Sequence Poll Results

[Tim Taylor]

Doug I think your right, it seems, to me anyway, we already do exactly this. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Doug Cronkhite 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 12:25 PM
  Subject: RE: Sequence Poll Results


  I see no reason why the schedules couldn't be built here in the USA and still prepare a pilot for FAI. The two are not mutually exclusive. 

  -Doug





----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Derek Koopowitz
    Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 9:19 AM
    To: discussion at nsrca.org
    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 
      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/c3077c25/attachment-0001.html