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

[Ed Alt]

Doug:
I agree that we should not have a panel of non-enthusiasts in charge of the 
actual sequence design. I don't think I stated my point too well.  The SIG 
does contain the best source of knowledge to construct sequences.  Given the 
right structure to how the committee is formed and how their work overseen 
is what is criitical.  I don't think NSRCA has this process quite right yet. 
  This isn't meant to criticize anyone, but I think that more thought has to 
be put into how we manage the process in the future.

It seems to me that the Sequence Committee work should first pass muster 
with the NSRCA board, who should review it to make sure that it certain 
criteria are met, not whether personally like it or not.  What is that 
criteria?  That needs to be better defined.  It appears to take the form of 
tribal knowledge. One attempt to put some structure to evaluating a sequence 
is via a tool that Dave Lockhart developed , which I think is very useful.  
However, is this developed to the point it needs to be?  Whatever method we 
use to create and evaluate should be well understood and applied 
consistently.

Beyond how we establish consistency within our SIG, it seems that the EC 
role ought to be to review that their flock of SIGS followed AMA guidelines 
for producing their work, not to define exactly how they produce the work 
product (the sequences in this case).  So, the EC should demand that the SIG 
has a defined procedure and that the SIG leadership has assured compliance 
through their oversight and ultimately, their signatures on the product.

Ed


>From: Doug Cronkhite <seefo at san.rr.com>
>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010
>Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:04:26 -0700
>
>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

_________________________________________________________________
http://newlivehotmail.com