Sequence Poll Results

[Atwood, Mark]

Verne,
 
Just to be clear...I would not be advocating that particular detail.  My point is the more overriding philosophy that the lower levels exist to prepare for the next level.  And in my mind, FAI is clearly one of those levels...happens to be the top.  To argue that Masters is the top...and that FAI is a different "track" makes no sense to me.  If we were to truly do that...then we'll end up creating lower "FAI" classes...that would compete with the AMA classes.  
 
Do we currently crown the Masters champ at the Nats as our National Champion??  Are they considered the best flyer at the event? 
 
Ok...done preaching...lol...sorry.  It just doesn't make sense to me.  
 
I do agree with you that I like having control of those sequences...and that's an advantage in my mind.  The OLD FAI pattern may not be the best way to train for the next FAI pattern...   The masters pattern of today should be preparing flyers for the P-07 or P-09 of tomorrow...

________________________________

From: discussion-request at nsrca.org on behalf of Verne Koester
Sent: Sun 1/2/2005 11:32 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Sequence Poll Results


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 <mailto:vanputte at cox.net>  
	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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 9214 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050102/dc4e84cf/attachment.bin