RE: MAAC membership reasonable?

RE: MAAC membership reasonable?
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> M.A.A.C. >> RE: MAAC membership reasonable? Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: MAAC membership reasonable? - 4/16/2005 12:27:21 AM

Sharpy01

Posts: 600
Joined: 9/9/2003
From: Kenora, ON, CANADA
Status: offline

No worries Jim,

Opinions are cool, as long as we can avoid making it personal. How about, "non-essential", again, that is my opinion.

As you may have gathered, I'm a big fan of "less government", but NOT in a Michigan militia sense. I feel this need for central control of a national hobby, outside the 3 priorities I mentioned, is an act of futility. By trying to separate, control and regulate all aspects of a constantly changing hobby, we wind up with this constant "Us vs Them" scenario on every issue from individual Events, to Rules, to "who get's what".

Our model resembles federal politics where too much time and effort and money is being spent trying to keep everyone happy. With numerous committees, events and individuals vying for limited resources, it tends to lead down the road of "winning control" of the organization to keep certain agendas front and centre in order to influence where resources go.

We are a group who like to fly model aircraft and by trying to be something more, I think we lose sight of the core issues that impact on ALL members. The first year, this became obvious when we found out that MAAC had not bothered to maintain contact with Transport Canada or the status of our frequencies. The executive and board were caught completely off-guard with information that the frequencies we use, were being licenced out to construction companies and further, that the current Transport Canada Feds didn't even know we existed despite the fact, they legally control everything we do. Like him or not, Bransfield must be given credit for getting those two very important National issues back to the forefront despite the infighting on less important issues.

I don't expect to author the constitution, but I certainly beleive that it should have less, than more and let specific, clubs, groups, competitors, sport flyers, regions decide what they want to pursue, promote, organize and fund themselves.

You'll have to educate me on how Kyoto affects modelling. The only thing I know about the accord is that it's going to cost us billions and accomplish next to nothing. I put it in the same bucket as the Gun Registry, National Child Care Program, Adscam, Leaky Subs, cancelling helecopter contracts (out of spite) with big penalties, then paying more for half the number of helicopters, HRDC Scandal and on, and on................ It's ALL money that could be better spent by those who actually earned it. Of all the things we should be, big government is probably the worst example to be following.

< Message edited by Sharpy01 -- 4/16/2005 1:00:33 AM >

(in reply to Jim_McIntyre)

Post #: 51

RE: MAAC membership reasonable? - 4/16/2005 12:30:36 AM

4*60

Posts: 1265
Joined: 3/10/2002
From: Blind Bay, BC, CANADA
Status: offline

I believe that's why the Americans have the fifth, the 24th amendment, etc. It is not written in stone.

_____________________________

"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." the other Dennis Miller

(in reply to Jim_McIntyre)

Post #: 52

RE: MAAC membership reasonable? - 4/16/2005 4:32:26 AM

kenair

Posts: 492
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: winnipeg, MB, CANADA
Status: offline

MAAC is a changing and it is not through the constitution becasue the few special interst groups in MAAC are using the consitution to stop the change, but the change wheel has started to roll and it an't stoppin.

quote:

The Association shall act as a representative of the Aero Club of Canada (A.C.C.) in
establishing and maintaining official regulations governing the conduct of model aeroplane
records and contests and to issue sanctions for same in accordance with any authority
granted by the Aero Club of Canada, as representative in Canada of the Federation
Aeronautique Internationale (F.A.I).

At this time we are a cash cow for the Aero CLub of Canada, we pay the highest sum of molla of any othe other groups yet we do not humanly take to the air - go figure, 10 years ago MAAC withdrew from the ACC for a brief period, 20 years ago this was unthinable, in another while from now if the cost remains high ($16K - $18K) the link to the ACC will be gone and model flyer will work directly with the ACC to get their FAI fix.

Just over 10 years ago, when MAAC blew a pile of cash on the Brandon Nats, members began to take an active interst in the maac budget and the cost of insurance per member. At that time members found out the insurance was less that $2.00 per member the cost per member for the FAI "fix" was $4.00 per member.

The Nats have become a thing of the past, every now and then the NAts get resurected for one last fling, soon it's burial will come, who would;ve thunk it?

10 years ago none spoke about the MAAC mag, now we see posts saying I do not want the mag to be subsidized by my membership fee, golly gee, .

