuvers, if they are on the list. Now, all that we do is
have a new schedule created from the list, and have the CB approve
it. I have been assured that this will virtually be a "rubber stamp"
approval, and should no longer than 6 weeks from start to finish.
This can be done at ANY TIME. We don't have to do this on a 3-year
schedule (however, the survey shows that a 3-year cycle for schedule changes is
preferred).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>No, this is not what we wanted originally, but it
is what we could get passed THIS time. It's kinda like an election where
you don't really want either of the candidates, but you end up picking
the best one for the circumstances. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It is my hope that we will be able to wrench away
most if not all of the rule making process from the AMA in the next few
years. AMA has made it clear, at least to me, that they don't want the
headache, but at the same time, don't want to give any power away. Things
will have to change. How quickly it happens, I can't
tell. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV>Tony Stillman<BR>Radio South<BR>3702 N. Pace Blvd.<BR>Pensacola, FL
32505<BR>1-800-962-7802<BR><A
href="http://www.radiosouthrc.com">www.radiosouthrc.com</A></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=billglaze@triad.rr.com href="mailto:billglaze@triad.rr.com">Bill
Glaze</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:12
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Bigger issues--Long as usual
from me</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Tony:<BR>It seems to me if we "allow" the board to vote on the
Annex, it will still be under their control. Not a good thing. It
should be under the NSRCA control, or we will be back to square one. If
they vote to accept it, we will still be locked to the AMA for any changes we
want to make, with all their procedural mumbo-jumbo, and dilatory
delays. (Been there, Seen that.) Better that they reject it,
and we adopt it. It can be done.<BR><BR>Bill Glaze<BR><BR>Tony Stillman
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid007701c3af76$7a4108b0$6401a8c0@tony type="cite">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jerry:<BR><BR>Yes, I think that is where we are
now headed. AMA wants to start moving the NATS around again.
They only want it held at Muncie every other year, with the SIGS hosting the
event in the "off" years. Well, if this is going to happen, we are
going to have to have a little more control on the Pattern rules and
processes. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>This next year will provide more answers.
I'm sure, based on the discussions I am seeing on this list, that we will be
pushing the AMA to relinquish more and more control on our event.
There response will determine our future actions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Tony Stillman<BR>Radio South<BR>3702 N. Pace Blvd.<BR>Pensacola, FL
32505<BR>1-800-962-7802<BR><A
href="http://www.radiosouthrc.com">www.radiosouthrc.com</A></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,0) 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none">-----
Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: rgb(228,228,228) 0% 50%; FONT: 10pt arial; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none; moz-background-clip: initial; moz-background-inline-policy: initial; moz-background-origin: initial"><B>From:</B>
<A title=Rcmaster199@aol.com
href="mailto:Rcmaster199@aol.com">Rcmaster199@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none"><B>To:</B>
<A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none"><B>Sent:</B>
Wednesday, November 19, 2003 8:17 PM</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-stretch: normal; font-size-adjust: none"><B>Subject:</B>
Re: Bigger issues--Long as usual from me</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=arial,helvetica><FONT lang=0 face=Arial size=2
family="SANSSERIF">In a message dated 11/19/2003 6:52:04 PM Eastern
Standard Time, <A href="mailto:jbudd@QNET.COM">jbudd@QNET.COM</A>
writes:<BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,255) 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
type="CITE">>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></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>