Sequence Poll Results

Sun Jan 2 14:41:02 AKST 2005

Mark,
In reality, I DO think the progression of classes should prepare one for FAI 
competition. However, the proposal for Masters to use either the discarded 
FAI schedule or the current preliminary schedule has come up over and over 
again in our Rules Committees. I was suspicious of the motives behind this 
poll. Like a bad survey question, it wasn't asking the whole question. At 
least, that was my read on it. For the record, I think we should be getting 
everybody ready to fly FAI if they so choose. I'd just prefer to have home 
input on how we do it.

Verne Koester

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 11:47 AM
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

=================================================
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.