[NSRCA-discussion] Nats registration
DaveL322
DaveL322 at comcast.net
Wed Jun 21 07:27:36 AKDT 2017
Joe,
Thanks for the detailed response, and the 6% update. My prior number of 25% was not an attempt to be dramatic, but was sourced from your prior email noting 75% approval.
There are many instances in pattern history where changes "for the better" have resulted in decreased numbers in the event. I am not suggesting we never make changes, but it seems clear enough that effort towards communication needs to improve - so we agree on that.
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note5.
-------- Original message --------From: Joe Walker <vellum2 at bellsouth.net> Date: 6/21/17 10:33 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Dave Lockhart <davel322 at comcast.net>, 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>, 'Frackowiak Tony' <frackowiak at sbcglobal.net>, 'Anthony Romano' <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Nats registration
Dave,I do understand that. The reason that I said communication was the issue is because the finals format of 2 rounds was stated in the original proposal the that was voted on last year, right after the NATS in Muncie. That document was not directly distributed with that section highlighted for all to understand, but this was distributed to all the DVP's (me included since I was the DVP at the time...). It was also stated that the FAI finals would also be 2 rounds, but since clarified that the FAI rulebook prescribed a specific format, which is why this was reverted. There was no last minute decision made other than to let people who are attending weigh in. The comment of disenfranchising 25% of participants is not accurate. If I count all the Oppose votes, 6% of the pilots are not getting what they desire. Let us also not forget that we have to have judges and support folks for the Masters finals outside of the people supporting the FAI finals. They have to sit out in the sun and watch additional rounds of Masters. If we have significantly more volunteers to provide a diverse judging pool that commits to that role, an alternate format would have never been suggested from day one. We can certainly all agree on that, no?
Of course I appreciate your input and insight!
I actually do have a full time job as well, so forgive if I don't immediately respond to these going forward. Rest assured, I'll circle back around though.
Best,Joe Walker
On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 10:07 AM, Dave Lockhart <davel322 at comcast.net> wrote:
#yiv8336458517 #yiv8336458517 --
_filtered #yiv8336458517 {font-family:Wingdings;panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
_filtered #yiv8336458517 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv8336458517 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv8336458517 {panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
#yiv8336458517
#yiv8336458517 p.yiv8336458517MsoNormal, #yiv8336458517 li.yiv8336458517MsoNormal, #yiv8336458517 div.yiv8336458517MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}
#yiv8336458517 a:link, #yiv8336458517 span.yiv8336458517MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv8336458517 a:visited, #yiv8336458517 span.yiv8336458517MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv8336458517 span.yiv8336458517apple-style-span
{}
#yiv8336458517 span.yiv8336458517EmailStyle18
{color:#1F497D;}
#yiv8336458517 .yiv8336458517MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt;}
_filtered #yiv8336458517 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
#yiv8336458517 div.yiv8336458517WordSection1
{}
#yiv8336458517
_filtered #yiv8336458517 {}
_filtered #yiv8336458517 {font-family:Symbol;}
_filtered #yiv8336458517 {}
_filtered #yiv8336458517 {font-family:Wingdings;}
_filtered #yiv8336458517 {font-family:Wingdings;}
_filtered #yiv8336458517 {font-family:Wingdings;}
_filtered #yiv8336458517 {font-family:Wingdings;}
_filtered #yiv8336458517 {font-family:Wingdings;}
_filtered #yiv8336458517 {font-family:Wingdings;}
_filtered #yiv8336458517 {font-family:Wingdings;}
#yiv8336458517 ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
#yiv8336458517 ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
#yiv8336458517 Joe, Respectfully, I think a last minute NATs change AFTER registration was started that CLEARLY sours and/or drives away any of the competitors is a poor course of action. There has been at least one pilot expressing a key element to their decision to go to the NATs is based on the possible number of flights they get. For you to state “NONE” of this is about 2-4 rounds in finals is not accurate (and yes, there has been a ton of information to read and digest, and things can be overlooked). That said, I agree communication is the bigger issue that needs to be tackled, and it is not something that should be done hastily at the last minute. Yes, the existing format has faced challenges in recent years on finals day. No argument there. However, when there is a clear downside to what is being proposed, what is the overwhelming benefit that offsets disenfranchising 25% of this years participants, and does not even attempt to capture the full breadth of the pattern flyers that haven’t attended a NATs recently, or might attend a NATs should it travel to their area? Regards, Dave From: Joe Walker [mailto:vellum2 at bellsouth.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 9:36 AM
To: DaveL322 <DaveL322 at comcast.net>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; Frackowiak Tony <frackowiak at sbcglobal.net>; Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Nats registration 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170621/50bb4150/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list