Annex rehash...

[Del Rykert]

I agree 100% with Troy on this.  Whether others want to accept it or not we
have hurt our attendance for those that are casual competitors. Do we want
to continue in that venue? The work load has quadrupled in the last 20 years
to fly pattern. We don't need anymore workload.  my $.02 worth.

     Del K. Rykert
     AMA - 8928
     NSRCA - 473
     Kb2joi - General

----- Original Message -----
From: "Troy Newman" <troy_newman at msn.com>
To: "discussion" <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: Annex rehash...


Gene,
the rules survey also decided by vote of the membership on every single
class that a 3 year period was a good time frame for changes...and look at
what the AMA has given us.....3 yr cycle.....This seems to contradict the
idea of an annex.....Because if we change every 3 years already.....if we
choose to what will an Annex do for us?


Look I don't really care about an annex thing....Personally I think we are
acting like the older child just back from college...when mom and dad set
the younger siblings curfew......"What 1am....I had to be home by 11pm or I
was grounded for life....."

To me it seems our proposal was not complete enough and this opens the door
for other avenues and clarification through Dave Brown and the EC....For all
those wanting an Annex and the IMAC freedom this gives you opportunity.

Regardless of the outcome I will lobby my Contest Board member to vote "NO"
on an Annex proposal similar to Ron's proposal....

Look in my opinion it doesn't solve any of our problems......It just gives
us a way to screw things up worse and quicker that before.......


Right NOW today is there a need to change the current sequences before 2005?

My answer is NO! We haven't even flown them for 2 yrs yet...changes occur
slow...look at how many older designs are still flying....
Now that being the case then in 2005 we make another decision about
2008...by then the answer for Masters will "YES" and maybe Advanced but the
questions will be out on the others....

Why build in more complexity and pain in the rear than we already have. IMAC
has the current freedoms as I stated before and they are not all its cracked
up to be....

In Pattern I think Stability is a draw to many casual pattern flyers....Some
are in life's blender at any given time and when they get a chance they come
out and fly....Maybe 1-2 a year or more then they have a year or so
off.....This has always been the case.....


Top it all with some history here....


I have a 1994-1995 rule book laying around....Precision Aerobatics took up
a total of 15 pages.....That was Turnaround era stuff...and all the maneuver
descriptions are in there 7 Pages worth.......


Today the 2002-2004 rule book boasts 22 pages of rules and the maneuver
descriptors only gained 2 pages to a total of 9 pages......So we throw out
the descriptors of the maneuvers and make them in an Annex....


SO take that old book it would become 8 pages for Pattern....and the new
book becomes 14 pages....Well I'm a little fuzzy on my math but a set of
rules that double what is was in 1994........


What major change has happened since 1994? ---Answer NONE

Oh yea Spins and snaps right?  ----Answer Wrong the old book has those
covered back then......So that's not it......

Oh right we had to describe it to the Nth degree so that at a NATS judging
seminar people would not argue about it.......



Guess what else.....1994 was Lubbock, TX the last NATS run by the AMA...This
was the year that the NSRCA rebelled and held N-PAC in Tullahoma,
TN.....This is also the year that the NSRCA started taking a very active
role in the future of pattern and working towards the solving some of our
problems......This was a good idea by the way...but look at our trend from
the EC's and the Contest Boards view of it!


By the way these problems needed addressing and the NSRCA has been very good
for Pattern. Has it also driven people away?  Maybe we ought to look at what
adding all this crap in the form of rules is doing to our
numbers..........You know IMAC started as a scale offshoot of pattern. It
did not exist like today's form in 1994.....Then many of the guys wanted to
fly and compete but with less hassle and rules........You ought to attend an
IMAC contest...Its a wide eye event that people are not nearly as uptight
about....The rules were originally pretty loose...Since then IMAC has
learned we need to tighten up a bit....and make things fair for all
involved.....Well that's what the rules do....

Also guess what the early 1990's was...the most popular Pattern has ever
been.....I flew in the early 1990's and can remember 25 guys in Sportsman
(now intermediate).....This was at a local event not anything like a D
champs or NATS...Just a local 4th of July contest.....Now we are lucky and I
mean darn lucky to get 25 guys to an event in this same area. Much less 25
guys in one of the learning classes......


Look I don't think we want to go back to 1994 but I do think that history
tells us something. I think we are not looking at the changes we are making
as affecting the numbers....I feel that most of the changes made were to
increase numbers....Did they?

OR....


Maybe we are legislating ourselves into the corner...I think the changes
just made effective this year are not nearly broken in yet...and we want to
change it again and again...without even seeing the effects...come
guys......It will take at least until 2005 before we know that what did
worked or did not work.


Again its my opinion and it worth what you paid for it!

Troy
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Maurice
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 9:14 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: RE: Annex rules proposals

Excuse me. Wasn't there a survey in which the membership indicated that they
wanted the maneuver schedules to be placed in an annex?????? Why are we
rehashing this???? Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com


=====================================
# 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.
#