Artistic Aerobatics

[george kennie]

<<<<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. >>>>

There must be an explanation for this that I just am not seeing, or
maybe my printer has acquired a Hal mentality.
I have before me a print-out of a Survey Results form dated Friday,
Sept. 20, 2002 that was posted to this list by the data collection
person in which all the survey questions are listed by number and the
voting results tabulated.
Question #9 referencing the sportsman class(401) declares " Change every
rules cycle(3 years)" as being the " winner" over "change every other
rules cycle (6 years).
Question #15, Question #20, and Question #22 referencing Intermediate,
Advanced, and Master's all declare the 3 year cycle as "winner" over the
other options.
I think what I'm confused about is, if all classes were voted on by the
membership to have their schedules changed every 3 years, then why was
master's selected as the one to be changed if there wasn't enough time
to change all schedules?. Why wasn't a vote taken to decide which
schedule to change?
Or, why wasn't the easiest schedule selected in the interest of
expediency(401)?
I didn't see anything in the results that indicate " change Master's and
nothing else".
I know that I make a lot of errors and am probably misinterpreting
something here so somebody straighten me out and I'll put this thing to
bed.
Georgie













"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 accuratelyBack 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/20040126/962cdab1/attachment.html