[NSRCA-discussion] 2007 Advanced Schedule

Wed May 10 09:47:03 AKDT 2006

There certainly have been many valid viewpoints expressed regarding the schedules and everyone's outlook should certainly be respected if not necessarily embraced.Our democratic process validates this. Whether or not we are alone or part of a larger contingent in our opinion is less of a necessity than achieving the overall concensus expressed by the majority.
I, for one, am aware that I have difficulty with inverted entries although exits don't seem to be as much of a problem to me, so I can relate to the expressed concern.However I take heart in the fact that others have directed me to concentrate my practice time on those areas of weakness outside of the schedule per se and have taken this advice to heart like a wake-up call. I regularly practice the "OLD" Intermediate schedule and find the idea of performing it from start to finish in the inverted idiom a refreshing challenge. Just think what that will do for my "inverted entries"!
When the schedule survey was presented to the membership I made my voice known regarding my preferences and now the resulting outcome is deemed by me the majority rule and I'm O.K. with that because I am also aware that it's not possible to create an ecstatic experience for every member of the group.
In the case of the Advanced sequence, if there were significant inverted entries and exits, we would probably be hearing a strong outcry from someone who would consider the leap from Intermediate an insurmountable barrier to his or her moving up and the concern would be just as valid.
There is no easy answer and the people who are responsible for the creation of the new sequences should not feel that they have been put in a defensive position, but be very satisfied that their efforts were the very best that they could come up with at the time and I, for one, salute their efforts on behalf of the needs of the rest of this great group of people.
Georgie

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: JonLowe at aol.com 
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 8:01 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2007 Advanced Schedule

  In a message dated 5/9/2006 10:52:29 PM Central Daylight Time, precisionaero at comcast.net writes:
    Thanks for the detailed response Dave.  You also allow me to bring up a good point that needs to be made.  Before you "fight" and accuse, get your facts straight.  Maybe the world is not out to get you.  Maybe some thought did go into this proposal.  And since this is a democracy, you have the right not to like it, but this was voted on.  Dave, can you remind us of the voting results from NSRCA and AMA members please?
  The results are on the NSRCA website.  A total of 74 people voted on whether to change Advanced or not.  However the demographic shows that only 43 were flying Advanced or below.  You can't tell from the results what the demographic was that voted for the "harder" option or the "easier" option.  Only 60 people voted for one of the two options.  Taking out the 17 not flying advanced or below could sway the vote on the options either way.  I also remember that the NSRCA leadership was disappointed in the survey, because only a small number of members responded at all.  Whether or not this survey was representative of the membership at large would have to be looked at by an expert.

  I will also remind "precisionaero" (you might want to sign your posts), that the NSRCA survey was only a "preliminary" at best.  The "election", by the AMA contest board, who have the only votes that count, hasn't happened yet.  Yes, democracy is still at work, and I hope you aren't suggesting that an AMA member can't voice his opinion to his competition board member.  Surveys aren't the same as a vote, last I looked, otherwise the US would have had several different Presidents over the years.   I also asked, and didn't "accuse".  I framed everything I said as a question when I asked about the makeup of the committee.   I did my homework, got the facts that were available, then asked for the rest.  I'm impressed that the cross section on Troy's committee was pretty good.  Troy's group worked hard, and I respect that.  It doesn't mean that I or others have to agree.

  Jon Lowe

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060510/b514e12c/attachment.html 