[NSRCA-discussion] new sequence process

Ed Alt ed_alt at hotmail.com
Thu Jul 26 12:19:36 AKDT 2007 

Mark:

My fault, we ended up hijacking the thread on the Masters proposal.  Set 
aside the AMA piece for a moment.  The whole idea of having members vote 
seems flawed to me.  Not only did a flawed Masters sequence get presented to 
them, but they agreed to it. This was a common result in IMAC too.  How 
great is that?  If you get back to the idea that a qualified committee 
follows established timelines, guidelines and criteria and that only what 
that committee approved gets reviewed by the NSRCA board, then you have the 
best possible chance to build good sequences.  And it only has to take a few 
months.  So you don't have to be ready 4 years in advance, just 2 plus a few 
months under present AMA rules.

Now, if NSRCA wants it badly enough, we would have to build a different case 
than what IMAC brought in order to shorten their cycle or get a waiver.  You 
have to state the problem you are trying to solve iand how your proposal 
will fix it.  For example, show how membership is reduced because of long 
cycle times and then demonstrate how shorter cycle times will help trigger 
growth.  IMAC got away with their argument because their charter states they 
will copy IAC.  We don't have that excuse, so you need to create the 
compelling event.
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 15:29:59 -0400
>
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_________________________________________________________________
http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=hmtextlinkjuly07

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list