Tony,

There are plenty of examples of rules/systems/processes that work for small groups and not large ones, and vice versa. You think the number of Canadian pattern flyers is sufficient to compare to the number of US AMA pattern flyers, no problem, your opinion. I doubt you'd find any statistician who would agree (just opinion, as I am not a statistician).

Your assumption is that AMA pattern is dwindling because of a problem with AMA rules, and that it can be fixed with some new rule. Numbers in AMA pattern are not dwindling because of a problem with the rules, they are dwindling because of competing interests which are different from pattern. When AMA pattern was at it's peak, what was the rule that brought it to it's peak? Name a single rule implemented since the peak of AMA pattern that has increased numbers. None. It is a much easier argument to make that numbers in pattern have decreased with each substantial rule change, despite the fact that some of the rules were promoted as ways to increase participation (and this certainly did not happen).

Nothing is being done to increase numbers in pattern? As if changes in the rules are the only avenue to increase participation? Then I guess there is no need to hold primers, no need to help sport flyers at the local field, and no need to give away and cheaply sell old pattern equipment. Maybe if we banned IMAC, 3D, jets, and foamies we'd see an increase in pattern again? It obviously will never happen to find out, but the numbers in those events come from somewhere (and it just might be pattern).

Regards,

Dave