logo
View Poll Results: Current IMAC Leadership is?
Leading 13 24.07%
Following 10 18.52%
In the way 31 57.41%
Voters: 54. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Old 07-24-2018, 08:58 AM
Jason T is offline
Find More Posts by Jason T
Registered User
Canada, ON, Sudbury
Joined Sep 2015
217 Posts
[QUOTE=Free Bird;2750533]Here’s my take. I joined IMAC a few years ago and started in basic. While there was a lot of help, those that flew basic were treated as second class citizens. So the next year I move up to Sportsman, treatment wasn’t much better. Very disappointed.

Great post. I think it is all in the attitude and the group you fly with. I think some people take it a little too serious, thus sucking the life and fun out of it especially for the lower classes.
My #1 goal when I go to practice for an event is to have fun. If i am not having fun because of pressure, or the attitude of the people calling or "helping me" then im not interested.
Im lucky, the guys i fly with are a great group.
I've taken my wife out the last couple times to practice and she called for me, just for the fun of it. Yea i may have botched some maneuvers, and she may call a snap a "triangle thingy" and a roll a "long arrow" LOL but man, how refreshing and FUN just to fly, laugh, make mistakes, and joke about it..
Jason T is offline Find More Posts by Jason T
Last edited by Jason T; 07-24-2018 at 09:58 AM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old 07-24-2018, 09:22 AM
columbo is offline
Find More Posts by columbo
IMAC
columbo's Avatar
United States, OK, Norman
Joined Jan 2006
958 Posts
I have a different take on things. Like any other organization, IMAC isn't perfect. However, I personally have not experienced some of the things posted such as treatment of basic pilots as second class. When I was in basic I felt very welcome. Now several years later, I always see the basic pilots treated with upmost respect by the upperclassmen in my region (SC). We are always trying to recruit new pilots. Is IMAC slow to change? Maybe, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. There has to be a balance between needing to change some things and maintaining the essence of the sport. My overall experience in the 6 years I have been in IMAC has been very positive, and I will probably have bored myself with RC by now if it were not for the challenge and discipline IMAC brings and the good friends I have made along the way.
columbo is offline Find More Posts by columbo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-24-2018, 10:09 AM
exeter_acres is offline
Find More Posts by exeter_acres
tap....tap.tap... is this on?
exeter_acres's Avatar
Johns Creek, GA
Joined Jan 2006
8,608 Posts
I'm going to not say much, but I will respond to these



-Marketing committee that is in gridlock with little production in almost two years

It is sad when members of a marketing committee are some of the most Anti-IMAC people in the forums.....or at least their posts come across as such


-A sequence committee where few do all the work of all

It doesn't help when a VERY invloved Member who continually wrote sequences and was the librarian responsible for distributing the unknowns for about 50 of the 52 weeks in the year... Is simply kicked off the committee and access to forums limited simply because I spoke out about some questionable leadership decisions by the BOD...
So, based on this and many other short sighted decisions with little or no vision, I have moved on and am very sadly no longer a member.

and
as for this:
Just to clarify there are currently 626 members. 488 US, 138 Canadian/International. I put the chart together at the beginning of every year and try to mathematically predict what the number will be next Jan. So to date IMAC has lost 13 members from 639 to 626 . 485 was the mathematical prediction based on the historical curve you see as the last entry at bottom of chart. Will it be 485 come Jan 1? I hope not.


What was the membership in 2014 before this current board?
exeter_acres is offline Find More Posts by exeter_acres
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-24-2018, 10:45 AM
wmat7039 is offline
Find More Posts by wmat7039
SILVER FOX
wmat7039's Avatar
Acworth GA
Joined Jan 2006
2,289 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by exeter_acres View Post
What was the membership in 2014 before this current board?
If my memory serves me correct, when you and I demitted office in December 2014 the membership count was 861.


