Sequence Poll Results

Sun Jan 2 08:16:33 AKST 2005

Mark,
I agree! As I slowly move up the ladder, I view FAI as the top class, not 
Masters.
Jeff

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 11:38 AM
Subject: RE: Sequence Poll Results

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

=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.