[NSRCA-discussion] Nats registration

Wed Jun 21 05:56:17 AKDT 2017

Joe,

First, thank you for getting on the list and communicating with us.  I
found during my tenure that communicating with the membership, whether the
vocal majority/minority agreed or not, made things a lot better.  Your
position is not easy and is more than frustrating.

I do understand the need to "explain" the rationale for the proposed change
and the assumption that the status quo did not have to be given a list of
pros and cons but I'm sure you can see how this could come across as a
"sales pitch".  One thing to be very careful of!

I have to wonder, however, what the difference would have been had you
added a third choice (to consider for the future when things come up like
this).  That third choice would be something like "Neither choice is better
than the other" or "I'm happy either way".  Certainly, I'm not picking on
you or the board.  After 6 years of serving on the board, I totally
understand how hard it can be.  This is merely food for thought and a way
to make sure all basis are covered "the next time" (because there will be a
next time)  :)

Keep up the effort my friend,
Scott

*Scott A. McHarg*
VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
Texas A&M University
PPL - ASEL
Remote Pilot Certified Under FAA Part 107

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Joe Walker via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> Thanks for summing up the thoughts and concerns Dave!
> To address your items specifically, the point of the survey was to get the
> opinions of the folks that were actually affected by this decision, which
> is why it was intentionally sent to those people only.  The criteria for
> making a decision is the direct result of those people affected.  Masters
> pilots attending this years Nats.  I have added a few folks to the list who
> were on the fence about attending and have received, and accounted for
> their input as well.  ~75% agree with the change for this year's event.
> Regarding precedent, the ED has had, and has always had complete discretion
> on how to run the Masters finals.  Many of these formats have been
> announced at the pilot's meeting after we have all arrived at the Nats (how
> many will be going to the finals, whether a finals was held at all, etc.).
> As has been stated innumerable times before, we don't have enough people to
> justify a finals and haven't for several years, so this is in effect a
> bonus round for 10 pilots.
>
> Creating a survey that explained the rationale of the change was
> completely my idea to listen to the folks that were directly affected.
> This was a direct effort to address the claim of "the board" acting
> independently and not listening to the membership.  I accept full
> responsibility for the chatter that has ensued, but the direction is clear
> to me for this Nats, the overwhelming majority of the Masters Pilots that
> are affected by this format have been heard.  With any decision, there are
> always folks that agree and don't agree and that's ok.  Something to keep
> in perspective is that the Nats is not only about the finalists in Masters,
> but all of the competitors who make the extraordinary effort to attend no
> matter where it is located.  In all of this discussion, let's not forget
> about Sportsman, Intermediate, Advanced and FAI pilots and pilot #11 in
> Masters.  All of whom have made the same commitment of time, money and
> effort to attend.
>
> What has become clear to me through these discussions is that *none* of
> this is about 2 rounds vs. 4 rounds in the Masters finals of the 2017
> Nats.  It's about improving communication across the board.  As I've stated
> before, that is a primary driver of why I chose to become involved in the
> process.  I think we are making good progress to identifying and improving
> how we as an organization communicate.  The entire board shares this
> concern and we are all strategizing and reaching out to folks in all
> districts to help make that process better.
>
> Here are some suggestions to help us all do better (all of you that have
> been involved in these discussion board chats can help directly):
>
>    - For our emeritus leadership members, please gather legacy
>    information you have on process and procedure that has not been posted on
>    the website and email it to me.  Jon Lowe has already started doing this
>    and it is AMAZINGLY helpful! (Thanks Jon!).
>    - If information has been posted on the website and doesn't reflect
>    your understanding of a process, please point a flashlight on what you feel
>    is incorrect and provide some sort of backup that can help set the course
>    right.
>    - If you have a penchant for detail oriented work and some spare time,
>    please contact me.  The effort involved in truly making information clear,
>    consistent and accessible is enormous and requires an assist.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Joe Walker,
> President
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 5:50 PM, DaveL322 <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> Collectively (from multiple contributors to this list), concerns have been
> expressed about -
> -the limited audience to which the survey was sent
> -the limited time frame for response and proximity to the NATs
> -the precedence potentially set by the survey results and possible actions
> taken by the BOD
> -the validity of the survey result when the question posed was accompanied
> by a substantial "sales pitch"
>
> I would like to know what the BOD is planning to use as criteria to
> evaluate the results of the survey?
>
> Would the BOD advocate/support/complete actions likely to disenfranchise
> 20-25% (as reported below) of the respondents and potentially cut the
> attendance in the Masters class at the NATs (and possibly local contests)
> by 25%?
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
> Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note5.
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Joe Walker via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: 6/20/17 2:00 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: Frackowiak Tony <frackowiak at sbcglobal.net>, Anthony Romano <
> anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>, General pattern discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>, General pattern discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Nats registration
>
> Tony,
> Of the registered pilots that have responded, ~80% agree with the proposed
> format.  Of the total amount of folks that have responded whether or not
> they are registered for Masters this year, the percentage shifts to ~75%
> agree of the proposed format.  I suggested to the board that we give
> everyone at least a week to respond, which I think wraps up on Thursday of
> this week.
>
> If there are folks that received the survey and would still like to have
> their thoughts heard, now would be a good time (by responding to the email
> with the survey attached of course, and not another discussion thread here
> or elsewhere).
>
> Best,
> Joe Walker
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 1:54 PM, Frackowiak Tony via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
>
> Has a decision been made regarding the Masters format?
>
> Tony Frackowiak
>
> On Jun 20, 2017, at 10:39 AM, Anthony Romano via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>
> *Love it or hate it Nats entry fee increases on 6/25/17 Get your entries
> in now since you know it won't be boring!*
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170621/0ca0ec39/attachment.html>