Annex rules proposals

[ronlock]

I too agree with much in Troy's post.  I think there is 
considerable merit in leaving the maneuver schedules and
descriptions n the AMA Rule book where they are easily 
found by would be new pattern pilots.   Particularly the 
AMA Sportsman and Intermediate classes.   We can still
change them at the 3 year AMA cycle as may be needed.  
Though, since pilots progress through those classes, 
they don't need to change very often.   Masters Advanced
may need changing more often since pilots don't progress 
through them as quickly.  Still, I'm not sure that more often 
than 3 years is all that important.
Ron Lockhart
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Thomas C. Weedon 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 5:22 PM
  Subject: RE: Annex rules proposals


  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."
    Snip- when all of this post was left on, the list rejected it - too big.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20021210/66a8e6e7/attachment.html