Questions for Presidential Candidates

[Bob Pastorello]

Thank you, Lamar, for taking the time to consider these points to help us.

Bob Pastorello
NSRCA 199  AMA 46373
rcaerobob at cox.net
www.rcaerobats.net


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lamar Blair 
  To: NSRCA Group nsrca 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 12:17 AM
  Subject: Questions for Presidential Candidates


  My answers

  1.  What changes would you like to see made within the NSRCA to improve the impact of the opinions of individual members in decisions made by the Board?
   I addressed this point in my statement in the K-Factor as part of my "Visions for the future of NSRCA". I think we need to provide Membership the ability to directly input comments for all  Board, and other, members to see, opportunity to get reactions, and visibility of the positions/votes of individual members on the Board decisions. It could get as advanced as on-line voting for members or at least more K-factor surveys on the big issues

   2. What specific ideas do you have that you would offer to the membership to assist in growing interest in Pattern?

  We all hear about programs that some of the Districts have to promote Pattern. I would have each   District VP input to a new Growth Committee the program and processes used, and results seen Also we should solicit ideas from the Membership through their VPs to round up all viable ideas.  Then have the Committee quickly review and recommend the best three candidates. Put the  NSRCA stamp and backing on those programs, and have the District VP's select and implement one or two best fit for their Districts in 2005. Track them and report back the results, evaluate the data, and use this data to document the best of what works, then get the info out to each VP for his use in 2006. We need to get early interest of our younger /new pilots and show them the benefits of flying Pattern. Not all will want to compete, but all can benefit from the improvement and the quality of their flying skills.  The transition from Foamy Gee Whiz 3D to the precision and grace of pattern isn't too great, and needs to be nurtured. I also think changing our perception about judging to a challenge, rather than a chore, is necessary to develop the proficiency, quality, and consistency we would all like to see. 

   

  3.   What is your individual belief about the overall objective of the "stepping stone" approach to skill levels of sequences flown? 

  I believe that the difficulty level of each Class should provide training and experience in preparation for the transition to the next class. You can call it a "building block" or "stepping   stone" approach. I also think each class needs one or two "signature" maneuvers to present the  pilot a real challenge, keep their interest, and provide an incentive to show and develop their proficiency.  A pilot should be able to at least get through the maneuvers in the new Class based upon similar, less difficult exposure in the previous Class.  The transition to turn-around is also a significant step. The pilot should encounter, along with the progressively more difficult  maneuvers, continued emphasis on flow, smoothness, and precision that each Class demands.



  4.  Should Masters Class, in your opinion(s), remain a class that stays at its current complexity level, or should Masters class follow the F3A design philosophy toward ever-increasingly complex manuevers with each schedule introduce?

  Masters is the final destination AMA Class, and as such should provide the most difficult challenge and test of the pilot. As pilots proficiency grows so should the challenge he faces. Some periodic maneuver changes are necessary to keep up interest, provide a little more difficulty consistent with pilot proficiency, and unlevel the playing field. Not all that challenge comes from   more complex maneuvers. The overall management of the flight through their presentation,  smoothness, and flow, along with the perfection of the performance provides subtle discriminators that separate the "greats" from the "real goods". The AMA system of half points provides for this  degree of discrimination that FAI does not. All the current top-line planes can do the maneuvers, the pilot is the discriminator, as it should be.



  5. What are your positions on changing/eliminating/adding equipment requirements/rules relative to engine size, and overall weight of aircraft flown in all 4 AMA classes?   I think the Sportsman Class should be "fly what you got" within the overall AMA limitations.  The main consideration is Safety, for the pilots, spectators, and Judges.  There are lots       of good ARF's around  that are competitive, but may not make the current rules. Could possibly pull in some new fliers, and potential Pattern pilots. The current limitations on Intermediate should be reviewed to see what benefits ( more participation), changes to weight / size may provide. This may be the most productive area to gain some new blood, considering the large number of semi-scale planes that are being flown.  Advanced should track to Masters. There may be some reasons to revise the current 11 lb.weight    limits a small amount upward, but moving from the current limits may be an uphill battle.   



  Lamar Blair

  NSRCA 475
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20041215/f15d8dd3/attachment.html