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

W. Hinkle whinkle1024 at msn.com
Fri Jul 27 09:52:56 AKDT 2007 

Matt,

I'm not the one that brought Ron into this discussion. He brought himself in 
defending the fact NSRCA Board members doesn't acted against members wishes. 
I simply called him on it. Its not a pot shot its a fact NSRCA Board members 
have acted in direct contravention to membership votes.

This is a reason why I am not currently a member yes I was a member is 2005 
when the survey was sent. I also recall the survey was sent to all pattern 
flyers regardless of NSRCA membership. Anyone could fill it out regarding 
the future of Pattern.. From the looks of things I won't be re-joining again 
anytime soon. Organizations begin to die when the leaders don't listen to 
the wishes of the members. The members then drift away many never to return. 
I was considering a return to the group, but I see the same folks are doing 
the same things they did before. Its too bad the offline person attacks by 
the Board members has really inspired my return. This is the face that you 
all have chosen for you representation to the rest of the AMA.

I'm not taking shots at a person just the very fact that the board goes 
against membership votes. To think about the sequence for 2009. Does it 
matter how it got on the ballot, it got there and the members which I was 
one at the time, got to vote. We selected it. The sequence works and was 
voted for by the membership. I went and pulled my old KF and survey out of 
the pdf file. The only error was the 2/2pt roll on the 1/2 square. At the 
time there was talk on the INTERNET about it was an error and it should have 
been a 1/2 roll.

We all know who you reference and perhaps this board is doing the very 
things they accuse him of doing.
This is a battle of ideas. This is the way politics works. For Ron to become 
outraged that a statement of fact regarding his actions was made. Well I'm 
sorry. To me it is outrageous too. I have not attacked anyone here. I have 
not violated the list rules. This has been a civil conversation. I just feel 
the NSRCA Board does as it feels right regardless of membership opinion. Ron 
questioned the statement in his usual tone of outrage and all I did was 
provide a single instance where he personally circumvented the memberships 
opinion. He said he did what he felt was right and would do it again. 
Basically he just told the membership what he thinks of their opinion. 
Father knows best, so shush and take it.

I will offer something constructive to you Matt. The NSRCA Board should 
follow what the membership vote was. They should stop trying to circumvent 
the process because a few didn't like the results. This is the way a 
democracy works. We each swing a political stick. In the end the people vote 
for or against an idea. The job of the Board is to carry out this judgment 
by the people. When the NSRCA Board contradicts the wishes of the members. 
Then the members like me become disenchanted with the group and leave. I 
guess when I joined in 1998 it was a case of the NSRCA being at a near high 
in terms of membership. Who in the group has stayed pretty constant on the 
board save one term since that time? And Who has personally circumvented a 
membership vote on at least one occasion that he admits too. Ron must be a 
great guy as he keeps being elected. Wait there was no election last fall 
was there? I guess there were no willing candidates to run against. To whom 
was the task of generating a list a candidates given? It is amazing how 
things work when all officers run unopposed and one of those officers is the 
head of nomination committee. To quote are friend Hamlet Something is rotten 
in the state of Denmark.

Maybe there is a direct link to the membership numbers regarding members 
wishes and what actions the Board has taken.

The action by the NSRCA board regarding the 2009 Masters Option A from the 
last survey is nothing more than a continuation of these policies and 
actions. This is one reason the organization is failing. My opinion, the 
Main reason.

Wayne


>From: rcmaster199 at aol.com
>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010
>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:17:32 -0400
>
>Whoa dude!!!  Back off a bit.
>
>Sarcasm is not constructive. Offer something constructive...you have 
>anything other than (and I paraphrase) the NSRCA is made up of a bunch of 
>dumb asses?? Are you even an NSRCA member?? Everything about your emails is 
>a pot shot in my view, not just of Ron of whom you seem particularly ticked 
>off at, but of almost every one who has been or is involved directly with 
>the NSRCA's management, including me.
>
>Your comments (attacks) remind me of the antics of a past NSRCA pres and 
>board member who disgraced himself and then transparently tried to cover it 
>up with platitudes and oratory
>
>Ron Van Putte has been around helping for as long as I have been involved 
>at least, and that's a long time.
>
>Matt Kebabjian
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Wayne <Whinkle1024 at msn.com>
>To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Sent: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:09 pm
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>SRCA-discussion mailing list
>SRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>ttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free 
>from AOL at AOL.com.


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

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list