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

[Ed Alt]

Well, we just did the new Masters proposal in under a month.  Anyway, the 
hard part is putting the right structure in place.  Once you have that, you 
simply follow it.  That's like winding a clock.  Making the structure that 
works well is the making of the clock.

Ed


>From: Mark Atwood <atwoodm at paragon-inc.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 13:20:28 -0400
>
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_________________________________________________________________
Need a brain boost? Recharge with a stimulating game. Play now!  
http://club.live.com/home.aspx?icid=club_hotmailtextlink1