<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
Bill Glaze wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid3F99D672.6040600@triad.rr.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;">
<title></title>
Ron:<br>
I didn't hear any call for any committee members to volunteer for schedule
preparation for any class. When was it made? Where? K-Factor? Net Group?
I sure would have been in line if asked. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
There was no call for committee members because the NSRCA leadership decided
not to do wholesale changes to 401 - 403 for the next rule cycle for the
reasons stated earlier. Whoever's in the NSRCA leadership role when it comes
time to make up sequences for the next rule change cycle will have to make
the same decision. If changes are warranted, a new committee will be formed.
It is interesting to note that, of the committee who drafted the maneuver
schedules we are flying now, only two of its members are still flying Pattern.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid3F99D672.6040600@triad.rr.com"><br>
<br>
Ron Van Putte wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid3F9994AF.4040701@cox.net">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;">
<title></title>
<br>
<br>
Bill Glaze wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid3F999CE3.5000404@triad.rr.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;">
<title></title>
All:<br>
It is interesting, however, to note that, while there wasn't "time" to
get new schedules together for classes other than Masters, there still existed
enough "time" to put that one together. (And, of course, being much more
involved, it would consume more "time.") The intentions of those folks
in charge of the asylum<G> wouldn't have been nearly as suspect, if
the only new sequence to be submitted was, say, Advanced or Sportsman. I
tend toward believing that, regardless of the survey results, there is a cadre
of folks that believe the classes other than FAI and Masters just don't warrant
the attention required.<br>
And, please believe me, this is not any kind of a slam at Ron, but you
note that his idea of the "Old Geezers Class" mentions only Masters. BTW:
Ron may have been joking, but I feel that his idea has more than a little
merit.<br>
Perhaps the other classes need an advocate specific to them? Or an ombudsman
whose efforts would encompass everyone except the top classes?<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
First, I don't know who said there 'was no time' to change the 401 - 403
maneuver schedules. I never did. There's always time. What there's a
shortage of is people to volunteer to act on committees to come up with new
maneuver schedules. I was on the committee which came up with all the current
schedules and didn't care to do it twice in a row, especially when the biggest
whiners are often the ones who wouldn't serve on a committee if asked. If
people want change, they need to volunteer. It takes less effort to get
a job done than to complain that someone else won't do it for you. Only the
guilty should feel offended.<br>
<br>
Second, 401 - 403 have sequences which are made up of maneuvers of increasing
complexity. There are only so many ways these maneuvers can be put together
without the resulting maneuver schedule looking very similar to the one
which preceeded it. I think 401 and 402 should stay very much the same,
partly because of what I just wrote and partly because many competitors
go through the schedules and advance to the followon (new to them) maneuver
schedules in a year or two. Just because they advance, they see new maneuver
schedules every other year or so. The pilots who sit in these classes for
years are really the only ones who notice that the maneuver schedules haven't
changed. I think that 403 is the only class which should change much and
that's only because it is the terminal class for many pilots who have reached
the pinnacle of their piloting ability. <br>
<br>
Ron Van Putte<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid3F999CE3.5000404@triad.rr.com"><br>
<br>
george kennie wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid3F996423.45DF9738@gis.net"> Hey Bill,
<br>
This one's not even tough to figure out! The administrative people were
all coming from the ranks of the Master's class at the time the survey was
done and didn't want to be bothered with us peons. They were only interested
in fixing what they specifically were affected by and the rest of us could
be accomodated at a time convenient to their agenda, which somehow was thrown
into disarray by the everyday hum-drum of life. <br>
Not everybody is as selfless as your bud John Ferrill! <br>
Georgie
<p>Bill Glaze wrote: </p>
<blockquote type="CITE">Eric: <br>
Thanks much. I just knew that I wasn't mistaken about something that
was so dear to my heart.<G> <br>
As far as implementation, would it not have been possible to submit the
other class(es) proposed schedules just as was done with Masters? In other
words, right alongside Masters for consideration by AMA? If this was, in
fact possible, does anybody have any idea why it wasn't done?
<p>Bill Glaze <br>
</p>
<p>Henderson,Eric wrote: </p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midE738E219A3E261479F5702D7EBBD3C57946718@bobcat.ent.gartner.com">
<pre wrap="">Bill,
The 2002 survey and the implementation of its results fell on my shoulders. Masters(404) had several schedules designed and available that were shown for your vote. It was expected that 404 would change every three years, as per the 1999 survey.
I personally asked the question "Should we also change 401-402 on a three year basis?" You all voted yes. Now we have to come up with a way to do that.
As Ron states, the Annex system is the way we can do it.
Regards,
Eric.
P.S. We posted all the results in several places, but I will send you a copy of the word file. - E.
-----Original Message-----
From: <a href="mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated">discussion-request@nsrca.org
</a>[<a href="mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org</a>]On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 5:58 PM
To: <a href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated">discussion@nsrca.org
</a>Subject: Re: Schedules
Bill Glaze wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I noted that only the AMA Masters class seem to be applying for a new
schedule.
One of the reasons for change was stated as being that a majority of
the membership voted for change.
The same vote tabulation stated that the other classes also wished to
see a schedule change.
Is this currently being worked on?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Proposals for changes to the current 401 - 403 maneuver schedules were
not submitted to the AMA by NSRCA. However, IF the NSRCA Annex proposal
passes, we will have the option of changes to all maneuver schedules as
frequently as annually.
I don't remember that a majority 'voted' for changes to schedules other
than the Master class. Even so, any AMA member can submit a change
proposal. I have submitted several as an individual over the years.
One was for the takeoff direction being the pilot's option. I
submitted it three times before it finally passed on the third try, but
it did pass. So, individual proposals do get through. People need to
make proposals if they see the need for change and not rely on someone
doing it for them.
Ron Van Putte
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Thanks
Bill Glaze
=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to #
<a href="mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated">discussion-request@nsrca.org
</a># and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to
# <a href="mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated">discussion-request@nsrca.org
</a># and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#
==================================# To be removed from this list, send a message to
# <a href="mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated">discussion-request@nsrca.org
</a># and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>