<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16481" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><STRONG>Hi
Vance..</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><STRONG> I do have
a couple of thoughts I need to share with your statement in reference to
equipment. Are you under the assumption that all competitors are using
digital servos and 1.60 or supercharged engines? Their was a time, in the
not to distant past, when maneuvers were not created that mandated the latest
and greatest equipment to fly them. Is it your intent and or that of the NSRCA
to make older equipment intentionally obsolete except in the entry classes?
</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> <EM><FONT
color=#0000ff>Del</FONT></EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>From: "Lance Van Nostrand" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:patterndude@tx.rr.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>patterndude@tx.rr.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 12:41 AM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] CB member RFC on
Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> I'm on the contest board and there are more active pattern pilots on
it now <BR>> than ever before. The recent change to 2 year cycles also
happened with a <BR>> breakup of contest boards. Our board is
exclusively to approve pattern. <BR>> Can't get much more focused than
that. The process is cumbersome and I <BR>> can't say I endorse it, but
I'm going to work with it so the board support <BR>> pattern and the
collective wishes of the NSRCA.<BR>> <BR>> The timeline is in the AMA CB
Procedures doc, which I have in front of me <BR>> right now. There are
many steps but the critical ones are simple:<BR>> Basic (initial) Proposals
submitted by Sept 30<BR>> Dec 15, prelim votes by CB cast (1st cut to see
which proposals are properly <BR>> formed and should continue)<BR>> Mar 1,
Cross proposal deadline (alternate proposals accepted to achieve an <BR>>
approved initial proposal)<BR>> May 15, Final ballots sent to CB and final
vote is completed<BR>> Jan 1, new rules take effect.<BR>> <BR>>>From
this you can see that the process takes about 1 year and 3 months. <BR>>
Proposals in this Sept (07) take effect Jan 09.<BR>> <BR>> This is the
"normal" cycle, but there are off cycle proposals of type <BR>> safety,
emergency, urgent or interpretation. I don't know about the board,
<BR>> but I'm totally open to any and all proposals as the workload to read,
take <BR>> the pulse of my district and vote/comment is far less than keeping
up with <BR>> this list!<BR>> <BR>> Comment on sequences:<BR>> *All
sequences have squeezes and rough spots. The more we worry about them
<BR>> the harder it is to change sequences when we want to. Fly them as
best you <BR>> can and try to do better than the next guy.<BR>> <BR>>
*Masters should never conciously trend to easier sequences. Sure one may
be <BR>> easier than the last, but this shouldn't trend. It should be
held at a <BR>> constant difficulty at least, and other classes are stepping
stones to it. <BR>> The jump from Advanced to Masters last time was not
enough as we beat that <BR>> to death on the list. Now we've swung the
other way. Shouldn't we balance <BR>> the steps, not change the target
difficulty level?. Now let me take this a <BR>> bit farther (maybe too
far) The Masters sequence we flew a few years ago <BR>> with YS120SCs were
the same difficulty as the current sequences we now fly <BR>> with 1.60 2
strokes and improved supercharged 4 strokes. Airplane design <BR>> has
improved and so have the computer radios. We used to have coreless
<BR>> servos, now digital. Consider that maybe we should have harder
sequences if <BR>> we want to compare ourselves to our predecessors.<BR>>
<BR>> *I think the current feeling is that Sports, Int, Adv should change
less <BR>> frequently than Masters since designing building blocks is much
harder than <BR>> single sequences and many pilots move up after a few
years. What I've heard <BR>> as the goal is to change the stepping
classes no faster than every 4 years, <BR>> but change Masters every
2.<BR>> <BR>> *Let's not reorient the sequences to accommodate a new
technology.<BR>> <BR>> I do not want to form my opinion in a vacuum so
feel free to comment.<BR>> --Lance<BR>> <BR>> ----- Original Message
----- <BR>> From: "Mark Atwood" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>atwoodm@paragon-inc.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>><BR>>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:20 PM<BR>> Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>> Ron (RVP), Can you lay out for all of us the chronology of
what has to<BR>>> happen to get a new sequence in?<BR>>><BR>>>
I think this would be enlightening to most as to what a PITA it is <BR>>>
calendar<BR>>> time wise.<BR>>><BR>>> I.e. To put the process
in place that Ed is suggesting, I think would put <BR>>> a<BR>>> new
sequence out at least 4 years from the "start" of creating
it.<BR>>><BR>>> So I'd be curious to see the
timeline..<BR>>><BR>>> "We need a new sequence..." - Day
1<BR>>><BR>>> Form a committee - x weeks or
months<BR>>><BR>>> Create sequence - X
Months<BR>>><BR>>> Review by NSRCA Board/put out for survey - X
Months<BR>>><BR>>> Blah blah blah...<BR>>><BR>>> AND
THEN...work backwards for the AMA process...<BR>>><BR>>> Submission
to the AMA for the 20XX year rules has to occur years before it<BR>>> goes
into effect (prelim vote, changes, final vote, publication, etc
etc)<BR>>><BR>>> I think Ron has a feel for the required process,
but I'd love to hear what<BR>>> the beginning to "in effect" time lag is
for a new sequence under the AMA<BR>>> rules
process.<BR>>><BR>>> -M<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> On
7/26/07 11:59 AM, "Ed Alt" <</FONT><A href="mailto:ed_alt@hotmail.com"><FONT
