schedules

[Bill Glaze]

Ron:
I didn't hear any call for any committee members to volunteer for 
schedule preparation for any class.  When was it made?  Where? K-Factor? 
 Net Group?  I sure would have been in line if asked. 
Bill Glaze

Ron Van Putte wrote:

>
>
> Bill Glaze wrote:
>
>> All:
>> It is interesting, however, to note that, while there wasn't "time" 
>> to get new schedules together for classes other than Masters, there 
>> still existed enough "time" to put that one together.  (And, of 
>> course, being much more involved, it would consume more "time.")  The 
>> intentions of  those folks in charge of the asylum<G> wouldn't have 
>> been nearly as suspect,  if the only new sequence to be submitted 
>> was, say, Advanced or Sportsman.  I tend toward believing that, 
>> regardless of the survey results, there is a cadre of folks that 
>> believe the classes other than FAI and Masters just don't warrant the 
>> attention required.
>> And, please believe me, this is not any kind of a slam at Ron, but 
>> you note that his idea of the "Old Geezers Class" mentions only 
>> Masters.  BTW:  Ron may have been joking, but I feel  that his idea 
>> has more than a little merit.
>> Perhaps the other classes need an advocate specific to them?  Or an 
>> ombudsman  whose efforts would encompass everyone except the top classes?
>>
>
> First, I don't know who said there 'was no time' to change the 401 - 
> 403 maneuver schedules.  I never did.   There's always time.  What 
> there's a shortage of is people to volunteer to act on committees to 
> come up with new maneuver schedules.  I was on the committee which 
> came up with all the current schedules and didn't care to do it twice 
> in a row, especially when the biggest whiners are often the ones who 
> wouldn't serve on a committee if asked.  If people want change, they 
> need to volunteer.  It takes less effort to get a job done than to 
> complain that someone else won't do it for you. Only the guilty should 
> feel offended.
>
> Second, 401 - 403 have sequences which are made up of maneuvers of 
> increasing complexity.  There are only so many ways these maneuvers 
> can be put together without the resulting maneuver schedule looking 
> very similar to the one which preceeded it.  I think 401 and 402 
> should stay very much the same, partly because of what I just wrote 
> and partly because many competitors go through the schedules and 
> advance to the followon (new to them) maneuver schedules in a year or 
> two.  Just because they advance, they see new maneuver schedules every 
> other year or so.  The pilots who sit in these classes for years are 
> really the only ones who notice that the maneuver schedules haven't 
> changed.  I think that 403 is the only class which should change much 
> and that's only because it is the terminal class for many pilots who 
> have reached the pinnacle of their piloting ability. 
>
> Ron Van Putte
>
>>
>>
>> george kennie wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Bill,
>>> This one's not even tough to figure out! The administrative people 
>>> were all coming from the ranks of the Master's class at the time the 
>>> survey was done and didn't want to be bothered with us peons. They 
>>> were only interested in fixing what they specifically were affected 
>>> by and the rest of us could be accomodated at a time convenient to 
>>> their agenda, which somehow was thrown into disarray by the everyday 
>>> hum-drum of life.
>>> Not everybody is as selfless as your bud John Ferrill!
>>> Georgie
>>>
>>> Bill Glaze wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eric:
>>>> Thanks much.  I just knew that I wasn't mistaken about something 
>>>> that was so dear to my heart.<G>
>>>> As far as implementation, would it not have been possible to submit 
>>>> the other class(es) proposed schedules just as was done with 
>>>> Masters?  In other words, right alongside Masters for consideration 
>>>> by AMA?  If this was, in fact possible, does anybody have any idea 
>>>> why it wasn't done?
>>>>
>>>> Bill Glaze
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> Henderson,Eric wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Bill,
>>>>>      The 2002 survey and the implementation of its results fell on my shoulders. Masters(404) had several schedules designed and available that were shown for your vote. It was expected that 404 would change every three years, as per the 1999 survey.
>>>>>
>>>>>I personally asked the question "Should we also change 401-402 on a three year basis?" You all voted yes. Now we have to come up with a way to do that.
>>>>>
>>>>>As Ron states, the Annex system is the way we can do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>Eric.
>>>>>
>>>>>P.S. We posted all the results in several places, but I will send you a copy of the word file. - E.
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
>>>>>[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
>>>>>Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 5:58 PM
>>>>>To: discussion at nsrca.org
>>>>>Subject: Re: Schedules
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Bill Glaze wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>      
>>>>>
>>>>>>I noted that only the AMA Masters class seem to be applying for a new 
>>>>>>schedule.
>>>>>>One of the reasons for change was stated as  being that  a majority of 
>>>>>>the membership voted for change.
>>>>>>The same vote tabulation stated that the other classes also wished to 
>>>>>>see a schedule change.
>>>>>>Is this currently being worked on?
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Proposals for changes to the current 401 - 403 maneuver schedules were 
>>>>>not submitted to the AMA by NSRCA.  However, IF the NSRCA Annex proposal 
>>>>>passes, we will have the option of changes to all maneuver schedules as 
>>>>>frequently as annually.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't remember that a majority 'voted' for changes to schedules other 
>>>>>than the Master class.  Even so, any AMA member can submit a change 
>>>>>proposal.  I have submitted several as an individual over the years. 
>>>>> One was for the takeoff direction being the pilot's option.  I 
>>>>>submitted it three times before it finally passed on the third try, but 
>>>>>it did pass.  So, individual proposals do get through.  People need to 
>>>>>make proposals if they see the need for change and not rely on someone 
>>>>>doing it for them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ron Van Putte
>>>>>
>>>>>      
>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bill Glaze
>>>>>>
>>>>>>=====================================
>>>>>># 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.
>>>>>>#
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>=====================================
>>>>># 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.
>>>>>#
>>>>>
>>>>>==================================# 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/20031024/543a32c0/attachment.html