<!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 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR></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><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><FONT face=verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>I think that the current system is good. If any Annex is to be in place I
would hope there would some sort of checks and balances in place so that a
screw ball can't just get things changed to fit his desires. Currently the AMA
funds and supports the Contest Board. This group is dedicated and is in touch
with the pattern community I know there are some old heads that have not flown
in years but I also some of them personally and they have pattern in their
interest and they also want your feedback as to which way to vote.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think that we as the NSRCA have a lot to offer our sister group (IMAC)
and I think that the IMAC folks have much to offer us. Look AMA sees us as two
groups doing the same thing. The same contest Board oversees the rules of both
SIGS. Maybe we start helping and working with the IMAC folks....In my opinion
these tough times call for alliances and friends and not making enemies of the
AMA, IMAC or both! The IMAC guys are mad at pattern guys because in their eyes
we have tried to make them follow our rules.....We are mad at those guys
because when they didn't like the rules they took their marbles and went home.
I personally think that both groups are struggling and we need a peacemaker
between the two. I think it would help both groups out to form into one big
voice on RC aerobatics. The rules and judging criteria are most surely
different and should be that way. But as Eric has stated before
Aerobatics is Aerobatics....and we need to work together through our
problems.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Conclusion I think that the slow and tedious process of the current rules
cycle is a good thing. It makes for a stable platform for changes to be made.
The changes happen slow and hence the results both good and bad happen slowly
too. This is a bonus. In some cases quick action is needed. IMAC is in that
boat now. They need quick action and have gotten a little more freedom to make
those changes. I think the board and the AMA sees the need for this quick
action and has let the group stumble and fall as well as succeed in many
areas. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I don't see the Pattern group in need of such quick changes and
reactions. We are stable and that's good. IMAC will become more stable over
time....it will have too. Stability encourages participation...The reason is
the guy that has something come up for a year or two can come back and pick up
where he left off. He is not intimidated and doesn't have to start over. I
think over time the AMA will reel back in some of the freedom and drive the
IMAC sig to be more of a stable platform also.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'm not an AMA advocate...Personally I think they are not at all
responsive to the membership and to competition yet they hold the competition
over our heads. I have many words about the AMA the level of responsibility
the AMA takes in the NATS to make sure it is done properly and correctly. But
as with all finger pointing there are more coming back to us the NSRCA.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This not a slam on anybody or any group. Just my opinions on the
situation.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Troy</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT
face=verdana></FONT> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>