<!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 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Is the intent/purpose to still have some
progress from Masters to FAI or to have Master at a similar complex level with
the intent of some staying in Masters as the top out Schedule? For some
advanced is the highest they will get. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Del</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=tkeithblack@gmail.com href="mailto:tkeithblack@gmail.com">Keith
Black</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, August 11, 2007 5:18
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [NSRCA-discussion] Stiring up
the Masters 2009 Sequence discussionagain...</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>A while back Derek asked the membership if they
wanted to stick with the 2009 Masters sequence that was proposed in 2005 or
change to a newly designed sequence that addresses concerns some people had
regarding the sequence. Apparently some pilots feel there are too many snaps
or some such complaints, I'm not really sure.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>At the time I was not able to go fly the
sequences and thus I had no response, however, I now have flown the sequences
and have some comments.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>My first observation is that six of the eleven
centered maneuvers are the same so much of the content of the patterns are
identical. My second observation is that each sequence has maneuvers I think
would be more "fun" or "challenging" than the other. If I had to put numbers
to it I'd say there are three maneuvers in the 2005 proposed sequence
that I'd miss if we went with the newly proposed schedule and six maneuvers in
the new schedule that I'd miss if we went with the original 2005 proposed
schedule. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'd also say that IMHO both of these schedules
are easier than the 2007 schedule and my initial impression was that the
inverted entries have been reduced. I short, it seems that the schedules have
been watered down from what we currently have. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I will have no complaints flying either schedule,
but i</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>f I were to choose between the two I'd
select the newly proposed schedule; not to placate those that object to the
2005 proposed schedule because I feel there's nothing wrong with it; but
because I think the newly proposed schedule is more interesting.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Also, I'd like to comment that I feel that the
Advanced schedule for 2007 was too watered down and does not prepare pilots
for the 2007 Masters schedule. I hope when designing the schedules we
aren't trying to make Masters easier so the jump from Advanced is not as big.
If the jump is too big then we should increase the level of the Advance
pattern.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Keith Black</FONT></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>