can773

My Feedback: (1)

Ken

There is the little feature in the posting page called spell check......you should use it.

Also a few capitals and correct grammer would make your jibborish a lot easier to read.

Jim_McIntyre

C'mon Chad, it's not sporting to pick on the reality challenged.

jhelps

Jim

Just for arguments sake IF (and not for a moment do I think it would occur) enough members mounted a challenge and changed the constitution would you express your discontent with the situation at every opportunity or simply quietly accept the decision? My point is that I believe that people should be able to voice whatever issue they have and let the masses decide. At the end of the day no matter how hard you try there will always be unhappy folks with any organization.

One of the biggest myths on this site is that things said here will have influence on the future of MAAC (One post on that subject was that we are giving MAAC and Canadian modelling a black eye) and yet it is very simple to see the number of times a post is viewed. This thread, which is fairly controversial has only been viewed ~ 600 times and I would suggest that it is mostly the same small number of folks who simply view it many times a day (I check around 6 or 7) that are racking up that number, hardly likely to influence 13000 members.

I for one think that IF folks get royally upset with paying a measly 75 bucks a year and truely never want to fly at a nearby field or compete internationally, then there will be a move towards an insurance only organization which will probably need around 50 bucks a year per member to operate - let the revolution begin.

I will leave comments on the accuracy of information posted here alone.

You already know my thoughts on good governance.

cheers

Jeff

DP01

My Feedback: (1)

Chad:

I can't help myself!

Heed thy own advice…

"gib·ber·ish"

Dennis

Jim_McIntyre

I conced, I would be shouting at every opportunity necessary if I felt my liberties were being squashed ... which is not the case here.
My point is; I would not be posting intentional mistruths and innuendo to make my points.... [>:]

A PC choice...

can773

My Feedback: (1)

Thats eastern Canadian spelling :-)

jhelps

Personally I believe little of what I read anywhere (newspapers included), and I would hope that most folks have fairly highly tuned BS detectors (although if they did there would be no audience for conspiracy theorists), especially when a source is repeatedly shown to be disreputable.

JH

Ed Smith

No, that is real English actually.


Ed S

DSLarkin

Regarding Ken K's concern over MAAC's ACC fees, I fail to follow his logic. Is he saying that because our planes are one fifth the size of full size planes we should in total pay five times less?

He has also suggested that the total should be based on our total of 'FAI competitors'. Bearing in mind that the other aerosport associations have a similar structure of FAI competitor, competitor and non-competitor, that might not do us much good. Modellers are the major user of FAI services and we attend world championships every year in a number of different disciplines, at least fourteen, half of which are run each year. The full size enthusiast compete in only one discipline, every other year.

Remember that we have to negotiate our fees with the other aerosport enthusiasts, many of whom have a background in aeromodelling. So how have we done this?

First let's set the scene:
The Aero Club of Canada is made up mostly of aeromodellers - MAAC is 75% of the ACC. There are five other associations, the biggest of which has about 1900 members against our 13,000.

A formula has been developed which essentially reduces the fee per capita proportionally. There is a fixed starting amount, then the per capita charge reduces for the bigger associations. The result of this is that the 1.5% of their membership that MAAC members pay towards the Aero Club is in real money per capita one third the amount paid by the next largest group and nearly one twentieth the amount paid by the smallest group.

Many of the 'full size' enthusiasts would really like everybody in the Aero Club to pay the same amount, per capita. But they have become prepared to accept the current sliding scale rather than lose MAAC's input altogether.

The current formula was developed by modellers and approved by the MAAC Board. Let's not imperil the agreement.

In summary:

We pay more (as an association, but not per capita) because we comprise 75% of the Aero Club's membership and because we are the major user of FAI services.

We pay less, per capita, because we are the biggest proportion of the membership. How much do we pay, per capita, per year? A little over a dollar.

Let's not broadcast deliberately misleading statistics.

jhelps

Unfortunately it has been my experience that that statement is usually oxymoronic (or should that be redundant)

JH

Sharpy01

My Feedback: (12)

..................snore.

Bottom line;

If it becomes a large enough issue someday and MAAC is still around, and enough are motivated to tackle the issue, there are provisions within the system for making constitutional change.

If you truely believe in the constitution and a major change is made within the rule books, then regardless of which side you were on, you would accept democratic rule and move on or begin the process in reverse. If you can't accept that, then you shouldn't be playing the constitution card in the first place.

If you look at the provision from a business standpoint, it likely isn't very smart having the ACC membership embedded within the constitution for the very reason the whole kerfluffle centred last time around..................It was money. If one looks at a worst case scenario, and the FAI decides one year to raise ACC membership by some outlandish number.....................the ACC will have to do in kind to survive and MAAC could be left in the o'l catch 22 where you are bound by the constitution to buy the next round, but might not be able to belly up to the bar because you don't have the coin?

