Annex rules proposals

[Thomas C. Weedon]

I thought more of you would have read Troy Newman's reply to the list. He
has made some very good points that are worthy of your consideration.
Therefore I am resubmitting his post below. I have mixed feelings about any
annex proposal for the same reasons that Troy submitted. Why don't we look
at what could become a "Pandora's Box" with this annex idea and see if there
is not some better idea? What is so bad about a maneuver schedule change
every 3 years for the Masters class with occasional changes in the other
schedules as needed. An annex could lead to some VERY WEIRD maneuver
schedules in the future. Have any of you studied the IMAC schedules lately?
You would see what I mean, if you had. They just don't FLOW! Nothing pretty
or graceful about them. Too much jumping around with a reduced number of
center maneuvers.  Just my opinion, Tom W.

Troy Said;......
  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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20021210/d47a9cec/attachment.html