[NSRCA-discussion] new sequence process

Thu Jul 26 14:57:23 AKDT 2007

The committee members should be required to OBSERVE the proposed sequence 
being flown by a competent pilot.

No better way to KNOW what it really is.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ed Alt" <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] new sequence process

> 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
>
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.20/919 - Release Date: 7/26/2007 
9:56 AM