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

[Mark Atwood]

Ron (RVP),  Can you lay out for all of us the chronology of what has to
happen to get a new sequence in?

I think this would be enlightening to most as to what a PITA it is calendar
time wise.

I.e. To put the process in place that Ed is suggesting, I think would put a
new sequence out at least 4 years from the "start" of creating it.

So I'd be curious to see the timeline..

"We need a new sequence..." - Day 1

Form a committee - x weeks or months

Create sequence - X Months

Review by NSRCA Board/put out for survey - X Months

Blah blah blah...

AND THEN...work backwards for the AMA process...

Submission to the AMA for the 20XX year rules has to occur years before it
goes into effect (prelim vote, changes, final vote, publication, etc etc)

I think Ron has a feel for the required process, but I'd love to hear what
the beginning to "in effect" time lag is for a new sequence under the AMA
rules process.

-M


On 7/26/07 11:59 AM, "Ed Alt" <ed_alt at hotmail.com> wrote:

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