Sequences for 2003
george kennie
geobet at gis.net
Fri Dec 27 09:34:52 AKST 2002
Initially I felt that the annex system was a great idea, in fact I voted
in the affirmative.However, that being said,and additionally having had
more time to give it a little more thought I have become aware that
there are many valid arguments that can be rendered both pro and con.As
a result, I am now on the fence, without enough solid logic on either
side to influence me to arrive at a final conclusion either way.Due to
experiences shared on this list over the last few years, I sort of feel
that even if we are allowed the privilege of generating our own
sequences we should still leave the approval of the maneuver
descriptions in the hands of the Rules Committee.Those same experiences
have indicated, to me at least, that many of even the highly regarded
among us seem to have the uncanny ability to alter the meaning of the
English language in such a way as to confuse what otherwise should be
glaringly apparent.In many instances these errors are promulgated in a
very authoritative way sometimes swaying a significant segment of the
membership.Therefore I feel that the maneuver descriptions should be in
the hands of some long-established really seasoned veterans who will
apply their cumulative, many years of experience to the understanding
and interpretive requirements involved.
The rulebook in it'spresent form is resolute regarding issues of
execution and I fear that if these areas are turned over to the SIG,
that much of the clarity we now enjoy would meld into vaguery over the
years.I could site several such examples that have occurred in just the
past couple of years, but it is not my intent here to raise the hackles
of other individuals. I'm only registering a concern of a well meaning
member(please believe me).
Bill Glaze wrote:
> It will satisfy our needs, if the contest board feels that we have
> enough sense to decide amongst ourselves what we want, and adopts that
> attitude that "that government is best which governs least." I hope
> so. I also feel that this is a band-aid approach that, for the
> present, is necessary. I also hope that I'm wrong, and that it is, in
> fact, a long term solution. Remember, we are dealing here with a
> group, (the CB) that was willing, (and did so) to hold all the classes
> hostage for the sake of their deleting one "offending" maneuver.
>
> Bill Glaze
>
> John Ferrell wrote:
>
>> I believe that will satisfy our needs.John Ferrell
>> 6241 Phillippi Rd
>> Julian NC 27283
>> Phone: (336)685-9606
>> Dixie Competition Products
>> NSRCA 479 AMA 4190 W8CCW
>> "My Competition is Not My Enemy"
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From:Tony Stillman
>> To: discussion at nsrca.org
>> Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 9:20 AM
>> Subject: Re: Sequences for 2003
>> Just to let everyone know, the proposal to go to an Annex
>> system has been re-submitted to AMA. John Fuqua contacted
>> AMA and was able to come to a "compromise" that would be
>> acceptable to AMA on this issue. The proposal will allow
>> for a maneuver schedule change by NSRCA making a survey of
>> members with some choices of new schedules. All maneuvers
>> would be listed in an "annex" that the schedules would be
>> drawn up from. Maneuvers can be added to the annex as
>> needed. Once the membership picks a specific schedule, it
>> would be sent directly to the contest board for approval.
>> This should only take a couple of weeks, and could done at
>> anytime, if needed. Most likely, we will only want to
>> change schedules every two or three years. The idea is
>> that we would not be "tied" to the AMA rules cycle to make
>> a change. We could also "correct" any issues that might
>> arise with a particular schedule by making needed changes.
>> This is not exactly what we wanted, but John feels that it
>> is a good starting point, and gets our "foot in the door"
>> for further changes down the road. The main issue is that
>> we can make changes outside of the 3-years rules cycle, if
>> passed. Tony Stillman
>> Radio South, Inc.
>> 3702 N. Pace Blvd.
>> Pensacola, Fl 32505
>> www.radiosouthrc.com
>> 800-962-7802
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From:Troy Newman
>> To: discussion
>> Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 2:06 AM
>> Subject: Re: Sequences for 2003
>> The current AMA rules allow for a 3yr cycle.
>> There have only been submissions to change the
>> Masters sequence in 2005. There are two choices
>> for this Masters 2005-2007 sequence. No other
>> rules changes were submitted to change the AMA
>> classes of Sportsman, Intermediate, or Advanced.
>> Now there was a proposal to change to an Annex
>> system where the NSRCA control the sequences and
>> they can change it anytime they want to. That
>> failed already and currently the people in
>> support of this system are looking for ways to
>> get it passed by the AMA. With this exception
>> there will be no changes of the AMA Precision
>> Aerobatics sequences until 2008. The reason the
>> current rules cycle began on Oct 1 of 2002 to
>> make changes for 2005. Since there was nothing
>> submitted there will not be any changes in 2005
>> except a possible switch of the masters pattern.
>> To my knowledge there are two options. Important
>> thing to remember guys as was discussed at
>> extreme length the NSRCA does NOT make any
>> rules. Whether that changes in future or not is
>> up to the AMA. BUT the NSRCA is not the holder
>> of the rules, they are not the interpreter of
>> the rules, and the NSRCA is not a ruling body.
>> We as the NSRCA look to the AMA for rules. We
>> make suggestions both as a group and as
>> individual members and the AMA's processes
>> control the rules. I want to make a very strong
>> point that its not some abstract group that has
>> no clue what's going on. The AMA contest board
>> includes many and mostly active flyers. There
>> are some that are essentially inactive in recent
>> years but the Board is dominated by Pattern,
>> IMAC competitors, and TOC pilots. For the most
>> part these guys are active in the Aerobatics
>> community and are members of the NSRCA and
>> IMAC. The rules survey said that the responding
>> NSRCA members favored a 3yr rules cycle. This is
>> the current AMA cycle. If nobody submits a
>> change there is no change in the current system.
>> Just some food for thought. I figured after the
>> tongue lashing given this topic over the past
>> month it was clear. This is the way the system
>> operates TODAY....and will operate until 2005
>> unless a Urgent change is made by the AMA. TN
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: JZeigenfus at aol.com
>> Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 9:11
>> PM
>> To: discussion at nsrca.org
>> Subject: Re: Sequences for 2003
>> There are no dumb questions. The
>> patterns are changed every three
>> years. If you go to the web site you
>> can find the patterns listed for
>> whichever class you are going to fly
>> in. We will be in the second year of
>> the current pattern cycle. JEZ .
>> www.nsrca.org
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> 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/20021227/6881a51b/attachment.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list