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

Thu Jul 26 11:09:20 AKDT 2007

Yes...under a month to put together, but not in place.  You still have a
long road ahead if you want to get the full NSRCA 'by in', and that has to
be done by Sept of 2007, to fly it in Jan of 2009!

We will need to submit new patterns for 2011 PRIOR to ever flying this new
pattern...

How are we supposed to know what to fix???

-M

On 7/26/07 2:53 PM, "Ed Alt" <ed_alt at hotmail.com> wrote:

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