<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"
xmlns:ns0="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New\000D\000A";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New\000D\000A Ro";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times\000D\000A Ne";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I totally agree with you, Dave, however, I would encourage the
Masters sequence to begin including some integrated, safe stuff, such as a loop
with roll at top or some such thing. It just simply makes the event so much
more fun and exciting.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Thanks<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Mike <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'>
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Dave<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:13 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'General pattern discussion'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and
beyond<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'>John,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'>The only bit of your discussion I differ on is regarding the
difficulty level for the “destination” class Masters. It is only a
destination for some, and regardless of whether or not it is a destination
class (in practice, name, or design), the difficulty level should be set based on
the wishes of the majority – not the difficulty level of FAI. We (AMA
pattern pilots) can always choose to set the difficulty level of Masters
slightly less than, equal to, or slightly greater than FAI. But since we
(AMA pattern pilots) have pretty much zero input or influence on FAI, we should
never tie ourselves to the FAI schedule allowing it to dictate the difficulty
level of Masters. Masters and FAI do not share the share goal, and never
will.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'>Advancement systems aside, someone will be moving up or down for
whatever reason(s), and I’m happy to partake in the celebrating or
commiserating </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;
color:navy'>J</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'>Dave Lockhart<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span
style='color:windowtext'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
</span></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'>
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John
Gayer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 22, 2010 11:29 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> General pattern discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and
beyond</span><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Dave,<br>
<br>
Every time you move to a new class including sportsman there are potential
airplane killers lurking. Long ago and far away, I remember losing two
airplanes learning to do three consecutive rolls centered. If combined
roll/loop maneuvers were introduced to Masters, the Masters pilots would
quickly sort out how to execute them. My only point in addressing the
lack of these maneuvers in Masters is the fact that it is the final AMA
destination class and as such should deliver equivalent difficulty to F3A.
Otherwise it is a feeder class without Advancement requirements.<br>
<br>
In other countries where advancement to the next class has to be earned (by
scoring average and the national organization keeps track), getting an
advancement notice is cause for celebration and usually involves lots of beer.
In Australia everyone aspires to gain admittance into the top level (which
flies the F3A schedules and from which their World team is selected). The
flip side is that if you start flying poorly or not at all, you find yourself
moving back a class or two.<br>
<br>
Such a system has a lot of merit. Keep flying well against your peers, you move
up. Fly poorly, you move down. The beer sounds good too. Celebrate on the way
up, commiserate on the way down, drinks all around in either case.<br>
<br>
John<br>
<br>
On 9/22/2010 6:28 PM, Dave wrote: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'>John,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'>First, without picking a side on this particular debate, I’d offer
the following comments / perspectives –</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'>- Historically, surveys and polls have answered that integrated
looping/rolling maneuvers should not be included in the Masters pattern.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'>- an “airplane killer” looks a lot differently to a skilled Masters
pilot compared to a middle of the pack advanced pilot moving into Masters, and
this concern has historically been expressed, and is a hot button for a
substantial number.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'>Second, my opinions -</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'>I fly FAI because I want to…I want the more challenging schedules
and higher level of competition. Arguably, the FAI P schedule is not more
difficult in some years, and I could easily argue it does not contain state of
the art maneuvers, but flying FAI is still more difficult if for no other
reason than a pilots time must be split between flying P, F, and unknowns.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'>Masters has a wide range of pilot abilities, and is “home” for many
for different reasons. As such, it will always be a compromise class,
unlike FAI F3A which is focused on picking the best F3A Team in the world and
the best individual pilot in the world. So long as the majority of
Masters do not want state of the art maneuvers, Masters should not have state
of the art maneuvers.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'>I do believe it might be a little easier to establish and maintain
the difficulty level of each class and the steps between the classes IF a
system were established that required a pilot advance to the next higher class
based on achieving a given proficiency, and also demoted a pilot who did not
achieve a minimum standard. Several countries use this approach, and from
what I have seen, it appears to work as well or better than the point system
used in the </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:windowtext'><ns0:country-region><ns0:place><span style='color:navy'>US</span></ns0:place></ns0:country-region></span><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy'>.
