Sequence Poll Results

Tue Jan 4 07:33:48 AKST 2005

Mark,

That would be fine as long as there were a set of
basic guidelines for each class so that the
progression aspect is not lost. I would much rather
see each class submitted as individual proposals too,
that way we would not get shot down for everything
(401,402,403 & 404) just because 402 was not liked by
the contest board. It would be great if we could have
a catalog like IMAC, however, they need it to be
"real" when it comes to mimicing IAC and FAI which
schedule changes yearly in full scale. We do not have
that driving force behind us. The best that I think we
could do is have several on-going committees working
on new sequences. We can approach it from two sides as
a group NSRCA and as individuals from within the
group.

Marty
--- "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

> Just to pose the question...'cause I haven't been
> involved in the sequence process in the past...
> 
> I would think that sequences could be developed for
> each class "stand alone"...using some predefined
> ideas to maintain the level of difficulty.  This
> would eliminate the requirement of voting in an
> entire schedule of sequences all or nothing.  I know
> this was a problem the last time around...that many
> wanted one ADV sequence...without the associated
> Masters...etc.
> 
> For example...  Intermediate Schedules would contain
> only certain elements, and be limited in K-Factor. 
> Looping elements, stalls,  standard rolls, limit of
> one inverted segment, etc.
> 
> Advanced would introduce rudder elements... Point
> rolls, slow rolls, extended inverted segments,
> positive snaps and spins.
> 
> Masters would be somewhat unlimited, introducing
> more multi-element maneuvers (obviously adv. would
> have some too), complex rolling segments, sustained
> inverted sequences, an over all "busier" pattern.
> 
> These are pretty "loose" definitions, but I think if
> we were to better define the atributes of a each
> class...sequences would be both easier to create,
> and would be more consistent to their purpose.  
> 
> Also, this (I believe) would be the type of
> guideline that the AMA would want to see to endorse
> an annex scenario...
> 
> My .02
> 
> Mark
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of
> tony at radiosouthrc.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 9:06 AM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: Sequence Poll Results
> 
> 
> Marty:
> 
> What has been done in the past is for the NSRCA
> officers to select several 
> groups of members to work together to write new
> sequences.  Since we use 
> them as stepping stones, each group should write
> schedules for ALL CLASSES 
> (except of course FAI).  This is so they can make
> sure the jump between 
> classes is not too easy and not too hard.
> 
> Once results are received from each group, each
> group can post them in the 
> K-Factor for a vote by the membership.  If two or
> three groups do this, the 
> membership will have several choices.
> 
> Of course, any member can submit a new schedule to
> the AMA as well.  So, if 
> you are not asked to serve on one, you can still
> participate by designing 
> them and sending them in.
> 
> I would also recommend that you get a couple of
> people to fly them once they 
> are designed to see how they flow...
> 
> 
> Tony Stillman
> Radio South
> 3702 N. Pace Blvd.
> Pensacola, FL 32505
> 1-800-962-7802
> www.radiosouthrc.com
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Marty King" <mking46516 at yahoo.com>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 5:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Sequence Poll Results
> 
> 
> > Eric and all,
> >
> > I for one welcome change after 2-3 years. This
> next
> > cycle will put those of us flying Intermediate at
> 5
> > years for the same pattern. I think one reason
> that
> > the lower three classes hasn't had anything done
> yet
> > is the lack of knowledge in how to go about
> designing
> > sequences and submitting a proposal. I for one
> would
> > do it if I had someone to coach me along. We need
> help
> > from someone like you Eric, Ron, Tony or the rest
> of
> > you Masters and FAI fliers to come up with or give
> > some suggestions on sequences that are progressive
> up
> > to Masters and explain how to go about presenting
> > these. I think with help I could come up with an
> > Intermediate schedule but to make these
> progressive
> > Intermediate needs to be built on Sportsman and
> > Advanced built on Intermediate with Masters as an
> end
> > point for now. I have said several times in this
> forum
> > that the jump between Intermediate and Advanced is
> to
> > big of step without preparing us for outside snaps
> by
> > allowing us to do inside ones first. The first
> snaps
> > we get are in Advanced and that just should not be
> in
> > this day and age. Even in Sportsman a climbing 45
> > degree inside snap is within the reach of the
> average
> > everyday sport flyer. I also think adopting snaps
> > earlier would help in judging the higher classes
> where
> > more complicated snap maneuvers are flown. It is
> > easier to judge a maneuver you can fly and be
> judged
> > on yourself.
> >
> > So if anyone is willing to give me a hand or tell
> me
> > how to go about this I will step up to the plate
> and
> > do this.
> >
> > Marty
> > NSRCA 2551 D-4
> > --- Grow Pattern <pattern4u at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Ref: Ron wrote. " One particular thing I'm
> talking
> >> about, is the wishes of those in the lower
> classes
> >> to have more frequent schedule changes. 
> Completely
> >> disregarded by the powers in charge of such
> things,
> >> those of us in that category felt, at least in
> the
> >> case of several I have spoken with, a
> >> disenfranchisement.  Kind of a "why bother?
> >> Nobody's really listening."  The constant refrain
> of
> >> those in charge of such things seems to be "well,
> >> those classes are transitory in nature; why
> should
> >> we bother with changes."  "The flyer in
> Intermediate
> >> this year, will be in Advanced next year".  This
> >> faulty thinking,...."
> >>
> >> The data was gathered in the last NSRCA survey
> that
> >> change was desired. The change could then be
> >> proposed in this current cycle. Is anyone running
> >> with this ball? or What has happened since then?
> >>
> >> Just asking,
> >>
> >> Eric.
> >>
> >> Question-8
> >>
> >> Should the Sportsman class be changed
> periodically
> >>
> >> YES = 142____         NO = 39_____         
> RESULT =
> >> PASS ____
> >>
> >>
> >> Question-9
> >>
> >> If "YES =", these classes should change, should
> they
> >>
> >> 70___ Change every rule cycle (3 years) - WINNER
> >> 43___ Change every other rule cycle (6 years)
> >>
> >> 26___ Other - Specify ____
> >>
> 
=== message truncated ===

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.