We now hear that insurance and frequecies are the priority not competiting, there must have been a bunch of crosses burnt some where for that.

Now more flyers fly recreationaly, contests are declining. Fly-ins are MAAC's biggest events but MAAC trips over itself promoting the Nats - duhh!!

FAI team trials draw a handful of particpants, sometimes you can place third and represent MAAC by just showing up at the trials.

The last two MAAC presidents are not not active FAI competitors unlike the past.

Years ago, a top MAAC competitor gota lot atta boys, now they are asked why they are using the memberhips money to fund their hobby.

and the money losing Scale 2002 event loss of $62K was not swept under the rug but brought to the members attention!

A lot of these changes happened after the Brandon Nats in 1994, wow, that's just a bit over 10 years ago.

2005 - FAI funding cut by 50%, who says things aren't changing!

< Message edited by kenair -- 4/16/2005 4:37:12 AM >

_____________________________

[link]http://www.upaero.com/[/link]

(in reply to 4*60)

Post #: 53

RE: MAAC membership reasonable? - 4/16/2005 2:22:01 PM

Drexus

Posts: 153
Joined: 6/14/2004
From: Almonte, ON, CANADA
Status: offline

It's funny.. the more I read (I should be on top of this thread more after dumping that book), the more I write down in response. But the further down I get in my reading, the more people here start to answer the questions and address the issues... so my apologies if this post sounds a bit late. My points are shared with many here.

Perhaps my comments for MAAC to define itself should be dissected a little. In the process of MAAC setting it's constitution, the members involved would have had a serious job on their hands to write the MAAC definition. Perhaps in light of what is obviously noted in the constitution, my suggestion should have leaned more towards MAAC re-defining itself. I wouldn't suggest that there is serious issues with the constitution, but in the process of the initial key members who put it together we should all understand that it would be human to aspire to higher levels then what might be necessary. I wouldn't make the comment that MAAC has gone too far with all that it has placed in the constitution, but that a more simplified and open definition would focus more on the core functions, while still technically leaving a slight opening for possible exploration. An example would be (just an example here...): "MAAC will support and stand accountable to all it's members..." With this, the interpretation can allow MAAC to sponsor events or fund a specific function. But if it feels that none of that is needed, then MAAC can hold true to it's constitution by still delivering information and other key services. If this is too vague, then let's keep with the core purposes. Currently, the areas where the constitution notes items in a somewhat vague line, needs to be sharpened, and areas where it's too specific, needs to be a bit more global in meaning.

All I'm saying is, perhaps the constitution is a bit too specific in non-critical areas and suggests that it must do all those things... even if it might not be healthy for its core function.

I don't feel that MAAC should open the table to all members and say "What do you want MAAC to be?" This will only make things worse in more ways then one. Let me explain: When I operated a design studio, I would bring in clients who had large aspirations as to what they wanted... "I want a big glossy magazine with red and blue on the cover...." I would respectfully nod my head and think about all the constraints I should apply to the client's exploding visions. The fact remains, the client came to me for my professional aid and skill. So with that, I promptly cut them out of any involvement in the design process. If they want to put their finger into how the magazine design will look... I hand them a pencil and a pad, and show them the door. Likewise, I feel MAAC should take a hard look at itself and say "We must have this, and that..." and simply tell all members this is how it's going to be. Why? What does Billy Joe pilot know about running MAAC? ok... don't stew on that too long. In reality, opening up the floor to everyone would bring back the Gold Wing with a trailer, side car, 600W Oscar lamps, 12 speaker surround sound, and then complain why it can't park on the front walkway, or get 4L/100km with the V12 engine. Anyone who has kids know better then to ask them what they want for dinner.

I think MAAC should look at the constitution and think about it for a while. We are all human, we're not perfect. If the constitution looks like it might need work, then so be it.

Marc, I think you have an accurate idea of what I'm talking about. Unbolting all the extra baggage to reveal a clean mean machine... can draw no criticism from any member. This will avoid MAAC paying a service to review staff cost/value. An adventure that should not have happened if everyone felt that MAAC wasn't involved in too many undefined things with it's money. True, all things are accounted for, there still leaves room for those who don't quite understand everything. This is another issue I wish to address later.

