Involving the pattern community as a whole.

[Troy Newman]

Bill I'm not against change I just feel the Annex idea doesn't solve anything for us....

We also just made a bunch of changes....They took affect this year...and I'm not sure what effect they had....do you know what effect they had? And knowing that effect what's are next move.....?


I think some people are looking for a huge jump right now...this will never happen. Its a slow process its an flow and its going to take until 2005 in my opinion to know if what we did was right or not.

I just feel its making things even more complicated than it already is. I'm in favor of simplifying it.....We can't get 200 people to return rules surveys....and you mean to tell me we are going to get a vote that speaks will of the pattern people......

Come on.....This means that 200 people every year are going to make the sequence changes. The NSRCA is not a group of rules makers. That is not our purpose, Charter, or my desire.


I'm really glad I fly F3A at least the entire world will be flying something that is consistent with each other.

Troy Newman

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Glaze
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 3:30 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Involving the pattern community as a whole.

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.  
#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/20021211/8935e855/attachment.html