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

[verne at twmi.rr.com]

Never talked about how many years the cycle takes, only that that is 
what we've had problems with.

Verne

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Atwood <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Date: Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:41 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010
To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

> I agree Verne but the rule change "cycle" is horribly cumbersome. 
> It's not 2
> years...it's closer to 4.  A sequence being thought about now wont 
> go into
> effect until...well...forever.
> 
> You need to submit them so far ahead of the process that it makes it
> impractical.  
> 
> 
> On 7/26/07 11:23 AM, "verne at twmi.rr.com" <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > Doug,
> > We control our schedules now through the rules process and it's 
been
> > this way for at least 15 years and probably longer. What we've had
> > trouble with is more a matter of the timing of the rules cycle than
> > anything. I don't believe the EC has ever forced a flight 
> schedule on
> > us, at least not in the last 15 or 20 years.
> > 
> > Verne
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Doug Cronkhite <seefo at san.rr.com>
> > Date: Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:06 am
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 
> 2009/2010> To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > 
> >> 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
> >> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>