Involving the pattern community as a whole.

[Bill Glaze]

Yes, Ron, you're right, it is.  (See Ron's statement at the end of this
message.)
And, despite recent statements about the "flow," the IMAC contestants are
satisfied; at least, those I talked to at many contests.  They feel that they
have an ongoing input and, while they may not always prevail, they can be
assured that there will be a change next year.  A change in which they have a
direct word. Further, (and this has happened) if a figure turns out to be
inappropriate, it is changed by the will of the contestants themselves in the
affected class by immediate action.

(And, by the way, if you want to see a clumsy flow, just fly the Intermediate
Class after the CB truncated the ending of the sequence.  It leaves you
floating around the sky like the Noon Balloon From Rangoon.)

It is a mystery to me as to why some folks are satisfied to hand over the
lifeblood of the contests, (the sequences) to a committee some of whom have
little or no idea what we are doing.  It makes little sense.

And, we seem to have some sort of a dichotomy here: some of the people
speaking about the stagnant growth of the sport, while at the same time not
wanting to make changes.  Well, it just isn't possible to have it both ways.

As you may know, I was on the scene and a part of the folks that engineered
the transformation of the IMAC processes.  It wasn't easy.  But it was worth
it.

Bill Glaze


Ron Van Putte wrote:

> BUDDYonRC at aol.com wrote:
>
> > Not a bad idea.
> > What if the NSRCA became the Precision Aerobatics Division of IMAC then
> > we could use their annex system.
> > Honestly if you make the effort to go to their site and investigate what
> > the IMAC group has put together you will find a well thought out and
> > planned system that implements what we are trying to do. We are not
> > there yet and it will take many hours of R&D to get to where they are
> > today. Hat's off to those In IMAC who put it all together they did a
> > good job. and obviously AMA thought so to.
>
> However, If you look at the actual rules pertaining to the IMAC
> maneuver/schedule change process, you will find that it is LESS DETAILED
> than what I wrote for the annex proposal.  Hmmmmm.  I find that very
> interesting.
>
> Ron Van Putte
>
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20021211/b4886084/attachment.html