I'm very happy that everyone here is so active. All these issues are serious, and I find that if the ideas and material expressed in this discussion were given official consideration, then perhaps this media channel has more value then most have given it in the past. I now have much more confidence that MAAC has the potential in resolving the challenges we all share. A medium such as this also allows anyone to join, but inherently keeps "Billy Joe pilot" from demanding "MAAC should not do this... but should do that..." and all that implies.

The question remains: From what we share here, what can we do about it? I wish to give this "meeting" value, perhaps even a chance for impact.

(sorry for the edits... I can't spell with airplanes being tested in the background)

< Message edited by Drexus -- 4/16/2005 2:31:16 PM >

_____________________________

Ken Charron
Senior Product Designer

(in reply to Sharpy01)

Post #: 54

RE: MAAC membership reasonable? - 4/17/2005 12:29:22 AM

fledermaus

Posts: 222
Joined: 10/20/2003
From: Winnipeg, MB, CANADA
Status: offline

Like Drexus, I too welcome the serious and constructive tone that has taken over this thread. Let's keep it up.

Although I have suggested asking the membership what it wants, I agree fully with Drexus that you don't want the MAAC that would result from letting every "Billy Joe Pilot" put in whatever he/she wants. I've seen the Simpsons episode where Homer designs the "perfect" car too

.

Still, I notice that even Drexus allowed his client to come into the office and ask 1) for a magazine, not a book or a pamphlet and 2) glossy, not newsprint or parchment and 3) red and blue not pink and green or orange and yellow.

As I read this discussion, it appears to me that there are a few very clear points of discussion on which a simple poll could be built. Effective polls must address only a few very specific issues, with questions that can be answered either YES/NO or "on a scale of 1-9 where 1=strongly disagree and 9=strongly agree".

The results of such a poll should not be binding on the executive, but the results should definitely be published to the membership. If the organization chose to ignore or contradict a clearly expressed desire of the membership woe betide it (or woe betide US), but on the other hand we might well find a split on some issues that would require an act of leadership of the kind that Drexus is advocating.

Some people have asserted that the typical sport flyer is also the typical MAAC member and that this person (who we could call Billy Joe Pilot if you wish) is a MAAC member only because clubs require it for insurance purposes. This may be true, but nobody has anything except anecdotal evidence either for or against the assertion. I think probably those MAAC members who are into FAI probably also hang out with a lot of other competition-minded people, and to them MAAC looks quite different than it does from where I (for example) stand. That is one of the reasons I have been urging a serious poll of the membership - who are we and what kind of MAAC do we want?

The bottom line is, as Drexus also points out, that MAAC cannot finance all the activities that might fit within the constitution, or that might have been envisaged by those who drafted the constitution, or that current members might suggest that it should finance. No organization is capable of doing everything. As a relative newcomer to this particular organization, but who has a lot of experience with professional and voluntary organizations, I find the arguments that have been raging back and forth since I joined very familiar. How (or even whether) to adapt to the changing world is a question that is by no means limited to MAAC. The way it looked to me, a lot of the people who were flaming each other a while back were advocates of very specific visions of what MAAC "must" be - there were at least two definable hostile camps that I could perceive, but probably there were more.

Another thing I could see was that everyone believed strongly that they had the best interests of the organization at heart - and I think probably they did. But what I also noted was that some of the combatants seemed not to care that much whether their opinions were shared by the silent majority of MAAC members. That's why I suggested asking the membership. Some of the visions expressed during the flame wars were not as incompatible as the warriors may have thought, and if it turned out that a lot of other people agreed it might be very useful in helping MAAC adapt to the current realities of a litigious and overcrowded society.

Anyhow, I have to run to help prepare supper. I'll check back later to see what's going on in this thread. Keep up the discussion.

(in reply to Drexus)

Post #: 55

RE: MAAC membership reasonable? - 4/18/2005 4:28:14 PM

Jim_McIntyre

Posts: 2078
Joined: 4/5/2002
From: Claremont, ON, CANADA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sharpy01
You'll have to educate me on how Kyoto affects modelling.

Nothing specific but, I was "back-channeled" some discussion documents with a central theme of restrictions related to the recreational use of internal combustion engines.... Can you imagine having to retrofit our aircraft with some form of emission control device like a catalytic converter, or having to submit to some drive clean type requirement? Most discussion was related to personal watercraft, ATVs, motorcycles etc. but also strayed to smaller engines like gas powered leaf blowers etc....

