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

[Mark Atwood]

I agree Verne but the rule change "cycle" is horribly cumbersome. It's not 2
years...it's closer to 4.  A sequence being thought about now wont go into
effect until...well...forever.

You need to submit them so far ahead of the process that it makes it
impractical.  


On 7/26/07 11:23 AM, "verne at twmi.rr.com" <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:

> Doug,
> We control our schedules now through the rules process and it's been
> this way for at least 15 years and probably longer. What we've had
> trouble with is more a matter of the timing of the rules cycle than
> anything. I don't believe the EC has ever forced a flight schedule on
> us, at least not in the last 15 or 20 years.
> 
> Verne
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Doug Cronkhite <seefo at san.rr.com>
> Date: Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:06 am
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010
> To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
>> 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
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion