[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010
Wayne
Whinkle1024 at msn.com
Thu Jul 26 19:09:54 AKDT 2007
Ron, thanks for admitting that you felt you know better than the NSRCA membership and that we should just take your decisions for the better of pattern. And we wonder why the organization is in trouble? We wonder why people become disengaged, and quit pattern, and quit the NSRCA. All organizations begin to fail when the leadership doesn't listen to the members.
It was not a pot shot. As you confirmed it is a 100% fact that this is what happened. My concern is that this sequence thing is the same deal. Membership voted but you guys know what you are doing so we will trust you on it.
Thanks for the opportunity to clear that up. The NSRCA Board members do really work for the good of pattern flyers we just don't know it yet. I'm sure as with all history that is written by the victorious things will work out for the best.
By the way we are just like little children that can't make an informed decision its a good thing you are there to protect us from ourselves. Just to be clear your outrage at the fact that I called a spade a spade is surprising as that is what actually happened. Perhaps the History could be written with the truth rather than your outrage regarding a member of the pattern community and a member of this list calling you on your policy and your actions.
We thank you for your service. Or I'm sure somebody does.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Van Putte
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20070727/00d80e21/attachment.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list