[NSRCA-discussion] Changing Sequences...

Thu May 7 11:00:01 AKDT 2009

Richard,

My comment wasn't meant to sound elitist at all... although it probably came
across like that.  Those "experts" are not from all districts but do
represent a lot of the districts and should be listening to input from all
pilots.  My point being that this isn't something that one could assign to a
district to come up with a set of sequences every 2 years since it does
require a certain level of knowledge as to what works and what doesn't work.

I do agree that sequences do take some tweaking to get right and that
sequences that were designed 3 years ago and are implemented now may not
offer the same level of competency, or even perhaps sequence spacing, that
was originally intended back then.  That is why I think the sequences need
to be pulled out of the rule book so that it would allow us to tweak them
quickly and fix them.

I would encourage you to reach out to the current sequence committee members
(Joe Lachowski, Dave Lockhard, Verne Koester, Ed Alt, Bill Glaze, Arch
Stafford - I think those are all the members) to get their opinion on what
it takes to build a sequence.  It isn't as simple as it sounds and even
given enough lead time it hasn't always been a tried and true science.

-Derek

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Richard Lewis <humptybump at sbcglobal.net>wrote:

>   Derek,
>
> You write:  "My feeling is that we leave the sequence building with the
> experts and they can create/build a sequence that is best for us."
>
> Who are the "experts" on the sequence committees (past and present) that
> know what's "best for us"? I thought that regular pattern fliers, of all
> levels/districts were on the committees that came up with our current set of
> sequences.  May not be what you meant, but it sure seems like a very elitist
> statement.
>
> There are only four sequences...Given several years notice, and no limits
> on resources that the responsible district can use, I see no reason that 4
> sequences can't be developed, tested, and submitted.  If the
> responsible district wants to use a commitee pulled from the national pool
> of "experts", that's OK.  If they want to recycle an old, beloved sequence,
> that's OK.  As a bonus, if you don't like a particular set of sequences, you
> just have to fly it for a season and you get a new set of challenges.  Even
> our current sequences that were developed in the committees that you speak
> highly of have some mysterious flaws that we are stuck with.  If you really
> feel the need, the "failry srtict guidelines/procedures" can still be used,
> but I really don't think they are necessary.  IMO, the combination of
> ownership/responsibility coupled with creative freedom can produce some very
> high quality, interesting, and exciting sequences that just might make being
> a pattern pilot fun again.
>
> And, there is always the Executive committee vote as a reaility check to
> ensure that nothing with errors or other anomalies gets through.
>
> Richard
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 7, 2009 11:58:15 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Changing Sequences...
>
> Richard,
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with your step one - the sequences should be removed
> from the rulebook in order for us to modify them regularly and to modify
> rules associated with the sequences quickly without having to wait until the
> next rules cycle/emergency proposal.  Our core set of rules will remain in
> the rule book - lines, loops, rolls, etc.
>
> Step two is much more difficult to achieve.  As anyone on the sequence
> committee will tell you (past and present), creating sequences is a
> painstakingly hard process especially if one wants to get it right.  We do
> have some failry srtict guidelines/procedures layed out for each class which
> does make it somewhat easier to build a sequence... however, getting all the
> sequences built together takes a lot of trial and error.  My feeling is that
> we leave the sequence building with the experts and they can create/build a
> sequence that is best for us.  Having said that I would expect that the
> sequence committee would rely on input so that they can get a sense for what
> works and what doesn't work.
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> -Derek
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Richard Lewis <humptybump at sbcglobal.net>wrote:
>
>>  While we are hashing out rule changes.....
>>
>> Me and a flying buddy (who shall remain nameless to protect the innocent)
>> have hashed out what we believe is a viable framework for changing sequences
>> yearly by the NSRCA....
>>
>> Step one is to remove the sequences from the rulebook.  Without this,
>> nothing else matters.
>>
>> Step 2, give each NSRCA District rotating responsibility for generating
>> sequences each year.  The VP will manage the process, explicity or by
>> delegation.  The method for generanting them is up to the VP.  They can do
>> it themselves, by committee, or by rolling dice.  Sequences are due January
>> 1 of the year they will be flown.  In september before the year the
>> sequences are due, the VP submits them to the NSRCA executive council.  The
>> NSRCA executive council can reject them and require they be revised with a
>> required 2/3 majority vote.  If accepted be the council, they become the
>> official sequences for the following season.  If new sequences are not
>> presented by a district, then the prior years sequences are retained and the
>> offending district has to wait another 8 years to have another opportunity.
>>
>> There are 8 districts (9 if canada is included).  That would mean that a
>> VP would have years of advanced notice of the impending deadline and have
>> plenty of opportunity to process new sequences to be ready for their
>> turn.  A natural sense of self preservation and
>> responsibility, will automatically guide the sequences to criteria that meet
>> the needs of the VP's district constituents and national constituants in all
>> aspects such as difficulty, length, progression, etc...whether the yearly
>> changes are radical departures, or subtle develpoments, the interest level
>> within a given district preceding their "turn" and the will be healthy for
>> the sport and should really keep inteterest up.
>>
>> ....:)
>> Richard , D6
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090507/4be29f4f/attachment.html>