I have been corrected on the number by an actual record. The number of members in December 2014 was 901. That is 40 more than I had mentioned above.
wmat7039 is offline Find More Posts by wmat7039
Last edited by wmat7039; 07-26-2018 at 10:49 AM. Reason: Updated the actual number of members.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-24-2018, 11:26 AM
The Dirt Doctor is offline
Find More Posts by The Dirt Doctor
Registered User
Vicksburg, MS
Joined Nov 2006
2,368 Posts
Yes, it appears that something drastic is happening (happened) as that is a large drop in membership in a relatively short time!
The Dirt Doctor is offline Find More Posts by The Dirt Doctor
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-24-2018, 11:29 AM
exeter_acres is offline
Find More Posts by exeter_acres
tap....tap.tap... is this on?
exeter_acres's Avatar
Johns Creek, GA
Joined Jan 2006
8,608 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmat7039 View Post
If my memory serves me correct, when you and I demitted office in December 2014 the membership count was 861.
Thank you... I thought at one time right around then it was over 1000 worldwide... but thank you
exeter_acres is offline Find More Posts by exeter_acres
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-24-2018, 11:47 AM
Dozer Blade is offline
Find More Posts by Dozer Blade
Yeah~ try the other left
Dozer Blade's Avatar
Joined Apr 2008
153 Posts
Yes, I believe that is very close. The chart I put together in post#1 was official data from IMAC treasurer. Notice that the long term trend (blue dashes) nearly matches the actual membership (blue line - dot) then plummets to 639 members two years later in 2016. I knew we were in trouble then because we had crossed below the long term trend. See red circle below.
Why perhaps?
- I think one of several possibilities is that the "free Memberships" that 2014 Worlds competitors received ran out after 2015 and many did not re-up after that point. Just a guess. The webmaster and treasure have the data. Why not somebody from "marketing committee" get this and put together some "actionable data" instead of endless armchair debate? If your on BOD why not exercise some actual leadership quality and task the committee you appointed to put together REAL NUMBERS?- then move FORWARD!

There's no dishonor in making a good decision based on the best information available.
Dozer Blade is offline Find More Posts by Dozer Blade
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-24-2018, 12:25 PM
wmat7039 is offline
Find More Posts by wmat7039
SILVER FOX
wmat7039's Avatar
Acworth GA
Joined Jan 2006
2,289 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dozer Blade View Post
Yes, I believe that is very close. The chart I put together in post#1 was official data from IMAC treasurer. Notice that the long term trend (blue dashes) nearly matches the actual membership (blue line - dot) then plummets to 639 members two years later in 2016. I knew we were in trouble then because we had crossed below the long term trend. See red circle below.
Why perhaps?
- I think one of several possibilities is that the "free Memberships" that 2014 Worlds competitors received ran out after 2015 and many did not re-up after that point. Just a guess. The webmaster and treasure have the data. Why not somebody from "marketing committee" get this and put together some "actionable data" instead of endless armchair debate? If your on BOD why not exercise some actual leadership quality and task the committee you appointed to put together REAL NUMBERS?- then move FORWARD!

There's no dishonor in making a good decision based on the best information available.
Hi Ron... I don't want to be critical of anyone. I needed to clarify what is posted above, regarding "free membership."

In actuality, the entry fee for the 2014 Worlds was $320.00. This included the $20.00 membership fee that was applicable in 2014. Those participants who were already members had the year added to their membership. We needed to have ALL participants as paying members of the organization.

Two years ago, (in 2016) I started a thread in the membership forum which shed some light on the serious drop in membership and I was vilified for it and made "persona non grata" in certain circles. However, the facts speak for themselves. We can choose to see or not to see! The choice is yours to make.

Just like Curtis, I've moved on..... for me, to turbines & I'm certainly enjoying it...with the added embellishment of still being able to compete in the FAI's F3S Jet competition.

