<div>Agree that the short sequence makes better sense overall. If we decide we hate it, we can change it again in two years. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>** A procedural question -- It looks like the Pattern sequences will be removed from the rulebook as a result of current rules proposals. Would love to hear what the NSRCA will put in place for sequence management, maneuver descriptions, etc. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Rick Wallace<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Don Ramsey <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:donramsey@gmail.com">donramsey@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div lang="EN-US" vlink="purple" link="blue">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">After flying the long and short proposed Masters pattern for 2011, I’m in favor of the short one. In our district there can be 12+ Masters pilots at a contest. This is a very long sit in the judging chair for the judges and they may be needed more than once. If you just want to fly that can be done in practice but don’t make the judges suffer through the long sequence for that reason. Think about how you would like to judge the long pattern if there were 14 pilots flying. Electric guys will also be easier on the batteries.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">My opinion,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Don</span></p></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br></blockquote></div><br>