<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br><<<<Bound by the 2002 Survey we made a set of three new
Masters schedules for you all to choose one from. The membership had said
<br>no to changing 401-403 on this three year frequency so we had no directive
to propose any new ones. >>>>
<br>
<br>There must be an explanation for this that I just am not seeing, or
maybe my printer has acquired a Hal mentality.
<br>I have before me a print-out of a Survey Results form dated Friday,
Sept. 20, 2002 that was posted to this list by the data collection person
in which all the survey questions are listed by number and the voting results
tabulated.
<br>Question #9 referencing the sportsman class(401) declares " Change
every rules cycle(3 years)" as being the " winner" over "change every other
rules cycle (6 years).
<br>Question #15, Question #20, and Question #22 referencing Intermediate,
Advanced, and Master's all declare the 3 year cycle as "winner" over the
other options.
<br>I think what I'm confused about is, if all classes were voted on by
the membership to have their schedules changed every 3 years, then why
was master's selected as the one to be changed if there wasn't enough time
to change all schedules?. Why wasn't a vote taken to decide which schedule
to change?
<br>Or, why wasn't the easiest schedule selected in the interest of expediency(401)?
<br>I didn't see anything in the results that indicate " change Master's
and nothing else".
<br>I know that I make a lot of errors and am probably misinterpreting
something here so somebody straighten me out and I'll put this thing to
bed.
<br>Georgie
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p>"Henderson,Eric" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<div class="OutlookMessageHeader" dir="ltr"><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1>-----Original
Message-----</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>From:</b> Henderson,Eric</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, January 24,
2004 11:02 PM</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>To:</b> 'discussion@nsrca.org'</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>Subject:</b> RE: Artistic Aerobatics</font></font>
<br> </div>
<span class=912041203-25012004><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>Bill,</font></font></font></span><span class=912041203-25012004><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>
I'll take one more crack at explaining this.</font></font></font></span><span class=912041203-25012004></span><span class=912041203-25012004><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>1.
The AMA cycle is takes three years between each normal change submission.
(There can be emergency and urgent proposals if there is a safety or critical
issue that needs solving).</font></font></font></span><span class=912041203-25012004></span><span class=912041203-25012004><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>2.
Change submissions have to be submitted two years-plus before they can
actually be implemented.</font></font></font></span><span class=912041203-25012004></span><span class=912041203-25012004><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>3.
The NSRCA does surveys to get votes on changes from the NSRCA membership.
These surveys are also done approximately on a three year cycle. The surveys
can occur almost three years in advance of an NSRCA submission to the AMA
Contest board.</font></font></font></span><span class=912041203-25012004></span><span class=912041203-25012004><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>4.
To be ready for an AMA cycle we have to work in advance of the final date
for change-submission. (The judging committee, for example, collect
all rules issues for just such an opportunity)</font></font></font></span><span class=912041203-25012004></span><span class=912041203-25012004><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>5.
The submission date for 2005-2007 changes was Fall 2002.</font></font></font></span><span class=912041203-25012004></span><span class=912041203-25012004><b><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>To
make NSRCA proposals we take votes on many questions so we can represent
our membership accurately</font></font></font></b></span><span class=912041203-25012004></span><span class=912041203-25012004><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>Back
in the 1999/2000 NSRCA survey asked when we should change the routines.
It said change them all this "one big time" and then just change Masters.</font></font></font></span><span class=912041203-25012004></span><span class=912041203-25012004><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>Bound
by the 2002 Survey we made a set of three new Masters schedules for you
all to choose one from.</font></font></font> <font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>The
membership had said no to changing 401-403 on this three year frequency
so we had no directive to propose any new ones. </font></font></font></span><span class=912041203-25012004></span><span class=912041203-25012004><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>The
2002 survey asked many questions. All questions that came to me were included.
Many had been asked before, including the 401-403 change frequency for
schedules. Less than ten days after the results were tabulated all changes
were submitted to the AMA. (You could not possibly develop and survey 401-403
changes in that time frame.)</font></font></font></span><span class=912041203-25012004></span><span class=912041203-25012004><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>The
next window to change 401-403 is around 2006-7 to get 2008 changes implemented.
A survey is probably required to get an NSRCA vote and a lot of new schedules
need to be prepared and tested etc.</font></font></font></span><span class=912041203-25012004></span><span class=912041203-25012004><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>One
comment:- It is very easy to have and idea and it can certainly be frustrating
when you find out how long it will take to get, what just seems plain common
sense, to be implemented. I hope that you can now get a sense of how much
work and effort, combined with a high degree of fortitude, is required
to just get one change done, let alone a series of major changes. I gratefully
remember a lot of good people, and I must point out that they were from
all of the classes, who put many hours into getting the 2002 routines produced.
They never gave up, and even when their schedules did not get selected
they stayed with their teams and never quit. It was a privilege to work
with them.</font></font></font></span><span class=912041203-25012004></span><span class=912041203-25012004><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>Regards,</font></font></font></span><span class=912041203-25012004></span><span class=912041203-25012004><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>Eric.</font></font></font></span><span class=912041203-25012004></span><span
class=912041203-25012004></span><span
class=912041203-25012004></span><span
class=912041203-25012004></span><span
class=912041203-25012004></span><span
class=912041203-25012004></span><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1>-----Original
Message-----</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>From:</b> discussion-request@nsrca.org
[<A HREF="mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org">mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org</A>]<b>On Behalf Of </b>Bill Glaze</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, January 24,
2004 11:17 PM</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>To:</b> discussion@nsrca.org</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>Subject:</b> Re: Artistic Aerobatics</font></font>
<br> 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
<p>Henderson,Eric wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midE738E219A3E261479F5702D7EBBD3C57946AB4@bobcat.ent.gartner.com"><span
class=909200504-25012004></span><span
class=771300004-24012004></span></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>