<!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 6.00.2800.1126" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY
style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none; FONT: 10pt verdana; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>
<DIV>I too agree with much in Troy's post. I think there is </DIV>
<DIV>considerable merit in leaving the maneuver schedules and<BR>descriptions n
the AMA Rule book where they are easily </DIV>
<DIV>found by would be new pattern pilots. Particularly the
</DIV>
<DIV>AMA Sportsman and Intermediate classes. We can
still<BR>change them at the 3 year AMA cycle as may be needed. </DIV>
<DIV>Though, since pilots progress through those classes, </DIV>
<DIV>they don't need to change very often. Masters Advanced</DIV>
<DIV>may need </FONT><FONT face=Arial>changing more often since
pilots don't progress </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>through </FONT><FONT face=Arial>them as
quickly. </FONT><FONT face=Arial>Still, I'm not sure that more often
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>than 3 years is all that important.</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Ron Lockhart</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
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=weedon@wwnet.net href="mailto:weedon@wwnet.net">Thomas C. Weedon</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, December 10, 2002 5:22
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: Annex rules proposals</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=180491022-10122002><FONT face=verdana>I thought more of you
would have read Troy Newman's reply to the list. He has made some very
good points that are worthy of your consideration. Therefore I am resubmitting
his post below. I have mixed feelings about any annex proposal for the same
reasons that Troy submitted. Why don't we look at what could become a
"Pandora's Box" with this annex idea and see if there is not some better idea?
What is so bad about a maneuver schedule change every 3 years for the Masters
class with occasional changes in the other schedules as needed. An annex
could lead to some VERY WEIRD maneuver schedules in the future. Have any of
you studied the IMAC schedules lately? You would see what I mean, if you had.
They just don't FLOW! Nothing pretty or graceful about them. Too much jumping
around with a reduced number of center maneuvers. Just my
opinion, Tom W.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=180491022-10122002></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=180491022-10122002><FONT face=verdana>Troy
Said;......</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>As for the Annex I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I don't
want the annex. I feel that the Rules Survey supports that we don't need
it....</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The reason Every question regarding how often the rules need to be
changed was voted as 3 yrs to be the winner......</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Well guess what folks 3 yrs is what we have now!</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Also having viewed the IMAC process over the last few years its not
perfect.....In fact I think its lousy....</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>#1 The sequences don't build skills they just change...and get
more maneuvers as you climb the ranks. We worked very hard to make our
sequences grow the skills of the pilot not just give a longer laundry list
to perform.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>#2 The changing every year of the sequences or often changing of
the sequences doesn't provide a good benchmark in the pilots assessment of
his skills. Currently here in the Colorado area we have some guys flying in
classes well above their skill level...The reason is there was no
competition in the same class so I moved up to get some....The result has
been a very wide gap in the proficiency of the pilot. Take the top class in
Pattern Masters or F3A and compare the pilots skill to the average advanced
or Unlimited IMAC pilot and at least locally the degree of perfection is
lower....Not saying that the IMAC flyers are not as good of flyers just that
the achievement of perfection in the sequence is lower.....There are two
main reasons in my opinion for this...as stated in #1 the skill
building...and secondly the changing in sequences is every year and pilot
doesn't get the chance to perfect the skills in the current schedule then
must move on to a new schedule.....</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>#3 as addressed in Eric's note the Who is going to design the sequences
and maintain them? The NSRCA Board? Come on I've been on
the Board and there are the same issues within the board picking the
sequences as having this list design them....Just my opinion.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>#4 If the current system is in place as it is now then a
motivated individual can rally support and get a sequence submitted with
other flyers support to change the sequence. This was road I chose with our
individual submission of a choice for the 2005 Masters sequence....</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>#5 We just changed things.....We have not had a good feel for
what the changes accomplished on the last rules cycle we have only flown
them for 1 year...and before that year was over we are wanting the
permission to change them again....I don't think this portrays us as a
responsible group that has proven we are in control of the situation.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>IMAC is not a perfect situation. They have grown very fast in a short
time and have become very aware that the growing pains sometimes hurt. I
also think that in the future the changes we see in IMAC will become less
and less and the stability will come with time.....In pattern we already
have a huge amount of stability. I can travel from sea to shinning sea
and get the same quality of judging and adherence to the rules as I can
locally. This is not the case in IMAC the rules have changed so frequently
and localities have their own ways of doing it and you don't get the
same types of flying performance of even the same judging criteria across
the country. </DIV>
<DIV>This in my opinion is a strong asset to both the AMA and the
NSRCA......I'm not ready to toss this stability out in the sake of change.
Imac is not a perfect world and the decline in pattern numbers is not
because of IMAC stealing our flyers as some suggest or believe.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>A wise man once told me "Never change for the Sake of Change. It
breeds instability."</DIV>
<DIV>Snip- when all of this post was left on, the list rejected it - too
big.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>