Sequence Poll Results

[Atwood, Mark]

This approach seems short sighted to me.  The implication is that we have less input into the FAI schedules than other countries...is that true??  Obviously we don't have complete control over it...any more than one of our districts has complete control over an AMA schedule.  We're a subset of the decision making body.  Does that mean we should take our ball and go home?  
 
I DO understand that Masters is a destination class for many...but so is Advanced, and even Intermediate for some.  Let's no lose focus though on WHY there are even lower classes in the first place...to help people get involved.  Most "sports" create introductory levels to help people set achievable goals and allow them to succeed and develope their skills without being crushed by those that are already accomplished.  That doesn't change the end goal of trying to get to the top.    You don't see the players on the Nike golf tour NOT accepting PGA rule changes just because "I don't expect to ever play at that level"...
 
I think you'd find that MOST people when starting pattern...have a dream of eventually being competitive in FAI....that's the goal.  Often that goal changes as most realize that goal to be less obtainable than originally thought, but that should change the goal of the sport, or of the program.  
 
Whether we want to admit it or not...FAI is the top class.  Granted, one that we have less control over...but it's the top class.  Without it...there's no point in having lower classes. 
 
I think we're letting the tail wag the dog....
 
Mark

________________________________

From: discussion-request at nsrca.org on behalf of Ron Van Putte
Sent: Sun 1/2/2005 11:21 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 12474 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050102/d51dc0d9/attachment-0001.bin