Sequence Poll Results

[Verne Koester]

Ron,
That's exactly why I didn't participate in the poll. My instincts told me it was going to be another attempt at having Masters fly the previous or current FAI schedule. Like you, I prefer that our schedules be built at home.

Verne Koester

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ron Van Putte 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 11:21 AM
  Subject: Re: Sequence Poll Results



  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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050102/fb984c7e/attachment.html