<!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 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>Get real, Jerry: you know as well as I do that "this is a done deal"! Look
at the flack over TO and Ldg scores. The general membership has virtually NO say
in what goes on. Surveys be damned. And with some members of the Sequence
team justifying the lack of difficulty by pointing out that "some of the
maneuvers have inverted segments in them". We havn't got a chance! We ARE going
to be stuck with a severely dumbed down sequence for the next 3 years!!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Terry T.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 20:31:45 -0500 "Jerry Stebbins" <<A
href="mailto:JAStebbins@worldnet.att.net">JAStebbins@worldnet.att.net</A>>
writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; MARGIN-LEFT: 10px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Kieth, not necessarily. If a bunch of folks have
valid concerns, it makes no sense to not listen to them. If you are
concerned enough to feel that way, get a bunch of people to fly them and see
if they come to the same position, and let your DVP's know NOW. TheDVP's can
suggest changes in response to valid, properly supported issues, that a
bunch of pilots test and agree need to be fixed. It still could be
fixed, but only with faith that the Sequence Teams understand the issues
people have, and then they can do their best to fix them before it goes
to AMA. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The Sequence Teams have done a great job
based on where they were trying to get to. If the majority think something
needs fixen, and they can convince their DVP, it could be done.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jerry</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
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=tkeithb@comcast.net href="mailto:tkeithb@comcast.net">Keith
Black</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, July 27, 2005 7:58
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Nats Judging Rebate-keep
their best SCORE!</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Interesting you bring this up. I've spoken to
first year intermediate pilots that plan to move to Advanced next year even
though they really would be better off flying another year in Intermediate.
Their reason is that they want a year of practice with the current Advanced
sequence with the inverted exits and pushes to prepare for Masters and feel
the 2007 advanced sequences are too easy. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>As I stated before, I've flown both of the
proposed Advanced sequences and I thought they were terrific patterns that
flow very well, however, they are easier than the current pattern. I think
these excellent patterns could be easily fixed to include inverted maneuvers
and still take advantage of the majority of the work. However, at this
point I think that's water under the bridge. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Keith Black</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=amad2terry@juno.com href="mailto:amad2terry@juno.com">Terry
Terrenoire</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, July 27, 2005 6:27
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Nats Judging Rebate-keep
their best SCORE!</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>This IS published in advance, and all pilots know it, so there is no
problem, at least there was not in the 7 years I was involved. We
certainly do not need more rules!!!! Especially a national rule that
pertains to just one, 4 day event a year!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>While on the subject of rules changes. A while ago I commented
on the "dumbing down" of the Advance pattern, and had just one or two
comments. How many of you Advance fliers think that it is prudent to go
from 4 inverted maneuvers to NONE. How is that possibly going to prepare
you for the difficulty of Masters??? Have any of you even looked at the
proposal? How many of you have flown the 2 proposed schedules?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Sure would like to hear some comments from other Advance and
Masters pilots, pro or con!!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Terry T.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>