[NSRCA-discussion] Changing Sequences...

Thu May 7 11:21:12 AKDT 2009

Joe/Derek,

I am in no way minimizing the efforts (past and present) required to put together good sequences.  But I fully believe that there are plenty of people out there that are capable of comprehending the concepts of flow, boundaries, maneuver catalogs, "cool" factor, and skill progression that are required to develop good sequences.  I also believe putting the ownership/responsibility for them in the hands of the people that are out there flying them will help to drive our sequences in line with the needs of the flying pilots, CD's, and judges.

I have not seen a formal request for participation in the current sequence development process, maybe I missed it somewhere.  Derek (or any other sequence committee person), if there is an opening on a sequence committee or a need for input, count me in.......I currently fly Advanced, but will move to Masters before the end of the season.

Richard

________________________________
From: Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2009 1:59:58 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Changing Sequences...

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/20090507/29704bd2/attachment.html>