Jim_McIntyre

Here Kenny, I'll refund your dollar if you'd just clam up... don't spend it all in one place now....[sm=bananahead.gif]

And I though us Scots were cheap.

kenair

My Feedback: (10)

for a buck no way, it's to much fun listening to the FAI bunk on how fai this and fai that, even the Mr. Larkin droning on about the ACC and constitutional obligations and how trips to the salt mines benefit aeromodelling in maac is entertaining, too bad maac does not have a posting for maac fai senators, Mr. Larkin would be perfect fit.

If there was 1 fai competitor in maac from the 13,000 maac senator larkin would still be out there waving the ACC flag and encouraging us to send more funds to the ACC for our constitutional obligations, the fai acc types are so funny.

heck even our Chad is now using E power that was speaheaded by sport flyers flying E powers many years before it found it's way into FAI pattern but I bet Mr. Larkin will say E power is another FAI modeler invention, too funny!

see you later.

Jim_McIntyre

<SARCASM>
Ah... the sport flyers .. yes, they really pushed the envelope and showed those FAI - F5 (electric) class flyers a thing or two about E power.
<?SARCASM>

Ken, you really should take the time to get your facts straight before posting your gibberish.[sm=bananahead.gif]

DSLarkin

Vintage Sharp: If you can't win an argument - be rude about it and switch subjects! I would fear I wasn't on the right track if I didn't get an insult from the good Marc. My point was to rebut Kalynuk's contention that MAAC was unfairly charged ad you haven't gone near that.

I never raised the constitutional issue. However MAAC, as a national organisation, has a responsibilty to provide for competition in general and to make it possible for Canadians (if qualified and selected) to represent their country in international competition. MAAC is an inclusive organisation. Sharp and Kalynuk would prefer an organisation which excludes those parts of modelling that don't interest them. They are welcome to found such an organisation.

There have been two attempts, one in the US and one in the UK to found organisations that excluded competition. It is no accident that both failed. An organisation based on apathy is about as likely to succeed as an organisation to promote procrastination.

Sharp says the ACC gerfuffle was about money. In a way it was, but it was more about good governance and working out solutions. With 75% of the ACC membership and the largest voting block on the ACC Board, MAAC should have been working towards a solution, and it wasn't. The amount of money at stake was around $5,000 and the MAAC President and past-Presisdent were prepared to waste (and did) nearly three times that much to avoid spending it. Did Kalynuk vote for this, I wonder?

As for the argument that the FAI might raise the 'ACC fees", this would mean raising all the national fees and would be bound to encounter serious opposition from most if not all countries. In fact, the opposite has happened: Canada, through the ACC, worked out fairer formulae and our fees have dropped. To give honour where due, Bob Clipsham did most of the work, and at his own expense.

ronnieo1

Don't you just love to listen to those two patronizers? If it don't go my way...here's a parting last comment....and get lost!!
We're use to them now. Funny how they didn't condemn the NATS 2005...the full seed money was paid back and some extra funds were made this year...and it was successful....nothing to see or talk about here..please move on...tweet, tweet.

kenair

My Feedback: (10)

We have moved from obligation to responsibility.

Where was Dave's reponsibilty to work with the rest of the board on the ACC issue, instead Dave started his campaign to undermine the board and the prez.

Where does maac resposibility to provide flying sites, frequencies, safety, insurance, magazine fall in the list of priorities.

The cash sunk into ACC could have developed a nice flying site fund to help clubs acquire owned flying sites but I suppose maac has no responsbility on that as flying sites is not in the constitution.

Sorry Jim, I have seen many sport flyers boring hoels in the sky with high output brushless E motors long before the pattern guys jumped in, just debunking another myth of yours and Dave's.

Rather that provide a solid case for acc /fai we now says it's maac responsibility - how funny and sad!

can773

My Feedback: (1)

Once again Ken, you are being naive

Yes there are....but you don't see what is behind the scenes and what is coming as a direct result of pattern fliers and other competitors using the electric power systems pushing them to their limits.....

Plettenberg has two motors currently in development, one is specifically designed around my suggestions and setup used in France and I will be the first to test it.....

The controllers we are using are now different with full proportional breaks on them, TP has developed all its very high discharge, light weight (15C and up Prolite cells) packs specifically for competition. The battery packs you use tomorrow are being used by competitors today.

What the sport guys have DOES NOT CUT THE MUSTARD for competitors at events like the Worlds, it will get better and improve based on what we do and that will eventually filter down the line.

Ask around your local E fliers and find out how many are running setups that put out over 2.5 kW of power, these setups are in a totally different league from a foamy.

Sharpy01

My Feedback: (12)

Vintage politics Dave...

There wasn't any rudeness. Just a statement:

The provision for change is there.