For IMAC to move positively forward, the organization needs vision! Whether that exists or not, is in the eyes of the beholder.
W
wmat7039 is offline Find More Posts by wmat7039
Last edited by wmat7039; 07-24-2018 at 12:41 PM. Reason: Correction
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-24-2018, 12:49 PM
Dozer Blade is offline
Find More Posts by Dozer Blade
Yeah~ try the other left
Dozer Blade's Avatar
Joined Apr 2008
153 Posts
Thank you for explaining that Wayne! I didn't get that out right. The 2014 Worlds easily had a positive economic impact on the organization. Was proud to be part of it and the friendships I made there. Just trying to understand why we (me included) could not build or maintain that membership after your leadership.
Dozer Blade is offline Find More Posts by Dozer Blade
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-24-2018, 02:14 PM
eheliflyer is offline
Find More Posts by eheliflyer
TEAM FUTABA
eheliflyer's Avatar
Mansfield Oh
Joined May 2006
1,464 Posts
Curtis,
I am not anti IMAC, just anti stagnant BOD. The unwillingness to make changes is not helping the organization. When you are having discussions on the forums on issues like sound and sequence footprint and my suggestion is to bring back and enforce the aerobatic box is met with “maybe you should go fly Pattern “ by a prominent IMAC member. It’s comments like these that drive people away, but I have continued to pay my dues since I stepped away from flying IMAC on a regular basis, as it stands right now this may be my last. I will thank you for all of your efforts over the years, seems like you were on a fishing expedition. To be fair, some of your less than helpful condescending remarks in the forums over the years have not helped the organization move forward either.
As far as actionable data and the membership committee. It has been brought up on more than one occasion that we need to reach out to non members and past members to find out why they are not involved or stopped being involved in IMAC. I think Curtis and I can agree that the BOD has something to do with the past members....
eheliflyer is offline Find More Posts by eheliflyer
Last edited by eheliflyer; 07-24-2018 at 03:55 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-24-2018, 04:06 PM
Cryhavoc38 is offline
Find More Posts by Cryhavoc38
Living the dream
Cryhavoc38's Avatar
United States, WA, Woodinville
Joined Oct 2007
6,508 Posts
someone remind me..

When did IMAC do away with the box if there was one originally.

I got in back in 2011, and then out after 2013 so I am not fully versed on the history/changes pre 2011
Cryhavoc38 is offline Find More Posts by Cryhavoc38
Last edited by Cryhavoc38; 07-24-2018 at 04:27 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-24-2018, 04:46 PM
wmat7039 is offline
Find More Posts by wmat7039
SILVER FOX
wmat7039's Avatar
Acworth GA
Joined Jan 2006
2,289 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cryhavoc38 View Post
someone remind me..

When did IMAC do away with the box if there was one originally.

I got in back in 2011, and then out after 2013 so I am not fully versed on the history/changes pre 2011
The Airspace control score came into effect in 2007...so the last year that the box was flown was 2006. In 2006 the box was 2000ft wide and 1000ft deep, a rectangular box.


Prior to that we had an angled box 150 degrees at the front......and even further back in the past, we had a 120 degree box.

Wayne
wmat7039 is offline Find More Posts by wmat7039
Last edited by wmat7039; 07-24-2018 at 04:55 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-24-2018, 05:01 PM
wmat7039 is offline
Find More Posts by wmat7039
SILVER FOX
wmat7039's Avatar
Acworth GA
Joined Jan 2006
2,289 Posts
Back in 2004, we also had an altitude limit. It was judged as 60 degrees from the pilots station and there was a minimum altitude of 20 feet.
W
wmat7039 is offline Find More Posts by wmat7039
Last edited by wmat7039; 07-24-2018 at 05:06 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-24-2018, 05:59 PM
Cryhavoc38 is offline
Find More Posts by Cryhavoc38
Living the dream
Cryhavoc38's Avatar
United States, WA, Woodinville
Joined Oct 2007
6,508 Posts
and the box was eliminated due to what?
Planes become too large?
Fly slow fly big become more prevalent?
Cryhavoc38 is offline Find More Posts by Cryhavoc38
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 07-24-2018, 06:08 PM
wmat7039 is offline
Find More Posts by wmat7039
SILVER FOX
wmat7039's Avatar
Acworth GA
Joined Jan 2006
2,289 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cryhavoc38 View Post
and the box was eliminated due to what?
Planes become too large?
Fly slow fly big become more prevalent?
that question can be answered by the “higher ups” of that time period.

http://www.mini-iac.org/Information/IMAC-Hall-of-Fame

The planes were getting bigger, engine noise started to become an issue and in trying to spearhead a GPS controlled environment, experiments were done to see how an airspace could be delineated. This was when GPS tracking was in its infancy as compared to today.

But all of this “history” is now nowhere to be found as there was no continuity of previous information carried forward onto the new website. It was almost as if everything was being started from scratch.
W
wmat7039 is offline Find More Posts by wmat7039
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message


Quick Reply
Message:


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools