Sequence Poll Results
George Kennie
geobet at gis.net
Tue Jan 4 08:30:26 AKST 2005
Guys,
I think that each class, up thru Advanced, needs to have 2 or 3
maneuvers of elemental complexity beyond the level of the standards
for that particular class. Remember the old 6-sided outside in
Advanced? There were few who ever mastered the timing required for
proper execution of equal line segmentation throughout the maneuver.
These type of maneuvers provide for a broader delineation in the
final total score outcome making it clearly obvious who the winner
in the class is. A guy can get pretty depressed when he loses a
round by one half a point! High K-Factor maneuvers enable such
separation.
Georgie
Bill Glaze wrote:
> Mark:
> this is similar to theway IMAC builds sequences to achieve their
> "building blocks." Bill Glaze
>
> Atwood, Mark 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 ____
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Question-14
>> >>
>> >> Should the Intermediate class be changed
>> >> periodically?
>> >>
>> >> YES = 167____ NO = 13_____ RESULT =
>> >> PASS ____
>> >>
>> >> Question-15
>> >>
>> >> If "YES =", these classes should change, should
>> >> they
>> >> 103___ Change every rule cycle (3 years) - WINNER
>> >> 41___ Change every other rule cycle (6 years)
>> >>
>> >> 22___ Other - Specify ____
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> > ======================================================================
>> >
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: Ron Van Putte
>> >> To: discussion at nsrca.org
>> >> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 12:54 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: Sequence Poll Results
>> >>
>> >> On Jan 3, 2005, at 11:12 AM, Bill Glaze wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Opinion polls are a great idea, and are surely
>> >> indicative of the wishes of the membership, both
>> >> pro and con. Among many things, it gives the
>> >> membership the idea that they are valued, and they
>> >> are participating in the direction of pattern,
>> >> helping to get it to grow. That's to the good.
>> >> However--and this is obvious, but needs to be
>> >> pointed out again and again--if these wishes aren't
>> >> heeded, then there is a resentment built that will
>> >> be hard to make go away. 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, or "one size fits all" attitude is
>> >> harmful to those who are desperately interested in
>> >> Pattern, and want to see it grow. I feel that,
>> >> until it can be demonstrated that there is no
>> >> "double standard" those of us stuck in the lower
>> >> classes will continue to feel a degree of being left
>> >> out. And, it's so easy to remedy. Anyway, that's
>> >> the way I see it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> There are at least two ways to get rules changes
>> >> passed. First, we can rely on the NSRCA leaders to
>> >> put together surveys, establish committees to
>> >> develop maneuver schedules and submit proposed
>> >> schedules to AMA. OR, we can individually put
>> >> together rule changes and/or maneuver schedule
>> >> changes for submittal to AMA. Either way has a
>> >> presumably equal chance of getting passed by the
>> >> Contest Board, because NSRCA doesn't have an inside
>> >> track with the Contest Board. Sure, NSRCA can lobby
>> >> the Contest Board to pass their rule change
>> >> proposals, but the Board can also ignore the
>> >> lobbying, as it did in the last cycle. It often
>> >> takes several cycles to get proposed changes passed,
>> >> as it did with takeoff direction being the pilot's
>> >> option. It took three tries to get that one passed.
>> >>
>> >> I mention all the above, because a lot of the
>> >> comments in this forum are about what someone else
>> >> should do to implement rule and/or maneuver schedule
>> >> changes to satisfy the writer. If a writer feels
>> >> strongly enough about making changes, it is
>> >> incumbent on him/her to take action in that
>> >> direction; they should write a rule change proposal
>> >> and submit it. It isn't rocket science.
>> >>
>> >> BTW, I don't mean to include Bill in the 'inactive
>> >> whiner' group, but his note triggered my 'response
>> >> button' on this issue.
>> >>
>> >> Ron Van Putte
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > __________________________________
>> > Do you Yahoo!?
>> > Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
>> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>> > =================================================
>> > 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.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> =================================================
>> 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.
>>
>> ==============================================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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050104/ad720543/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list