Artistic Aerobatics

[Bill Glaze]

Eric:
Once again, a good explanation of just what went on.  It also explains 
Tony's statement written to me that "there wasn't enough time" to get 
schedules changed for the other classes.
As you have stated, it's obvious that the AMA procedures are the 
stumbling block, not the NSRCA folks.  My confidence is renewed!<G>
Now, onward and upward, to where the pattern community has more control 
over it's activities.
Short story; please bear with me.
A few years ago, it developed that the folks in Scale Aerobatics were 
very unhappy with a maneuver in Advanced.  Lots of complaining, by the 
affected flyers.
So, a poll was taken about what to do, and what to substitute.  A 
substitution was found, agreed upon by the affected class flyers, and 
implemented.
The changes were made at the NEXT contest in mid-season.  The members 
could have, and would have, changed their entire schedule in every 
class, if needed, in the same time frame.
I have a dream......................................

Bill Glaze

Henderson,Eric wrote:

>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henderson,Eric
> Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 11:02 PM
> To: 'discussion at nsrca.org'
> Subject: RE: Artistic Aerobatics
>
> Bill,
>          I'll take one more crack at explaining this.
>  
> 1. The AMA cycle is takes three years between each normal change 
> submission. (There can be emergency and urgent proposals if there is a 
> safety or critical issue that needs solving).
>  
> 2. Change submissions have to be submitted two years-plus before they 
> can actually be implemented.
>  
> 3. The NSRCA does surveys to get votes on changes from the NSRCA 
> membership. These surveys are also done approximately on a three year 
> cycle. The surveys can occur almost three years in advance of an NSRCA 
> submission to the AMA Contest board.
>  
> 4. To be ready for an AMA cycle we have to work in advance of the 
> final date for change-submission. (The judging committee, for example, 
>  collect all rules issues for just such an opportunity)
>  
> 5. The submission date for 2005-2007 changes was Fall 2002.
>  
> To make NSRCA proposals we take votes on many questions so we can 
> represent our membership accurately
>  
> Back in the 1999/2000 NSRCA survey asked when we should change the 
> routines. It said change them all this "one big time" and then just 
> change Masters.
>  
> Bound by the 2002 Survey we made a set of three new Masters schedules 
> for you all to choose one from. The membership had said no to changing 
> 401-403 on this three year frequency so we had no directive to propose 
> any new ones.
>  
> The 2002 survey asked many questions. All questions that came to me 
> were included. Many had been asked before, including the 401-403 
> change frequency for schedules. Less than ten days after the results 
> were tabulated all changes were submitted to the AMA. (You could not 
> possibly develop and survey 401-403 changes in that time frame.)
>  
> The next window to change 401-403 is around 2006-7 to get 2008 changes 
> implemented. A survey is probably required to get an NSRCA vote and a 
> lot of new schedules need to be prepared and tested etc.
>  
> One comment:- It is very easy to have and idea and it can certainly be 
> frustrating when you find out how long it will take to get, what just 
> seems plain common sense, to be implemented. I hope that you can now 
> get a sense of how much work and effort, combined with a high degree 
> of fortitude, is required to just get one change done, let alone a 
> series of major changes. I gratefully remember a lot of good people, 
> and I must point out that they were from all of the classes, who put 
> many hours into getting the 2002 routines produced. They never gave 
> up, and even when their schedules did not get selected they stayed 
> with their teams and never quit. It was a privilege to work with them.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Eric.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org 
> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bill Glaze
> Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 11:17 PM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: Artistic Aerobatics
>
> 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:
>
>>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20040125/f3e60621/attachment.html