Save your attack Davey, I don't have intentions of trying to change ACC affiliation.......never have. As a matter of fact, I pulled a couple of zone recommendations at an AGM after Jack Humphreys provided some answers related to the FAI organization. Just because Dave Larkin likes the way things are, doesn't mean changes and new ways of doing business can't be discussed or explored. It's amazing how toy airplane politics can parallel the real thing. Examining matters related to FAI in MAAC is simlar to examining Health Care in Canada. Those who benefit the most from the system cry the sky will fall and go on the attack if anyone dares to explore new ways of doing business. Prevents any honest discussion as the focus switches to personalities, instead of issues.

Again, for the record, Marc Sharpe is not against any form of competition. Provided the opportunity....time....and resources, I would likely get involved myself. However, aeromodelling is a hobby for me and is only enjoyed after I've managed to complete my real world tasks. However, I still don't think having ACC affiliation entrenched in the constitution is a smart business thing to do........ I understand your funding formula and I'm glad to hear that strides are being made to improve it, but nobody can foresee the future.. (most anyway) ... and the provision has the potential of tying our hands at some point.

It is ok for others to have an opinion that is different from yours.

DSLarkin

I worked with the MAAC Board every inch of the way and they were kept fully informed, approving the solution when it was provided to them. I have all the correspondence. Three other Board members were particularly closely involved and very helpful - Ken Jones (Middle Zone), Neil Tinker (SE Zone) and Ray Brosinski (Alberta). Nobody on the rest of the Board was doing any work at all on the ACC issue. There was no campaign to undermine the MAAC President, though there were people who called for his resignation. I stayed away from any initiative to ask for Rick Reid to resign. And Rick Reid served out his second term and didn't stand for re-election. Did you do anything at all to solve the ACC issue? Of course not - you wanted out of the ACC.

Weren't you faced with an Emergency Zone Meeting for your behaviour and had to resign as Zone Director?

I believe a similar EZM was about to be called for the SW Zone, but became unnecessary after the ZD resigned. I'm not sure of the details and stand to be corrected by Gerry Shaw, who was the replacement ZD.

The Middle Zone did hold an EZM on Feb 3rd, 96 and passed resolutions calling for the Board to rescind their decision to resign from the ACC and to get MAAC re-instated as soon as possible.

After the 96 AZMs there were 10 new Zone Directors in MAAC. Better governance was implemented. For example MAAC now required proper tendering for contracts resulting in the saving of scores of thousands of dollars, particularly on the magazine.

Kindly stick to the facts, dull though they may be.

Sharpy01

My Feedback: (12)

Funny, we've discussed better governance on a regular basis here and it's something I did push hard for, but on a general basis while on the board. Difference was, I was demanding better governance across the board for all issues.............not just the ones that directly affected me.

We would seem to have been interested in the same things, but couldn't connect? Is it because I wouldn't exclude the FAI/ACC issues from the discussions?

kenair

My Feedback: (10)

Dave, your view of things is again distorted, as usual.

I never ran from zone director, at that 1995 zone meeting no one else stepped up to do the job, so I volunteered as did two other individuals for assistant zone rep. We did a great job, the first ever zone safety forum with well produced zone safety manual, a scale forum at the air museum withclose to 100 participants and a scael contest with 60 pilots registered, then
your behind the scene undermining tactics were in full swing, and we all quit, rather that put up with that type of bs.

Now instead of organizing events, we are flying.

I may remind you that at the MAAC AGM in Montreal, you ran for prez, then vp and then again a seat on the executive, all three times the majority of your peers on the voted against you becuse Dave you were not a team player and pushed your agenda at all costs.

What you have done was put all ACC / FAI activity under the closest scrutiny and raised the awarness on MAAC members on spending in these areas.

Prior to this, has a maac sponsored world championship lost $60K, no one would have known, now in part thanks to you, the membership is better informed.

Jim_McIntyre

Wrong again Kenny, F5 is definitely not pattern:
And if you saw these fly..... well ... you just have to see the performance to realize just how far the the technology has been pushed.

I imagine a younger, more naive li'l Kenny witnessing some sport flyer buzzing around on e-power some years ago, coming to the conclusion that since it was the first he'd seen such a thing, this person must have invented it, after all, l'il Kenny does live at the hub of all RC progress and is well informed on all comings and goings in the field of RC....

Imagination is a wonderful thing Kenny ... but it's a poor substitute for truth.

Jim_McIntyre

Here we go again .... should we talk about a certain Nats in your zone that lost a pile of money too?

Must you continuously beat these dead horses?

I've attended many large events that lost money for whatever reason ... weather, theft, unforseen costs etc. etc. These same events made sizeeable profits in other years. It's called risk. You either accept it (and attempt to mitigate it) or you live a pretty mundane life.

Sure, I enjoy the occasional loosly organized social funfly but, if all I was doing was poking holes in the sky, scarfing tube steaks and chats around the picnic tables, the BS/content ratio of these chats would soon exceed even my high tolerance. Sometimes, yuoi just gotta take chances and live a little.

can773

My Feedback: (1)

I will be at the F5D trials in a couple of weeks to check out the boys new toys Unreal performance though 100+ amps I always bug them that their props can fit in my spinner