schedules

[Bill Glaze]

Steve:
I agree with all you say, but consider for a moment  those of us who for 
one reason or another, find ourselves in a destination class other than 
Master.
And yes, there are more than just me in this situation; there are, in 
fact, quite a few.  As for me, I have several alternatives, none at the 
present time being particularly pleasant.
This typing with one hand is tiresome; I'll keep it to the minimum until 
I get full mobility back.

Bill Glaze

RC Steve Sterling wrote:

> Maybe its more like the Masters folks got together and took care of 
> their own needs, and us lower class guys did nothing, waiting for 
> others to do it. If we wanted a change, we should have initiated it 
> ourselves. For me, putting the immelman/snap back into 
> intermediate will stretch me another year, then it will be time to 
> move up anyway.
>  
> Us lower class guys get fresh schedules by moving up. Masters is 
> defined a destination class, and they need change to keep from getting 
> bored.
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
>     [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bill Glaze
>     Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 2:43 PM
>     To: NSRCA discussion
>     Subject: Re: schedules
>
>     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?
>
>     Bill Glaze
>
>     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/20031024/88a3f328/attachment.html