[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010

[Mark Atwood]

EXACTLY.  That was my point as well.  I'm NOT in favor of changing them
every year, I'm STRONGLY in favor of being ABLE to.

-M


On 7/26/07 11:04 AM, "Doug Cronkhite" <seefo at san.rr.com> wrote:

> Just because you CAN change them every year doesn't mean you have to or
> should. I agree with you that the lower classes should have some
> stability so newer pilots have a chance to build the foundation the
> higher classes require.
> 
> I think the SIG should absolutely have control of the schedules, as the
> people leading the SIG are generally actively involved in the sport.
> Other than Tony Stillman, are any of the EC active in pattern? Because
> if they're not, then I don't think they can make an accurate assessment
> of the needs of the SIG. Tony may be the only one on the EC who even
> flies anything on a regular basis now.
> 
> -Doug
> 
>> I like variety in schedules too, but I think there is a balance to
>> strike with the lower classes.  It's a lot of effort each year to
>> learn a new sequence.  Once you have enough experience flying
>> aerobatics, you can focus on new sequences without detracting from the
>> other improvements you want to make.
>> 
>> Re. giving the SIG all the control, I would not want to see that
>> happen.  In the case of IMAC, the SIG leadership became very IAC
>> centric and made changes that work against being able to learn
>> fundamentals before moving up, in favor a being a carbon copy
>> miniature of IAC.  Just look at what the IMAC lower class sequences
>> now contain and consider what problems they represent for learning
>> fundamentals.  I think you need an effective counterbalance to help
>> keep sanity to the sequence design.
>> 
>> Ed
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion