<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2873" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>There certainly have been many valid viewpoints expressed regarding the
schedules and everyone's outlook should certainly be respected if not
necessarily embraced.Our democratic process validates this. Whether or not we
are alone or part of a larger contingent in our opinion is less of a necessity
than achieving the overall concensus expressed by the majority.</DIV>
<DIV>I, for one, am aware that I have difficulty with inverted entries
although exits don't seem to be as much of a problem to me, so I can relate
to the expressed concern.However I take heart in the fact that others have
directed me to concentrate my practice time on those areas of weakness outside
of the schedule per se and have taken this advice to heart like a wake-up
call. I regularly practice the "OLD" Intermediate schedule and find the idea of
performing it from start to finish in the inverted idiom a refreshing challenge.
Just think what that will do for my "inverted entries"!</DIV>
<DIV>When the schedule survey was presented to the membership I made my voice
known regarding my preferences and now the resulting outcome is deemed by me
the majority rule and I'm O.K. with that because I am also aware that it's
not possible to create an ecstatic experience for every member of the
group.</DIV>
<DIV>In the case of the Advanced sequence, if there were significant inverted
entries and exits, we would probably be hearing a strong outcry from someone who
would consider the leap from Intermediate an insurmountable barrier to his or
her moving up and the concern would be just as valid.</DIV>
<DIV>There is no easy answer and the people who are responsible for the creation
of the new sequences should not feel that they have been put in a defensive
position, but be very satisfied that their efforts were the very best that they
could come up with at the time and I, for one, salute their efforts on behalf of
the needs of the rest of this great group of people.</DIV>
<DIV>Georgie</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=JonLowe@aol.com href="mailto:JonLowe@aol.com">JonLowe@aol.com</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, May 10, 2006 8:01
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2007
Advanced Schedule</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 5/9/2006 10:52:29 PM Central Daylight Time, <A
href="mailto:precisionaero@comcast.net">precisionaero@comcast.net</A>
writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thanks for the detailed response Dave.
You also allow me to bring up a good point that needs to be made.
Before you "fight" and accuse, get your facts straight. Maybe the
world is not out to get you. Maybe some thought did go into this
proposal. And since this is a democracy, you have the right not to
like it, but this was voted on. Dave, can you remind us of the voting
results from NSRCA and AMA members please?</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV>The results are on the NSRCA website. A total of 74 people voted on
whether to change Advanced or not. However the demographic shows
that only 43 were flying Advanced or below. You can't tell from the
results what the demographic was that voted for the "harder" option or the
"easier" option. Only 60 people voted for one of the two options.
Taking out the 17 not flying advanced or below could sway the
vote on the options either way. I also remember that the NSRCA
leadership was disappointed in the survey, because only a small number of
members responded at all. Whether or not this survey was representative
of the membership at large would have to be looked at by an expert.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I will also remind "precisionaero" (you might want to sign your
posts), that the NSRCA survey was only a "preliminary" at
best. The "election", by the AMA contest board, who have the only votes
that count, hasn't happened yet. Yes, democracy is still at work, and I
hope you aren't suggesting that an AMA member can't voice his opinion to his
competition board member. Surveys aren't the same as a vote, last I
looked, otherwise the US would have had several different Presidents over the
years. I also asked, and didn't "accuse". I framed
everything I said as a question when I asked about the makeup of the
committee. I did my homework, got the facts that were
available, then asked for the rest. I'm impressed that the cross section
on Troy's committee was pretty good. Troy's group worked hard, and I
respect that. It doesn't mean that I or others have to
agree.</DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 PTSIZE="10">Jon Lowe<BR></FONT></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>