Sequence Poll Results

Mon Jan 3 14:43:30 AKST 2005

Eric and all,

I for one welcome change after 2-3 years. This next
cycle will put those of us flying Intermediate at 5
years for the same pattern. I think one reason that
the lower three classes hasn't had anything done yet
is the lack of knowledge in how to go about designing
sequences and submitting a proposal. I for one would
do it if I had someone to coach me along. We need help
from someone like you Eric, Ron, Tony or the rest of
you Masters and FAI fliers to come up with or give
some suggestions on sequences that are progressive up
to Masters and explain how to go about presenting
these. I think with help I could come up with an
Intermediate schedule but to make these progressive
Intermediate needs to be built on Sportsman and
Advanced built on Intermediate with Masters as an end
point for now. I have said several times in this forum
that the jump between Intermediate and Advanced is to
big of step without preparing us for outside snaps by
allowing us to do inside ones first. The first snaps
we get are in Advanced and that just should not be in
this day and age. Even in Sportsman a climbing 45
degree inside snap is within the reach of the average
everyday sport flyer. I also think adopting snaps
earlier would help in judging the higher classes where
more complicated snap maneuvers are flown. It is
easier to judge a maneuver you can fly and be judged
on yourself. 

So if anyone is willing to give me a hand or tell me
how to go about this I will step up to the plate and
do this.

Marty
NSRCA 2551 D-4
--- Grow Pattern <pattern4u at comcast.net> wrote:

> Ref: Ron wrote. " 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,...."
>  
> The data was gathered in the last NSRCA survey that
> change was desired. The change could then be
> proposed in this current cycle. Is anyone running
> with this ball? or What has happened since then?
> 
> Just asking,
> 
> Eric.
> 
> Question-8
> 
> Should the Sportsman class be changed periodically 
> 
> YES = 142____         NO = 39_____          RESULT =
> PASS ____
> 
> 
> Question-9
> 
> If "YES =", these classes should change, should they
> 
> 70___ Change every rule cycle (3 years) - WINNER
> 43___ Change every other rule cycle (6 years)
> 
> 26___ Other - Specify ____
> 
> 
> 
> Question-14 
> 
> Should the Intermediate class be changed
> periodically?
> 
> YES = 167____         NO = 13_____          RESULT =
> PASS ____
> 
> Question-15
> 
>  If "YES =", these classes should change, should
> they 
> 103___ Change every rule cycle (3 years) - WINNER
> 41___ Change every other rule cycle (6 years)
> 
> 22___ Other - Specify ____
> 
>
======================================================================
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Ron Van Putte 
>   To: discussion at nsrca.org 
>   Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 12:54 PM
>   Subject: Re: Sequence Poll Results
> 
>   On Jan 3, 2005, at 11:12 AM, Bill Glaze wrote:
> 
> 
>     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.
> 
> 
>   There are at least two ways to get rules changes
> passed. First, we can rely on the NSRCA leaders to
> put together surveys, establish committees to
> develop maneuver schedules and submit proposed
> schedules to AMA. OR, we can individually put
> together rule changes and/or maneuver schedule
> changes for submittal to AMA. Either way has a
> presumably equal chance of getting passed by the
> Contest Board, because NSRCA doesn't have an inside
> track with the Contest Board. Sure, NSRCA can lobby
> the Contest Board to pass their rule change
> proposals, but the Board can also ignore the
> lobbying, as it did in the last cycle. It often
> takes several cycles to get proposed changes passed,
> as it did with takeoff direction being the pilot's
> option. It took three tries to get that one passed. 
> 
>   I mention all the above, because a lot of the
> comments in this forum are about what someone else
> should do to implement rule and/or maneuver schedule
> changes to satisfy the writer. If a writer feels
> strongly enough about making changes, it is
> incumbent on him/her to take action in that
> direction; they should write a rule change proposal
> and submit it. It isn't rocket science. 
> 
>   BTW, I don't mean to include Bill in the 'inactive
> whiner' group, but his note triggered my 'response
> button' on this issue. 
> 
>   Ron Van Putte
> 

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
=================================================
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.