Artistic Aerobatics

[Bill Glaze]

Thanks, Eric, and you're correct in that I don't understand why all the 
AMA classes cannot be treated under the same rules/time schedules.  Or, 
put another way, I am having trouble seeing how/why AMA procedures 
create a rift in classes.
And, not to belabor the point, I fail to see why, if schedules had been 
submitted for all classes at the same time, that new schedules couldn't 
have been adopted in the same time frame.
As far as the Annex goes, while it may seem to  be a panacea, (and I am 
all for the Annex) it seems to me that a mindset that will make equal 
all the schedules (and those flying them) will still be required.  To 
date, I have yet to see that mindset  in the words and deeds of the 
Masters/FAI flyers whose prominence seems to  dictate to the lower 
classes.  Possibly this is inevitable; I don't know.  And, maybe I'm 
wrong.  I would sure like to be proven so.  BTW: I'm not trying to start 
a class war here; just trying to improve the sport.  Possibly we can 
regain some of the membership that we have lost over the past few years.
Bill Glaze

Henderson,Eric wrote:

>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henderson,Eric
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 11:21 PM
> To: 'discussion at nsrca.org'
> Subject: RE: Artistic Aerobatics
>
> The membership vote  from the 1999 rules survey was that the 
> NSRCA propose to the AMA that we change them all (401-404) in one big 
> go. So we did just that. Those routines are now running from 2002 to 2004 
>  
> The same rules survey said change Masters (404)  every three years, So 
> we proposed new 404 routines in the 2002 rules survey. If voted in by 
> the AMA contest board it will gives us a new 404 for 2005 to 2007.
>  
> The 2002 survey included every question that came to me from all 
> sources.  The 2002 survey result asked for new schedules; in all 
> classes be proposed in three year cycles.We have to go most of the way 
> through 2005 to 2007 before we start work on the 2008 proposals. 
>  
> I  know it is hard to understand, and probably harder to accept, but 
> this is how the AMA does it. Why do you think the NSRCA has been 
> trying to get an Annex system in place and change the control of 
> schedules-changing. Its a long drawn out affair that completely 
> clashes with common sense and certainly confuses most folks.
>  
> Regards,
>
> Eric.
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org 
> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bill Glaze
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 11:52 PM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: Artistic Aerobatics
>
> Eric:
> Somewhere in your lucid explanation there must be a reason that the 
> other classes did not commence with the composition of new schedules 
> when the Masters schedule was composed.
> Obviously, these other classes then could have been  installed when 
> the Masters was.  People are available that would have been more than 
> eager to work on the other classes parallel to the classe(s) which 
> were changed.  Was there no opportunity for that to happen?  To 
> someone on the outside looking in, it just seems as if part of the 
> organization moved ahead, while part was left to stagnate.  Or so I 
> see it.  Illuminate me.
> In the event, it would seem to me that now is the time to compose the 
> committees, which in turn can formulate the schedules for all of us, 
> all classes.  Perhaps this is ongoing, and I just haven't been aware 
> of it.  I hope.
> Respectfully,
> Bill Glaze
>
> Henderson,Eric wrote:
>
>>    
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20040124/8e83afac/attachment.html