[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010
Ron Van Putte
vanputte at cox.net
Thu Jul 26 17:43:04 AKDT 2007
I'm going to make two statements on this and will not respond to pot
shots again.
ANY AMA member may submit a rule change proposal or be one of the
proposal signers. I signed the proposal on takeoff and landing
because I thought it was a good idea and still do. The fact that I
was an NSRCA board member did not preclude my acting as an individual.
The proposed Master maneuver sequence I received could not be flown
as written.
Ron Van Putte
On Jul 26, 2007, at 6:56 PM, Wayne wrote:
> Ron,
>
> what would you call it when the membership votes for or against
> something like this sequence and the Board changes its mind. This
> would not be considered doing as it pleases?
>
> Oh wait you were one of the people that submitted the change for
> Takeoff and landings to go to 0 or 10 a couple years ago. At the
> same time the membership of the NSRCA overwhelmingly wanted it left
> the way it was. This was done while you were NSRCA VP and while the
> membership voted in a survey to keep it the way it was. We all know
> that the membership then created an uprising and it was changed
> back this year.
>
> Was this a case of an NSRCA board member doing something against
> the wishes of the membership or am I mistaken?
>
> Ron did you sign the rule proposal for changing Takeoff and Landing
> or not? According to the records at AMA you were one of the 3 AMA
> members to make the proposal. When you signed this proposal did you
> remember that the membership's vote had been published in the KF
> just a month before the deadline to submit your proposal? Since you
> as an officer and member of the board did not do as you pleased on
> this issue, what would you call doing this in direction
> contravention to a member vote?
>
> I suspect that this is what has people like me a little fired up.
>
> The membership voted on a sequence for masters 2009. They had two
> choices and they chose one. A select few people obviously don't
> like the choice so now Derek is asking for a new vote? Doesn't this
> sound like we are asking the membership for a new opinion and that
> opinion is going to be internet related and not a reflection of the
> NSRCA membership like the Kfactor published survey was.
>
> By the way the sequence works. I just went through it with my stick
> plane. The Humpty with options in #5 says 1/2 rolls or 1/4 rolls up
> and down. So this version would be 1/2 roll up and 1/2 roll down or
> 1/4 roll up and 1/4 roll down. Doing this the sequence works 100%
> and can be flown as written. In fact I like it and voted for it at
> the time.
>
> Wayne
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ron Van Putte
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 4:06 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20070727/9822e0ca/attachment.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list