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

Mark Atwood atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
Thu Jul 26 11:29:52 AKDT 2007 

Hey Ed,

Not trying to argue a moot point, but you commented that "even if it does
take 2 years, it really doesn't have to"...  That's the part I think you're
missing.

Even IF we could create, test,survey and decide on a new sequence in a
DAY...the AMA REQUIRES it 2 years in advance of it being flown.

So the solution we are offering is to remove the sequences as part of the
"Rules"...that would allow us to use a process as you describe to
efficiently alter a sequence.  So basically...I agree with you 100%...we
need a good process.  But the best process is still stymied if we have to
push it through an AMA rule change cycle.

As it stands now, a rule change submitted in October of this year...wouldn't
have a chance of being included in the rules until January of 2011.  I find
that to be absurd...but that's the guideline that the AMA has in place.


On 7/26/07 3:21 PM, "Ed Alt" <ed_alt at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Done correctly, there should never be anything to "fix".  You are just
> baking a cake with a new flavor.  The situation we're in now is abnormal and
> can easily be avoided by following a well defined process.  This entire
> process, beginning to end should not require more than a year.
> 
> I like it when people bring problems up with a proposed solution in mind.  I
> don't give much weight to complaints without a solution being offered.  So
> far, I'm just hearing complaints without solutions being offered.  Who's got
> another idea?  I'm just hearing that it can't be done.  I've explained very
> clearly why IMAC didn't think they could do it.  I've given a porposal for
> how we could.  Tweak that or come up with another idea!
> 
> 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 15:09:27 -0400
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_
> HM_mini_pcmag_0507
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list