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

[Ken Thompson]

Hey Mark,

How far away is...well...forever?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Atwood" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010


>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
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion