Sequence Poll Results
Bill Glaze
billglaze at triad.rr.com
Mon Jan 3 08:12:37 AKST 2005
Jerry (and Dave Lockhart):
Opinion polls are a great idea, and are surely indicative of the wishes
of the membership, both pro and con. Among many things, it gives the
membership the idea that they are valued, and they are participating in
the direction of pattern, helping to get it to grow. That's to the good.
However--and this is obvious, but needs to be pointed out again and
again--if these wishes aren't heeded, then there is a resentment built
that will be hard to make go away. One particular thing I'm talking
about, is the wishes of those in the lower classes to have more frequent
schedule changes. Completely disregarded by the powers in charge of
such things, those of us in that category felt, at least in the case of
several I have spoken with, a disenfranchisement. Kind of a "why
bother? Nobody's really listening." The constant refrain of those in
charge of such things seems to be "well, those classes are transitory in
nature; why should we bother with changes." "The flyer in Intermediate
this year, will be in Advanced next year". This faulty thinking, or
"one size fits all" attitude is harmful to those who are desperately
interested in Pattern, and want to see it grow. I feel that, until it
can be demonstrated that there is no "double standard" those of us stuck
in the lower classes will continue to feel a degree of being left out.
And, it's so easy to remedy. Anyway, that's the way I see it.
Bill Glaze
Jerry Stebbins wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/b2402774/attachment.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list