I can't see these types of restrictions being imposed on an area like Muskoka where the chief source of income is tourism... but, this is the government we're talking about and stranger things have been legislated before.

_____________________________

http://scalebuilder.org

(in reply to Sharpy01)

Post #: 56

RE: MAAC membership reasonable? - 4/21/2005 3:17:20 AM

pipercubflyer

Posts: 4
Joined: 9/6/2002
From: Gainsborough, Sk., SK, CANADA
Status: offline

Getting back to the subject of this forum if I may........

when you add up all the expenses associated with this hobby over the course of a year from building the planes, plane fuel, travel, hotel rooms, meals, post flying hospitality, etc. the MAAC fee is likely ther least of all.

IMHO

(in reply to Jim_McIntyre)

Post #: 57

RE: MAAC membership reasonable? - 4/21/2005 1:14:01 PM

Jim_McIntyre

Posts: 2078
Joined: 4/5/2002
From: Claremont, ON, CANADA
Status: offline

Back to the subject?

Kyoto is on subject, for me, issues like this are one of the primary functions of MAAC ... representing our needs as a lobbyist organization. It's not just about the insurance as too many seem to believe.....

_____________________________

http://scalebuilder.org

(in reply to pipercubflyer)

Post #: 58

RE: MAAC membership reasonable? - 4/22/2005 4:58:38 AM

Sharpy01

Posts: 600
Joined: 9/9/2003
From: Kenora, ON, CANADA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim_McIntyre

Back to the subject?

Kyoto is on subject, for me, issues like this are one of the primary functions of MAAC ... representing our needs as a lobbyist organization. It's not just about the insurance as too many seem to believe.....

You won't get an argument from me on that and, believe it or not, I doubt you would even get an argument from Kenair on that point ............

Certainly, Insurance is a prime function as well, but depending on how you look at things.......ie: "chicken before the egg.." or the other way around, insurance is useless if the government is stopping you from flying.

Call it what you will, lobbying, watchdogging, maintaining communication lines....................MAAC must put this stuff at the head of the pack of priorities. Members have to realize you cannot count on the government to do what is right, or common sense. As a matter of fact, you better assume the opposite and keep on top of things.

(in reply to Jim_McIntyre)

Post #: 59

RE: MAAC membership reasonable? - 4/22/2005 7:40:18 PM

can773

Posts: 1643
Joined: 1/25/2002
From: Calgary, AB, CANADA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim_McIntyre

Nothing specific but, I was "back-channeled" some discussion documents with a central theme of restrictions related to the recreational use of internal combustion engines.... Can you imagine having to retrofit our aircraft with some form of emission control device like a catalytic converter, or having to submit to some drive clean type requirement? Most discussion was related to personal watercraft, ATVs, motorcycles etc. but also strayed to smaller engines like gas powered leaf blowers etc....
I can't see these types of restrictions being imposed on an area like Muskoka where the chief source of income is tourism... but, this is the government we're talking about and stranger things have been legislated before.

Simple solution to that problem...fly electric

I heard about what you are referring to about 5 or 6 years ago...obviously things move slowly.

< Message edited by can773 -- 4/22/2005 7:41:19 PM >

_____________________________

Chad Northeast

(in reply to Jim_McIntyre)

Post #: 60

RE: MAAC membership reasonable? - 4/22/2005 8:17:12 PM

Jim_McIntyre

Posts: 2078
Joined: 4/5/2002
From: Claremont, ON, CANADA
Status: offline

Slow but steady, that way you maximise benefit from the short attention span of the public.....

I do fly electric ... it's just not a substitue for gas.... and it's no less polluting to the environment, the pollution is just less direct ( and less obvious to the general public).

_____________________________

http://scalebuilder.org

(in reply to can773)

Post #: 61

RE: MAAC membership reasonable? - 4/22/2005 11:19:53 PM

can773

Posts: 1643
Joined: 1/25/2002
From: Calgary, AB, CANADA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim_McIntyre

... it's just not a substitue for gas....

Soon dude...soon :-) When you see the systems we are using fly (unless you already have) you may change your mind :-)

Quieter, more powerful, less maintenance and equal flight times as my YS 160DZ....and as the batteries become a little more improved not any different in cost (glow that is)...they are almost there :-)

Its a cool time to be in this hobby.

_____________________________

Chad Northeast

(in reply to Jim_McIntyre)