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

[seefo at san.rr.com]

This is the real reason IMAC pushed so hard to get their sequences out 
of the rules cycle. Because while AMA likes to say the cycle is 2 
years, you really need to put AT LEAST another year into it to get the 
proposals ready and more likely 2 years.

The best case scenario is to have your entry level sequence be in the 
rule book, and leave the rest up to the SIG to publish. My suggestion 
is the entry level sequence NEVER changes. As Mark said, Basic is not, 
and should not be a destination class.

-Doug


----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Atwood <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Date: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:27 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010
To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

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