<DIV>I second that. Well said.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bob Richards.<BR><BR><B><I>Ron Van Putte <vanputte@cox.net></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR>I'll bet that many of the people who voted NO on having the progression <BR>of AMA classes designed to prepare for F3A were saying, "I don't think <BR>the construction of the progression of maneuver schedules should be <BR>dictated by a maneuver schedule we have no control over." I, for one, <BR>feel that way. I feel that the Master class, the terminus of the AMA <BR>maneuver schedule sequence, should reflect what members of NSRCA want. <BR>We can't affect what FAI does to the F3A maneuver schedule. If we <BR>tailor the Master class maneuver schedule to what is in the F3A <BR>maneuver schedule, we will be tinkering with it continuously and <BR>changes to the Master class maneuver will often dictate changes to the <BR>maneuver schedules in the other classes. I believe we should decide <BR>what we want to do and do it.<BR><BR>Ron Van Putte<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>