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

[Lance Van Nostrand]

So clearly we need to be forward thinking and have our proposals ready 
15months in advance.

Is there a better timeline?  Its hard for us all to fly and comment on a 
proposed sequence that appears between Nov and March for many people.  Would 
we put in the time between March and the Nats (sequence cmte or all of us 
reviewers)?  This makes that Sept deadline seem reasonable for the proposal. 
It would be nice if the CB could complete their work by December, but that 
might eliminate the cross proposal phase and certainly can't be done if we 
continue to require publication of each step in MA.

If this all could be solved then we might have an annual process.  Of course 
I'm just typing.  I have no authority over other CB members or the AMA.

--Lance

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Van Putte" <vanputte at cox.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010


>I would be happy to do that, but the gist of it is:  NSRCA has to
> form a committee and the committee works on putting together one or
> more maneuver sequences for whatever time it takes.  Aggressive and
> active committee members can make this process a matter of weeks
> (Troy Newman's committee in 2005 was very aggressive/active). Then
> you need to publish the committee's proposed schedule(s) in the K-
> Factor .  From the time the K-Factor editor gets them, it takes about
> six weeks until they show up in print.   Then you need a month or two
> to get NSRCA members' opinions on what/whether to propose.  You must
> get a new sequence rule change proposal to AMA by the end of
> September (2007).  Fairly soon, AMA's R/C aerobatics contest board
> conducts an initial vote (most proposals pass this hurdle easily).
> Over a period of several months,  there is a period of discussion and
> cross proposals.  The contest board votes on the final proposal in
> the fall (2008).  If passed, the new maneuver schedule goes into
> effect the next year (2009).  In reality, the process must START
> about two years before you can expect a maneuver schedule in the rule
> book.
>
> Ron Van Putte
>
> On Jul 26, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Mark Atwood wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion