Election questions

[Bill Glaze]

Ed:
As I see it, it was transparently obvious that removing the centering 
requirement would do nothing to improve the noise footprint; in fact, I 
was shocked at the idea of the "zoneless" box, and utterly amazed when 
it was adopted.  It was implemented solely, as I see it, because of the 
constant IAC influence on IMAC.  After all, that's where IMAC came from, 
as you know, and is also where IMAC likes to feel it lives.  
Unfortunately, there are some in IMAC that seem to see little difference 
between model airplanes and their full-size counterparts.
And, after judging at the JR Challenge, and the Masters at Triple Tree, 
it was patently obvious that the new system did nothing to improve the 
noise footprint.  All it really did, was to enlarge the box to a point 
that, in some cases, well, it was ludicrous.  Surprisingly, I overheard 
a IMAC Past President praising the new system!  I was amazed.  Looks as 
if the group's opinion has changed back to the way it was before.  Good.
But--IMAC has always been quick on its feet to change something that 
needed changing.  They can do so without the cumbersome "help" of the 
AMA.  Like NIKE says:  just do it.  And they will do it.  Another thing 
you'll remember from when you and I served on the B.O.D. together:  IMAC 
never has been shy about introducing Urgent Rules Proposals.  They 
occupy a unique spot: not an emergency rule requiring immediate action, 
yet a request for an U.R.P. demonstrates that there is a need before the 
current rules cycle ends.  A useful procedure, indeed.  But, to remove 
this latest rule, (said rule proving to be a mistake, I'm sure) will 
require a minimum of interaction with AMA.  In fact, possibly no 
interaction at all.  Which, in this case, is as it should be.
Admitting the above is strictly my opinion.  No endorsement by anyone!<G>

Bill Glaze


Ed Alt wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>

=================================================
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.