[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010

[Dan]

I have to agree with Ron on this one.  I thought this started out as a needed change to fix a problem with the next Master's schedule.  Now it has bottomed out (I hope) with branches going off about IMAC and cutting manuevers to make it easier on electric flyers to blasting away at the NSRCA board members, both present and passed.  It seems I to was a board member when these schedules were being formed and voted on, I didn't realize that all of us at the time and since were simply trying to improve our personal legacy.  Geez, guys, this is a pretty simple problem, the schedules have bee approved but a problem has been discovered, all we need to do is fix the problem, not build new schedules and go thru the whole drawn out procedure all over, nor do we need to execute or pillory a volountary and democratically elected (unlike Florida) board, past or present. I would even go as far as to imagine that the powers that be with in the AMA boards would be willing to help fix a problem like the one we are facing.

And we wonder why we have problems getting new members...we need to take a long hard look at ourselves occassionally and I believe that time is now.

Dan Curtis 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ron Van Putte 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 6:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010


  I'm getting fed up with the people who claim that the NSRCA board does whatever it pleases, damn the constituents.  There might be those who would try to placate those who complain, but  I've never been politically correct and not about to start now.   


  What "current political climate" is being referred to here?  Let's get it out in the open so we can talk about it like big boys.


  Also, what's with this "NSRCA just decides what it wants to do and does it"?  Who is being referred to?  Be specific.


  And what's with "Wasn't the idea of filling out a survey with 2007 and 2009 masters sequences on it the idea to jump ahead of the cycle and get it done way before hand."  I assume the writer wants us to propose a maneuver sequence that is impossible to perform.  Or maybe he'd like to show us how it's done the way it's written.


  The comment, "Apparently the work done last time once praised as good is now old news and the powers that be need to make a new legacy for themselves."  I think it's time that the writer run for district VP  and show the rest of the board how it's supposed to be done.


  End of rant for now.


  Ron Van Putte
  NSRCA VP




  On Jul 26, 2007, at 5:41 PM, Wayne wrote:


    John,

    there seems to be a tone to the current political climate. NSRCA management determined they know better than the membership who voted for something. And then there is the other issues regarding the NSRCA's high road, holy above all sanctioning activities.

    Obviously history is written by the winners. Its too bad that NSRCA just decides what it wants to do and does it. I thought it used to be a democratic society. A vote of the membership meant this was direction the Board should take. Apparently when you don't like the vote you just take another one. After all this is what the dems tried to do in Florida.

    Wasn't the idea of filling out a survey with 2007 and 2009 masters sequences on it the idea to jump ahead of the cycle and get it done way before hand. Yet it seems the NSRCA management has undermined the work of a few in order to write history in favor of another few who complain loudly enough. Funny how the majority of people writing the new sequence are all from the same area of the country. This is fair and balanced.

    I think you are right John. Pattern in the NSRCA has reached critical mass why would anyone want to come play with us. Having known people involved and in this case Troy, I doubt seriously he stopped working on this do to not having 100% of his time available for the re-write. I bet the real story will come out someday. Some people have morals and ethics and others well they write the history books.

    Apparently the work done last time once praised as good is now old news and the powers that be need to make a new legacy for themselves.

    Wayne
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: John Ferrell 
      To: NSRCA Mailing List 
      Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:15 PM
      Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010


      I (and others I think) got pretty bored with practicing the same old stuff. While I took a break I developed enough minor health problems to keep me side lined indefinitely. Others found other things to do. D2 attendance is now below critical mass. 

      If the choice is to hurry to Masters or quit playing then I suppose I need to just do the best I can with Masters and let it go at that!

      It really doesn't matter, the rules are made by individuals who have the political clout not the governing committees. Whoever controls the agenda has veto power and anonymity. 

      John Ferrell    W8CCW
      "Life is easier if you learn to plow 
             around the stumps"
      http://DixieNC.US

        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Mark Atwood 
        To: NSRCA Mailing List 
        Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 8:45 AM
        Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010


        Hear hear.

        I’m not generally a proponent of changing the lower classes all the time (the intent is that they not be destination classes...I also know the reality of that so please, no hate mail) But I’m a HUGE HUGE HUGE fan of being ABLE to change them every year...i.e. Removing the patterns from the AMA rulebook and allowing the Sig to post the schedules that will be in effect in a given year.

        I think you’ll find ALL of the contest board members would vote “Yea” for that if they ever got the chance to...

        The advantages are so many I can’t even begin to list them.

        -M


        On 7/26/07 8:37 AM, "John Ferrell" <johnferrell at earthlink.net> wrote:


          Are you certain that you really can change the schedule without waiting out the rules cycle?

          The lower classes had to endure 6 years of the same schedule because the Contest Board refused to act on anything other than emergency proposals in the interim. Many of the Advanced flyers elected just to stand down. 

          You have just pointed to advantage the IMAC discipline has over Pattern with AMA...

          I hope you can pull it off because the existing conditions are detrimental to the game.

          John Ferrell    W8CCW
          "Life is easier if you learn to plow 
                 around the stumps"
          http://DixieNC.US


            ----- Original Message ----- 
             
            From:  Derek  Koopowitz <mailto:derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>  
             
            To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  
             
            Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:26  PM
             
            Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed  Masters Sequence for 2009/2010
             

             

            Over the past couple of months we (the NSRCA board)  have received a number of comments about the Masters sequence that was  selected in 2005.  We heard that the sequence had too many snaps,  turnaround maneuvers did not allow positioning of the plane (in or out) after  the 5th maneuver, and that the difficulty level from Advanced to Masters was  further increased.  There was also an error in the schedule in that one  would come out of the Double Immelman (#10) inverted and head into the Humpty  Bump (pull-push-pull) and head into the ground based on the description.   The Masters schedule was published in the July 2005 issue of the K-Factor  (Option A on page 25) - in  lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



----------------------------------------------------------------------
          _______________________________________________
          NSRCA-discussion mailing list
          NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
          http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion






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



        _______________________________________________
        NSRCA-discussion mailing list
        NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
        http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



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



      _______________________________________________
      NSRCA-discussion mailing list
      NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
      http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
    _______________________________________________
    NSRCA-discussion mailing list
    NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
    http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion




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


  _______________________________________________
  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/c51685e6/attachment-0001.html