face=Arial size=2>ed_alt@hotmail.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>
wrote:<BR>>><BR>>>> Doug:<BR>>>> I agree that we should
not have a panel of non-enthusiasts in charge of <BR>>>>
the<BR>>>> actual sequence design. I don't think I stated my point too
well. The <BR>>>> SIG<BR>>>> does contain the best
source of knowledge to construct sequences. Given <BR>>>>
the<BR>>>> right structure to how the committee is formed and how their
work <BR>>>> overseen<BR>>>> is what is criitical. I
don't think NSRCA has this process quite right <BR>>>>
yet.<BR>>>> This isn't meant to criticize anyone, but I
think that more thought has <BR>>>> to<BR>>>> be put into how
we manage the process in the future.<BR>>>><BR>>>> It seems to
me that the Sequence Committee work should first pass muster<BR>>>>
with the NSRCA board, who should review it to make sure that it
certain<BR>>>> criteria are met, not whether personally like it or
not. What is that<BR>>>> criteria? That needs to be better
defined. It appears to take the form <BR>>>> of<BR>>>>
tribal knowledge. One attempt to put some structure to evaluating a
<BR>>>> sequence<BR>>>> is via a tool that Dave Lockhart
developed , which I think is very <BR>>>> useful.<BR>>>>
However, is this developed to the point it needs to be? Whatever method
<BR>>>> we<BR>>>> use to create and evaluate should be well
understood and applied<BR>>>>
consistently.<BR>>>><BR>>>> Beyond how we establish
consistency within our SIG, it seems that the EC<BR>>>> role ought to
be to review that their flock of SIGS followed AMA <BR>>>>
guidelines<BR>>>> for producing their work, not to define exactly how
they produce the work<BR>>>> product (the sequences in this
case). So, the EC should demand that the <BR>>>>
SIG<BR>>>> has a defined procedure and that the SIG leadership has
assured <BR>>>> compliance<BR>>>> through their oversight and
ultimately, their signatures on the product.<BR>>>><BR>>>>
Ed<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>> From: Doug Cronkhite
<</FONT><A href="mailto:seefo@san.rr.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>seefo@san.rr.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>>>>> Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <</FONT><A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <</FONT><A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters
Sequence for 2009/2010<BR>>>>> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:04:26
-0700<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Just because you CAN change them
every year doesn't mean you have to or<BR>>>>> should. I agree with
you that the lower classes should have some<BR>>>>> stability so
newer pilots have a chance to build the foundation the<BR>>>>>
higher classes require.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> I think the SIG
should absolutely have control of the schedules, as the<BR>>>>>
people leading the SIG are generally actively involved in the
sport.<BR>>>>> Other than Tony Stillman, are any of the EC active in
pattern? Because<BR>>>>> if they're not, then I don't think they can
make an accurate assessment<BR>>>>> of the needs of the SIG. Tony
may be the only one on the EC who even<BR>>>>> flies anything on a
regular basis now.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
-Doug<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>> I like variety in schedules
too, but I think there is a balance to<BR>>>>>> strike with the
lower classes. It's a lot of effort each year to<BR>>>>>>
learn a new sequence. Once you have enough experience
flying<BR>>>>>> aerobatics, you can focus on new sequences
without detracting from the<BR>>>>>> other improvements you want
to make.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Re. giving the SIG all
the control, I would not want to see that<BR>>>>>> happen.
In the case of IMAC, the SIG leadership became very IAC<BR>>>>>>
centric and made changes that work against being able to
learn<BR>>>>>> fundamentals before moving up, in favor a being a
carbon copy<BR>>>>>> miniature of IAC. Just look at what
the IMAC lower class sequences<BR>>>>>> now contain and consider
what problems they represent for learning<BR>>>>>>
fundamentals. I think you need an effective counterbalance to
help<BR>>>>>> keep sanity to the sequence
design.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>
Ed<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>>>>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>>>>> </FONT><A
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>>>>> </FONT><A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</FONT></A><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>>>><BR>>>>
_________________________________________________________________<BR>>>>
</FONT><A href="http://newlivehotmail.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://newlivehotmail.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>>>><BR>>>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>>> NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR>>>> </FONT><A
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>>>> </FONT><A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</FONT></A><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>>><BR>>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>> NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR>>> </FONT><A
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>>> </FONT><A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</FONT></A><FONT
face=Arial size=2> <BR>> <BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing
list<BR>> </FONT><A href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><FONT
face=Arial size=2>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</FONT></A><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>> </FONT><A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</FONT></A></BODY></HTML>