<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18828">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I know official discussion hasn't started but this
list is one of the good vetting forums. Vince proposed Masters flying FAI
P, which is clear, but if the logic behind the proposal as written causes
confusion it may make a less convincing case. For example, it says "there
is an evident pile up f pilots in the Masters class" but never clearly states
how flying the same sequence would change that. He may be implying that
people will more freely move between classes to balance the lines because they
are flying a similar sequence but the sequences may not be identical and the
judging rules are not identical. At another point it says "This will make
judging of both classes very accurate" but doesn't address the obvious
differences in judging criteria between AMA and FAI, which is the current burden
that Masters and FAI pilots currently bear when the fly one class and judge the
other. Finally, there is no exact wording proposed on the form where it is
expected, but later in the logic it refers to the idea of replacing some FAI
manuvers where appropriate. Without exact wording, its not clear how this
is done, or if the manuver descriptions will be re-written in the AMA rules, or
referenced to the FAI descriptions like the sequence. Oh, and how does AMA
deal with the fact that FAI changes schedules in odd years?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>My intent is simply to point out aspects that
detract from it's thoroughness. I do not yet have a stance on the
issue.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>--Lance</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>