Annex rules proposals

Mon Dec 9 12:02:18 AKST 2002

Eric,

Very good note.

I think this online group tends to go off very easily....They take things to an extreme and start slamming people.....In fact we have even had instances where comments were made to specific individuals that were not right and down right mean and cruel...

I think what the group needs to understand is that red tape is what happens when working inside groups. The AMA I guess sees that the proposal that was submitted for an Annex was incomplete...and that a revised version be done....This is good for you to have this interface with AMA and in my opinion that's the presidents job and duty...Thanks you for that.

As for the Annex I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I don't want the annex. I feel that the Rules Survey supports that we don't need it....

The reason Every question regarding how often the rules need to be changed was voted as 3 yrs to be the winner......

Well guess what folks 3 yrs is what we have now!

Also having viewed the IMAC process over the last few years its not perfect.....In fact I think its lousy....

#1  The sequences don't build skills they just change...and get more maneuvers as you climb the ranks. We worked very hard to make our sequences grow the skills of the pilot not just give a longer laundry list to perform.

#2  The changing every year of the sequences or often changing of the sequences doesn't provide a good benchmark in the pilots assessment of his skills. Currently here in the Colorado area we have some guys flying in classes well above their skill level...The reason is there was no competition in the same class so I moved up to get some....The result has been a very wide gap in the proficiency of the pilot. Take the top class in Pattern Masters or F3A and compare the pilots skill to the average advanced or Unlimited IMAC pilot and at least locally the degree of perfection is lower....Not saying that the IMAC flyers are not as good of flyers just that the achievement of perfection in the sequence is lower.....There are two main reasons in my opinion for this...as stated in #1 the skill building...and secondly the changing in sequences is every year and pilot doesn't get the chance to perfect the skills in the current schedule then must move on to a new schedule.....

#3 as addressed in Eric's note the Who is going to design the sequences and maintain them?   The NSRCA Board?  Come on I've been on the Board and there are the same issues within the board picking the sequences as having this list design them....Just my opinion.

#4  If the current system is in place as it is now then a motivated individual can rally support and get a sequence submitted with other flyers support to change the sequence. This was road I chose with our individual submission of a choice for the 2005 Masters sequence....

#5  We just changed things.....We have not had a good feel for what the changes accomplished on the last rules cycle we have only flown them for 1 year...and before that year was over we are wanting the permission to change them again....I don't think this portrays us as a responsible group that has proven we are in control of the situation.

IMAC is not a perfect situation. They have grown very fast in a short time and have become very aware that the growing pains sometimes hurt. I also think that in the future the changes we see in IMAC will become less and less and the stability will come with time.....In pattern we already have a huge amount of stability.  I can travel from sea to shinning sea and get the same quality of judging and adherence to the rules as I can locally. This is not the case in IMAC the rules have changed so frequently and localities have their own ways of doing it and you don't get the same types of flying performance of even the same judging criteria across the country.  
This in my opinion is a strong asset to both the AMA and the NSRCA......I'm not ready to toss this stability out in the sake of change. Imac is not a perfect world and the decline in pattern numbers is not because of IMAC stealing our flyers as some suggest or believe.

A wise man once told me  "Never change for the Sake of Change. It breeds instability."

I think that the current system is good. If any Annex is to be in place I would hope there would some sort of checks and balances in place so that a screw ball can't just get things changed to fit his desires. Currently the AMA funds and supports the Contest Board. This group is dedicated and is in touch with the pattern community I know there are some old heads that have not flown in years but I also some of them personally and they have pattern in their interest and they also want your feedback as to which way to vote.

I think that we as the NSRCA have a lot to offer our sister group (IMAC) and I think that the IMAC folks have much to offer us. Look AMA sees us as two groups doing the same thing. The same contest Board oversees the rules of both SIGS. Maybe we start helping and working with the IMAC folks....In my opinion these tough times call for alliances and friends and not making enemies of the AMA, IMAC or both! The IMAC guys are mad at pattern guys because in their eyes we have tried to make them follow our rules.....We are mad at those guys because when they didn't like the rules they took their marbles and went home. I personally think that both groups are struggling and we need a peacemaker between the two. I think it would help both groups out to form into one big voice on RC aerobatics. The rules and judging criteria are most surely different and should be that way.  But as Eric has stated before Aerobatics is Aerobatics....and we need to work together through our problems.

Conclusion I think that the slow and tedious process of the current rules cycle is a good thing. It makes for a stable platform for changes to be made. The changes happen slow and hence the results both good and bad happen slowly too. This is a bonus. In some cases quick action is needed. IMAC is in that boat now. They need quick action and have gotten a little more freedom to make those changes. I think the board and the AMA sees the need for this quick action and has let the group stumble and fall as well as succeed in many areas.  

I don't see the Pattern group in need of such quick changes and reactions. We are stable and that's good. IMAC will become more stable over time....it will have too. Stability encourages participation...The reason is the guy that has something come up for a year or two can come back and pick up where he left off. He is not intimidated and doesn't have to start over. I think over time the AMA will reel back in some of the freedom and drive the IMAC sig to be more of a stable platform also.

I'm not an AMA advocate...Personally I think they are not at all responsive to the membership and to competition yet they hold the competition over our heads. I have many words about the AMA the level of responsibility the AMA takes in the NATS to make sure it is done properly and correctly. But as with all finger pointing there are more coming back to us the NSRCA.

This not a slam on anybody or any group. Just my opinions on the situation.

Troy

----- Original Message -----
From: Henderson,Eric
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 10:18 AM
To: Henderson,Eric; 'discussion at nsrca.org'
Subject: RE: Annex rules proposals

-----Original Message-----
From: Henderson,Eric  
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 12:11 PM
To: 'discussion at nsrca.org'
Subject: Annex rules proposals

Before you all "go off!" on could ask you all to take a moment to read the following  

I spoke with the AMA on this subject.
............Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20021209/d10830aa/attachment.html