<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none; FONT: 10pt verdana; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none">
Initially I felt that the annex system was a great idea, in fact I voted
in the affirmative.However, that being said,and additionally having had
more time to give it a little more thought I have become aware that there
are many valid arguments that can be rendered both pro and con.As a result,
I am now on the fence, without enough solid logic on either side to influence
me to arrive at a final conclusion either way.Due to experiences shared
on this list over the last few years, I sort of feel that even if we are
allowed the privilege of generating our own sequences we should still leave
the approval of the maneuver descriptions in the hands of the Rules Committee.Those
same experiences have indicated, to me at least, that many of even the
highly regarded among us seem to have the uncanny ability to alter the
meaning of the English language in such a way as to confuse what otherwise
should be glaringly apparent.In many instances these errors are promulgated
in a very authoritative way sometimes swaying a significant segment of
the membership.Therefore I feel that the maneuver descriptions should be
in the hands of some long-established really seasoned veterans who will
apply their cumulative, many years of experience to the understanding and
interpretive requirements involved.
<br>The rulebook in it'spresent form is resolute regarding issues of execution
and I fear that if these areas are turned over to the SIG, that much of
the clarity we now enjoy would meld into vaguery over the years.I could
site several such examples that have occurred in just the past couple of
years, but it is not my intent here to raise the hackles of other individuals.
I'm only registering a concern of a well meaning member(please believe
me).
<p>Bill Glaze wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>It will satisfy our needs, if the contest board feels
that we have enough sense to decide amongst ourselves what we want, and
adopts that attitude that "that government is best which governs least."
I hope so. I also feel that this is a band-aid approach that, for
the present, is necessary. I also hope that I'm wrong, and that it
is, in fact, a long term solution. Remember, we are dealing here
with a group, (the CB) that was willing, (and did so) to hold all the classes
hostage for the sake of their deleting one "offending" maneuver.
<p>Bill Glaze
<p>John Ferrell wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><style></style>
<font face="Arial">I believe that
will satisfy our needs.</font>John Ferrell
<br>6241 Phillippi Rd
<br>Julian NC 27283
<br>Phone: (336)685-9606
<br>Dixie Competition Products
<br>NSRCA 479 AMA 4190 W8CCW
<br>"My Competition is Not My Enemy"
<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 href="mailto:tony@radiosouthrc.com" title="tony@radiosouthrc.com">Tony
Stillman</a></div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org" title="discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</a></div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 27, 2002 9:20
AM</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: Sequences for 2003</div>
<font face="Arial"><font size=+0>Just to let everyone know, the proposal
to go to an Annex system has been re-submitted to AMA. John Fuqua
contacted AMA and was able to come to a "compromise" that would be acceptable
to AMA on this issue.</font></font> <font face="Arial"><font size=+0>The
proposal will allow for a maneuver schedule change by NSRCA making a survey
of members with some choices of new schedules. All maneuvers would
be listed in an "annex" that the schedules would be drawn up from.
Maneuvers can be added to the annex as needed. Once the membership
picks a specific schedule, it would be sent directly to the contest board
for approval. This should only take a couple of weeks, and could
done at anytime, if needed. Most likely, we will only want to change schedules
every two or three years. The idea is that we would not be "tied"
to the AMA rules cycle to make a change. We could also "correct"
any issues that might arise with a particular schedule by making needed
changes.</font></font> <font face="Arial"><font size=+0>This is not exactly
what we wanted, but John feels that it is a good starting point, and gets
our "foot in the door" for further changes down the road.</font></font>
<font face="Arial"><font size=+0>The main issue is that we can make changes
outside of the 3-years rules cycle, if passed.</font></font> Tony
Stillman
<br>Radio South, Inc.
<br>3702 N. Pace Blvd.
<br>Pensacola, Fl 32505
<br><a href="http://www.radiosouthrc.com">www.radiosouthrc.com</a>
<br>800-962-7802
<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 href="mailto:troy_newman@msn.com" title="troy_newman@msn.com">Troy
Newman</a></div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org" title="discussion@nsrca.org">discussion</a></div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 27, 2002 2:06
AM</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: Sequences for 2003</div>
The current AMA rules allow for a 3yr cycle. There have only been
submissions to change the Masters sequence in 2005. There are two choices
for this Masters 2005-2007 sequence. No other rules changes were submitted
to change the AMA classes of Sportsman, Intermediate, or Advanced. Now
there was a proposal to change to an Annex system where the NSRCA control
the sequences and they can change it anytime they want to. That failed
already and currently the people in support of this system are looking
for ways to get it passed by the AMA. With this exception there will be
no changes of the AMA Precision Aerobatics sequences until 2008. The reason
the current rules cycle began on Oct 1 of 2002 to make changes for 2005.
Since there was nothing submitted there will not be any changes in 2005
except a possible switch of the masters pattern. To my knowledge there
are two options. Important thing to remember guys as was discussed at extreme
length the NSRCA does NOT make any rules. Whether that changes in future
or not is up to the AMA. BUT the NSRCA is not the holder of the rules,
they are not the interpreter of the rules, and the NSRCA is not a ruling
body. We as the NSRCA look to the AMA for rules. We make suggestions both
as a group and as individual members and the AMA's processes control the
rules. I want to make a very strong point that its not some abstract group
that has no clue what's going on. The AMA contest board includes many and
mostly active flyers. There are some that are essentially inactive in recent
years but the Board is dominated by Pattern, IMAC competitors, and TOC
pilots. For the most part these guys are active in the Aerobatics community
and are members of the NSRCA and IMAC. The rules survey said that
the responding NSRCA members favored a 3yr rules cycle. This is the current
AMA cycle. If nobody submits a change there is no change in the current
system. Just some food for thought. I figured after the tongue lashing
given this topic over the past month it was clear. This is the way the
system operates TODAY....and will operate until 2005 unless a Urgent change
is made by the AMA. TN
<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; COLOR: black"><b>From:</b>
JZeigenfus@aol.com</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt Arial"><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, December 26, 2002
9:11 PM</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt Arial"><b>To:</b> discussion@nsrca.org</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt Arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: Sequences for 2003</div>
<font face="Arial"><font size=-1>There are no dumb questions. The
patterns are changed every three years. If you go to the web site you can
find the patterns listed for whichever class you are going to fly in. We
will be in the second year of the current pattern cycle. JEZ . <a href="msn://@mail.mar@/www.nsrca.org">www.nsrca.org</a></font></font></blockquote>
<p><br>
<hr>Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : <a href="http://explorer.msn.com">http://explorer.msn.com</a>
<br>
<br> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>