Mandatory advancement to F3A is a separate, but related topic.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'>Regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'>Dave Lockhart</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'><a href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span
style='font-family:"Times New ","serif";color:windowtext'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
</span></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'> <a
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>John Gayer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 22, 2010 6:40 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <ns0:personname>General pattern discussion</ns0:personname>; Mark
Hunt<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and
beyond</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Ro","serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Ro","serif"'>Derek,<br>
<br>
I thought we already selected a pattern through the survey. Is the survey now
meaningless because it chose the wrong length pattern?<br>
<br>
I'm not quite sure I understand the logic behind raising the complexity of the
short pattern at this late date, either. The sequence committee has
worked on these patterns for two years or so and now it appears that because of
a few comments at the Nats or whatever that all that work and the surveys are
to be thrown out or at least revisited.<br>
I offered comments on the patterns 6 months ago and and said at that time that
the Masters pattern was too easy in some areas. Didn't see anyone jumping to
and making changes then. <br>
Comments about airplane killer maneuvers are also uncalled for. Any Masters
pilot should be able to perform integrated roll/loop maneuvers without
endangering the airplane. Making them good enough to score 8s and 9s, well
that's a different matter. If you are making changes to the Masters
pattern and keeping its role as a destination class, I firmly believe it should
contain <u>state of the art</u> pattern maneuvers.<br>
<br>
John Gayer<br>
District 6 Advanced pilot<br>
<br>
<br>
On 9/22/2010 4:10 PM, Derek Koopowitz wrote: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Ro","serif"'>Dave,
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New ","serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New ","serif"'>You
are correct in that everyone is impacted on a short vs long schedule - my
apologies for the definition of who is impacted. Regardless, please voice
your opinion to your District VP.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New ","serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>-Derek<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times Ne","serif"'>On
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Dave Burton <<a href="mailto:burtona@atmc.net">burtona@atmc.net</a>>
wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Derek,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>I really object
to your definition of who has “Skin in the game” - <b>We all do if we pay
our dues and attend contest</b>.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>The “skin” is
the impact of a long vs. short sequence for every Masters flyer, Flyer who will
be flying Masters in the next two years, every flyer/non flyer who judges at a
contest, and every other flyer in all the other class who have to wait until
the typically large Masters class finishes whatever sequence they fly.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>So, whether I
fly Masters in the next two years or not, I intend to let my opinion be known
to my district VP and I expect him to give my view the same weight of any other
opinion from “Masters” flyers or others. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>This is an
issue that should not be decided by only “Masters” flyers.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Dave Burton</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;
border-color:-moz-use-text-color'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> <a
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Derek
Koopowitz<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 22, 2010 5:31 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:windowtext'><ns0:personname><span
style='color:black'>General pattern discussion</span></ns0:personname></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Over 10 months ago the NSRCA Sequence Committee completed
its work on the new sequences. These were posted on the NSRCA website for
review and comment - see below:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><a
href="http://nsrca.us/proposedsequences/2011sequences.html" target="_blank">http://nsrca.us/proposedsequences/2011sequences.html</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Included in all this material was a draft document that
outlined the process on how sequences are developed, tested and approved and
the makeup/content of the sequences based on the class it is meant to serve.
This document is titled "NSRCA Procedures, Standards and Guidelines
for AMA R/C Precision Aerobatics Sequence Development". A mouthful,
but it does outline a lot of information. It details the charter for the
Sequence Committee, sequence development standards and guidelines for all
classes, catalog of maneuvers for all classes and the process that the NSRCA
will follow in designing, testing and approving changes to sequences, or for
proposed sequences. These sequence development standards and guidelines
have been in place for about 4 years now and have been used very successfully
to build the current set of sequences that everyone is flying today, in
addition to the prior Masters sequence (and the new one as well).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Overall we received positive comments on the proposed
sequences from Sportsman through Masters. As you know, there were two
sequences developed for Masters, a long sequence using the standard 23 maneuver
count and a short sequence using 19 maneuvers. In the time since we
posted the sequences, some informal surveys were also made on the NSRCA website
as well as on RCU asking for a preference of either the short or long Masters
schedule. The overwhelming majority of respondents chose the short
sequence. However, these surveys were a little flawed in that we didn't
really know who was voting for them - were they all judges/pilots who voted
because they didn't want to judge a long sequence, or were they really current
and/or future Masters pilots that really did want to fly a shorter sequence.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Since the release of the proposed schedules, and some post
Nats comments, the sequence committee has been hard at work making some tweaks
to the short schedule with a view to increasing the difficulty level of the
short Masters sequence to bring it into line with the long Masters sequence and
also to ensure that we weren't lowering the bar in difficulty by introducing a
shorter sequence. Bear in mind that the short sequence is only 19
maneuvers (17 of them flyable) so raising the difficulty level is a challenge
if one is to avoid using some existing F3A type maneuvers, or "airplane
killers", and to only use maneuvers that match the philosophy that we've
embraced for a number of years. Since we've never developed a short
Masters sequence, we need to make sure we get it right and that it not only
provides a challenge to those that fly it but that it still provides a somewhat
relatively higher jump for those pilots that are moving up from Advanced.
We realize that creating a perfect schedule is not going to happen - we
won't be able to please every pilot that moves up from Advanced, nor will we be
able to please some former F3A pilots that think the schedule is too easy and
isn't enough of a challenge. There has to be a balance. The
Sequence Committee came up with some good positive changes and these are being vetted/tested
as I write this. They've received extremely positive feedback from
everyone that has either flown the newer short sequence on a simulator or using
their pattern plane at the field. By the end of this weekend we'll know
for sure whether it is a keeper or not.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>When we do post the revised sequence I would like all of you
that have "skin in this game", meaning you are a current Masters
pilot or will be moving to Masters in the next year or two, to please contact
your NSRCA District VP and let them know what your preference is - short or
long sequence. The reason they need to know is that the NSRCA board will
vote in the next couple of weeks to approve all the proposed sequences and also
to select which sequence the Masters class will be flying in 2011/2012.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>The Sequence Committee is comprised of Joe Lachowski, Dave
Lockhart, Verne Koester, Bill Glaze, Archie Stafford, and Richard Lewis.
They've put in an extraordinary amount of work on these sequences and
documentation and deserve huge kudos from everyone! Thanks guys - your
work is very much appreciated!<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>We've also created a Sequence Committee section on the NSRCA
website which will have more information soon. It will contain the
updated draft documentation and all the proposed sequences in one location.
You can get to the new section from the main menu - just look for
Sequence Committee - it is near the bottom of the menu.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>No virus found in this incoming message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3152 - Release Date: 09/22/10
02:34:00</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times Ne","serif"'><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></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New ","serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><o:p></o:p></pre></div>
</body>
</html>