Election questions

[Bob Pastorello]

Very well stated, Ed.  That issue of the SIG not "owning the rules" is one that I've tried to reinforce over recent years, also.  I agree that we must be careful, and remember the AMA Contest Board makes votes for ALL Pattern pilots' rules to follow, and not just NSRCA members.

Thanks for sharing.
Guess neither of us sleep anymore.

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


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ed Alt 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 3:34 AM
  Subject: Re: Election questions


  Regarding the idea of NSRCA controlling our own rules ala what IMAC has
  done, let's be a little careful here.  They are our AMA rules and NSRCA is
  just an interested SIG, same as IMAC.  What has happened in IMAC recently is
  that the Board of Directors has exerted alot of influence in driving rules
  changes through, often for the better, although sometimes not.  There have 
  been
  several reversals of rules put through that IMAC drove through within a
  relatively short time of their taking effect, or in one case, before even
  officially taking effect.  The most remarkable example of this is one of the
  most recent changes where they decided that implementing a zoneless
  aerobatic box , along with adding a presentation score would be helpful to
  reducing the overall footprint when flying the sequence, while
  simultaneously eliminating the "unfair center zone centering score bias".
  This can be a fun topic to debate the logic of.  Been there, done that, got
  the Tee shirt, tired of arguing and joined Pattern in '04 as a result.
  Having a lot of fun since making that decision BTW - should have done this
  years ago!

  Without getting into all the arguments pro and con, the end result is that
  the presentation score rule which will officially go into effect in 2005 and
  which the IMAC BOD insisted be applied in 2004, even before it was a rule,
  is now going to be recommended for removal by IMAC, according to several
  well placed sources.  Ofcourse the problem is that it's a 3 year rule cycle
  and everyone has to live with it until 2008, unless some emergency rules
  proposal gets through or unless IMAC dictates through their regional
  directors that championship points systems require that participating
  contests now do NOT use the rule they pushed through.  Confusing at best.

  The point here is that no SIG "owns" the AMA rules.  Should they be
  influential?  Yes, within reason.  Technically any AMA member can make a
  rules proposal, but the SIGs can carry great weight in driving rules.  With
  that ability to influence comes great responsibility, so what I would want
  to see is just exactly how NSRCA is going to come to it's decisions on rules
  proposals before driving them through.  I believe that is the key question.

  Similar concerns exists for how sequences would get modified, especially if
  they are destined to begin changing annually.  Again, I think that the SIG
  ought to be influential, but I'm not sure that they should own the process 
  completely.
  IMAC has tried several approaches, including member votes, BOD fiat and more
  recently, what looks like a reasonably structured method of getting member
  feedback through the Regional Directors, winnowing the candidate sequences
  down, modifying them per suggestions, winnowing some more and finally doing
  a BOD vote.  That might be a good way, who knows?  The challenge for IMAC is
  that they do change them every year, because the IAC which they model
  themselves after does this.  Having new sequences every year can be fun and
  interesting.  It can also be frustrating when poor sequences are designed or
  selected.  The faster you try to remake them, the better organized you had
  better be in deciding on the new ones.  There should be well defined
  criteria for sequence design before any of this is attempted.  And you need
  some dedicated members who know how to design a good sequence.

  Lastly, regarding the success of IMAC, it hasn't all been a bed of roses.
  Their membership dropped off drastically in recent years and is making a
  recovery lately from what I hear.  I don't know all the reasons why, but I
  would simply suggest that we not look to IMAC as the guiding beacon for
  change to Pattern. Many in IMAC have an entirely different mindset,
  especially of late, where precision aerobatics is not the key ingredient to
  designing sequences, setting rules or running contests, rather, it is how
  closely they can copy the IAC.  Look at their 2005 sequences and study the
  rules and judging guide and it should tell you everything you need to know.
  My first year in Pattern has been the most rewarding in my years of
  aerobatic competition, I think because I learned more about getting back to
  basics and correctly applying them than I did in my previous 7 years of IMAC
  flying.  In my opinion at least, you guys are doing alot of things right,
  not perfectly, but you don't have to go about reinventing yourselves
  overnight.
  Regards,
  Ed Alt
  =================================================
  To access the email archives for this list, go to
  http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
  To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
  and follow the instructions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20041215/3a4df008/attachment.html