[NSRCA-discussion] AMA Sequences

[Bill Pritchett]

As a member of Troy's committee a couple years ago, allow me to share the following thoughts:
-yes, we need to eliminate the 2 year rule and give ourselves the option of changing AMA event schedules as we desire;
-yes, the jump is bigger now from Advanced to Masters.  At the time, the overwhelming opinion was that the jump used to be too big to Advanced from Intermediate;
-yes, the lower classes need to change as well as Masters.  I could possibly be convinced that Sportsman stay the same, but if we want to include an element of NSRCA retention into this thread, then the needs of the flyer that doesn't practice much, have the "right" equipment, etc. should be able to come to a few contests a year in Intermediate, have fun, and go on....  In order for that person to maintain interest, the schedule for Intermediate would need to be changed as well.  For those "moving through" the lower classes, this isn't an issue since it's new to them anyway, regardless of the schedule.  
-yes, the place to start with this would be at the EC level of AMA

Pritch
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Derek Koopowitz 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:48 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010


  Since the majority of the contest board are active pattern pilots, perhaps we can petition the AMA EC (thru Steve Kaluf) to discuss these concerns so that we can then put in a proposal to have the sequences removed.  I'm in full agreement with what is being discussed with regard to the time frames - it is not conducive to allowing the SIGs that modify/add rules/sequences to do it within a time frame that benefits our members. 

   
  On 7/26/07, Mark Atwood <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote: 
    Hey Ed,

    Not trying to argue a moot point, but you commented that "even if it does
    take 2 years, it really doesn't have to"...  That's the part I think you're 
    missing.

    Even IF we could create, test,survey and decide on a new sequence in a
    DAY...the AMA REQUIRES it 2 years in advance of it being flown.

    So the solution we are offering is to remove the sequences as part of the 
    "Rules"...that would allow us to use a process as you describe to
    efficiently alter a sequence.  So basically...I agree with you 100%...we
    need a good process.  But the best process is still stymied if we have to 
    push it through an AMA rule change cycle.

    As it stands now, a rule change submitted in October of this year...wouldn't
    have a chance of being included in the rules until January of 2011.  I find
    that to be absurd...but that's the guideline that the AMA has in place. 



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


  _______________________________________________
  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/20070726/1683d02f/attachment.html