<!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 text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Thanks, Eric, and you're correct in that I don't understand why all the
AMA classes cannot be treated under the same rules/time schedules. Or,
put another way, I am having trouble seeing how/why AMA procedures
create a rift in classes.<br>
And, not to belabor the point, I fail to see why, if schedules had been
submitted for all classes at the same time, that new schedules couldn't
have been adopted in the same time frame.<br>
As far as the Annex goes, while it may seem to be a panacea, (and I am
all for the Annex) it seems to me that a mindset that will make equal
all the schedules (and those flying them) will still be required. To
date, I have yet to see that mindset in the words and deeds of the
Masters/FAI flyers whose prominence seems to dictate to the lower
classes. Possibly this is inevitable; I don't know. And, maybe I'm
wrong. I would sure like to be proven so. BTW: I'm not trying to
start a class war here; just trying to improve the sport. Possibly we
can regain some of the membership that we have lost over the past few
years.<br>
Bill Glaze<br>
<br>
Henderson,Eric wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midE738E219A3E261479F5702D7EBBD3C57946AB4@bobcat.ent.gartner.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<title></title>
<meta content="MSHTML 5.50.4611.1300" name="GENERATOR">
<div> </div>
<div class="OutlookMessageHeader" dir="ltr" align="left"><font
face="Tahoma" size="2">-----Original Message-----<br>
<b>From:</b> Henderson,Eric <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, January 23, 2004 11:21 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> '<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</a>'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Artistic Aerobatics<br>
<br>
</font></div>
<div><span class="771300004-24012004"><font face="Arial"
color="#0000ff" size="2">The membership vote<span
class="942592704-24012004"> </span> from the 1999 rules survey was
that the NSRCA propose to the AMA that we change them all (401-404) in
one big go. So we did just that. Those routines are now running from
2002 to 2004 </font></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="771300004-24012004"><font face="Arial"
color="#0000ff" size="2">The same rules survey said change Masters
(404)<span class="942592704-24012004"> </span>every three years, So we
proposed new 404 routines in the 2002 rules survey. If voted in by the
AMA contest board it will gives us a new 404 for 2005 to 2007.</font></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="771300004-24012004"><font face="Arial"
color="#0000ff" size="2">The 2002 survey included every question that
came to me from all sources. The 2002 survey result asked for new
schedules; in all classes be proposed in three year cycles.We have to
go most of the way through 2005 to 2007 before we start work on the
2008 proposals. </font></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="771300004-24012004"><font face="Arial"
color="#0000ff" size="2">I know it is hard to understand, and
probably harder to accept, but this is how the AMA does it. Why do you
think the NSRCA has been trying to get an Annex system in place and
change the control of schedules-changing. Its a long drawn out affair
that completely clashes with common sense and certainly confuses most
folks.</font></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="771300004-24012004"><font face="Arial"
color="#0000ff" size="2">Regards,</font></span></div>
<span class="771300004-24012004"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff"
size="2"></font>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><br>
Eric.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"> </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div class="OutlookMessageHeader" dir="ltr" align="left"><font
face="Tahoma" size="2">-----Original Message-----<br>
<b>From:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org">discussion-request@nsrca.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org">mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org</a>]<b>On Behalf Of </b>Bill Glaze<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, January 23, 2004 11:52 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Artistic Aerobatics<br>
<br>
</font></div>
Eric:<br>
Somewhere in your lucid explanation there must be a reason that the
other classes did not commence with the composition of new schedules
when the Masters schedule was composed.<br>
Obviously, these other classes then could have been installed when the
Masters was. People are available that would have been more than eager
to work on the other classes parallel to the classe(s) which were
changed. Was there no opportunity for that to happen? To someone on
the outside looking in, it just seems as if part of the organization
moved ahead, while part was left to stagnate. Or so I see it.
Illuminate me.<br>
In the event, it would seem to me that now is the time to compose the
committees, which in turn can formulate the schedules for all of us,
all classes. Perhaps this is ongoing, and I just haven't been aware of
it. I hope.<br>
Respectfully, <br>
Bill Glaze<br>
<br>
Henderson,Eric wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midE738E219A3E261479F5702D7EBBD3C57946AA7@bobcat.ent.gartner.com">
<meta content="MSHTML 5.50.4611.1300" name="GENERATOR">
<div><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"><span
class="177470718-23012004"><span class="942592704-24012004"> </span></span></font></div>
</blockquote>
</span></blockquote>
</body>
</html>