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

[J N Hiller]

Thanks, I expected as much.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of
seefo at san.rr.com
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:22 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010

Because they chose not to do so. I wish I knew why myself.

-Doug




----- Original Message -----
From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
Date: Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:18 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010
To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

> Why doesn't AMA publish the sequences in Model Aviation any more?
> Jim Hiller
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of
> seefo at san.rr.com
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 10:57 AM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for
> 2009/2010
> 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
> 2009/2010To: 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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