Sequence Poll Results

[Ron Van Putte]

On Jan 2, 2005, at 9:58 AM, Ron Lockhart wrote:

> For the 41%  voting to Not have the progression of AMA classes be 
> designed to prepare for F3A,
>  what changes would you like to see in those classes?
>  
> Feel free to respond on or off list.

I'll bet that many of the people who voted NO on having the progression 
of AMA classes designed to prepare for F3A were saying, "I don't think 
the construction of the progression of maneuver schedules should be 
dictated by a maneuver schedule we have no control over."  I, for one, 
feel that way.  I feel that the Master class, the terminus of the AMA 
maneuver schedule sequence, should reflect what members of NSRCA want.  
We can't affect what FAI does to the F3A maneuver schedule.  If we 
tailor the Master class maneuver schedule to what is in the F3A 
maneuver schedule, we will be tinkering with it continuously and 
changes to the Master class maneuver will often dictate changes to the 
maneuver schedules in the other classes.   I believe we should decide 
what we want to do and do it.

Ron Van Putte

> ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Bob Pastorello
> To: NSRCA
> Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 8:44 PM
> Subject: Sequence Poll Results
>
> An "unofficial" poll of the NSRCA mail list members (and anyone else 
> who may read RCU's Pattern Forum) was approved by Tony Stillman, 
> created and posted by Ed Hartley on the NSRCA website.  Ed and I did 
> the tabulations independently and arrived at the information you see 
> below.
>  
> This information is the tabulation of all of your responses to this 
> question:
>     "Should the progression of classes within AMA precision aerobatics 
> be designed to prepare a person for the FAI class?"
>  
>
>
> YES
>
>
> NO
>
>
> TOTAL-Class
>
>
> % of Total
>
>
> % Y of Total
>
>
> % N of Total
>
>
> Sportsman
>
>
> 9
>
>
> 3
>
>
> 12
>
>
> 9%
>
>
> 12%
>
>
> 6%
>
>
> Intermediate
>
>
> 21
>
>
> 8
>
>
> 29
>
>
> 22%
>
>
> 28%
>
>
> 15%
>
>
> Advanced
>
>
> 10
>
>
> 14
>
>
> 24
>
>
> 19%
>
>
> 13%
>
>
> 26%
>
>
> Masters
>
>
> 23
>
>
> 20
>
>
> 43
>
>
> 33%
>
>
> 30%
>
>
> 38%
>
>
> FAI
>
>
> 13
>
>
> 8
>
>
> 21
>
>
> 16%
>
>
> 17%
>
>
> 15%
>
>
> TOTAL Polls
>
>
> 76
>
>
> 53
>
>
> 129
>
>
> 100%
>
>
> 100%
>
>
> % of Total
>
>
> 59%
>
>
> 41%
>
>  
>
>
>
>  
> Five votes were disallowed, as they either did not contain a name, 
> competition class, or AMA number.  All three elements were required 
> for a vote to be tallied.  There were three votes where a person 
> selected two classes for their competition.  In those situations, I 
> used the lower class, so that the vote could be consistently counted 
> across all classes represented in those choices (there was one each in 
> Intermediate, Advanced, and Masters).
>     The source information has been saved by Ed (and I) for archival 
> needs, should any arise.
>  
> It is my hope, since I was the original "questioner", that this 
> information may serve to foster discussion and gain insights about our 
> preferences and serve also to springboard future similar polls and 
> member involvement activity in this Rule Change year.
>     We wish the President-elect to consider this information, and 
> discuss with the Board possible future activities.
>  
> Thanks to all of you for your participation and insight!!!
>  
> Bob Pastorello
> NSRCA 199  AMA 46373
> rcaerobob at cox.net
> www.rcaerobats.net
>  
> Ed Hartley
> roho2 at rcpattern.com
>  
>  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 9335 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050102/eadd8248/attachment.bin