Nobody is suggesting any of this, nor is it likely for any of the above to come true. For one thing, it's transport Canada we need to keep on side. They ultimately govern what we do and really don't care about the different interests within. They only want someone to look after the toys so they don't have to.
You know as well as I that the very few FAI competitors that you allude to need the numbers to make things work and pay the bills. If MAAC folded, so does the ACC because they need us ................. and then what?
Transport Canada.....you really think they will have anything to do with an organization that is not affiliated with the international governing body of model aviation? This is the government we speak of....lobby them as an unofficialy non-affiliated entity and I am sure you can imagine the results you will get.
As for the ACC folding, again it will not as its required. Thats the one thing about necessity, it keeps things operating....the analogy can apply to MAAC...insurance is a necessity so MAAC survives....well for some (not just modellers) Canada's affiliation with the FAI is a necessity...it will continue in some form or another.
The ACC does not need MAAC, the ACC (or whatever its name would become) needs people who want to compete internationally.....of which there will always be.
good, the sooner the better, but we ain't there yet and just try and force everyone to discard their old systems quickly. We are still seeing wide-band stuff out there.............you must be realistic.
No you cant force people to do anything, yes there is still wide band stuff around which is pre 1991 (thats 14 years old) which is sad. However to spend time and energy protecting something that doesnt need protecting is pointless. Will we be there tomorrow...no, next year, no....in 5 years probably closer...
Eventually frequencies will be a non-issue....
maybe some day, but hopefully not soon. The absolute VAST majority do fly safe already or we would have had more accidents. The second payer will only add another layer of complication in the event of an accident.
Indeed, but I would bet a couple bucks that it will happen to keep costs reasonable.
Fields essentially come down to each individual club. It would be nice to have some major program for assistance, but it's not likely. That's one I have to conceed. However, that does not mean you ignore those clubs and create unecessary restrictive rules that make it difficult to keep or get a new field. It goes back to insurance because most depend on on it to keep what they have.
Agreement...how odd
-Maintaining close Government contact (RABC, Transport Can.)
I have still never really heard a good reason why this is nescessary? If I recall correctly you were against giving TC an updated definition of "model airplane" or some such?
MAAC, "the Administrative/Board Animal", that is, is not going to get more members interested in any particular interest area. It's not going to get you more pattern or scale flyers. That is YOUR job. If you cannot attract more interest in your specialty areas, don't look to the "government"(aka MAAC) to do it for you. If your area of interst dies out, look to evolution of the hobby or at yourself for not bringing more interest in.
Your losing me here....how are the SIG's asking MAAC to feed their SIG?
I dont recall my SIG (pattern) asking anything of MAAC.....in fact we ran a number of SIG Nats with nothing but our own effort. I think you are painting the many with the crimes of a few.
None of that politically correct bites about "foster and enhance", "formed by competitors for competitors".. bla, bla.... that means zip. It may sound very nice and official, but it means zip to most.
Regardless, it is the history of the organization and is why it was formed....the statements are fact and cannot be disputed. My point was that in history competitors created an organization for themselves...if the MAAC of today were to "turn its back to competition" then competitors would almost certainly form an organization for their own interests.