Sequence Poll Results

Sun Jan 2 07:53:05 AKST 2005

Mark,

I disagree and I do not want to enter a long debate. Clearly with only 200 to
300 active pattern fliers in this nation we are doing something wrong. There is
no big pattern growth, perhaps things need to change.

--Gordon

  _____  

From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 8:47 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: RE: Sequence Poll Results

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: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 9294 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050102/a15fe7df/winmail-0001.bin