Sequence Poll Results

Sun Jan 2 15:34:59 AKST 2005

I agree wholeheartedly, Jerry.

  _____  

From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Jerry Stebbins
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 2:56 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Sequence Poll Results

Derek, appropiate comment for the question at hand. Some pilots I talked to
wondered why it was written /phrased as it was. Most felt it really did not
need an answer, since if our AMA Masters is our best, hardest, and final
destination class, it falls that getting there would be A path to FAI. Not
THE path necessarily, but if you could not do those "hardest" maneuvers then
you are really at a disadvantage trying to fly FAI maneuvers. I realize Bob
threw the question out as a quick "look see", and am glad he did. 
Follow on, and future questions that are planned to be used as a basis for
setting NSRCA Policy ,or approach to some issue, do need to be very
carefully worded, and tested, so there is a clear and concise understanding
of what you are being asked, and no room for individual assumptions to be
developed. 
I hope we do set up a "systems approach" to defining the path NSRCA wants to
follow for class definition and development. Would not be too hard, just a
lot of time and aquiring lots of good input from the Membership.
Jerry

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Derek Koopowitz <mailto:derekkoopowitz at earthlink.net>  
To: discussion at nsrca.org 
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: Sequence Poll Results

Verne,

Good point - and RVP as well.  When polls are conducted they should be done
properly and worded so that there is no ambiguity so that the end result is
a clear opinion of what the member feels.  Each question that is asked
should have a defined lead-in statement that is very clear on the purpose
and intent of the question thus preventing anyone from making an assumption
as to its true intent.  Most polls do not do this but because we need to be
very careful in our choices for the future, we need to ensure clarity in
what we ask.

  _____  

From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Verne Koester
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 8:33 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050103/b8912084/attachment.html