Sequence Poll Results

Tue Jan 4 10:54:47 AKST 2005

Mark:
That's a good way of doing it--set up a range of total K-Factors 
allowable for each class.  Take a set of "allowed" maneuvers; put them 
together until the number of maneuvers desired has the desired total 
K-Factor.  Doesn't have to be exact; just close enough for pattern work!<G>
Of course, other things must be considered also, flow, etc. but it's a 
good starting point to get the difficulty needed for a specific class.
Bill Glaze

Atwood, Mark wrote:

>that's what I'm espousing... A set of semi-rigid guidelines that anyone could easily follow to create a new pattern for a particular class.
>
>There are a lot of ways to accomplish this without having to identify specific manuevers and which class they'd be elibible for (although that would work too).  Set up the K-factor "range" for each class, min and max.  Then establish guidelines as I suggested below, that would dictate the type and complexity of elements.  
>
>As I said...I think this is needed to make an annex system work.
>
>You're VERY correct regarding the difficulty of voting for sequences as a group.  If we the contest board strongly object to a particular class sequence...we were forced to throw out the whole group.  Sort of throwing out the baby with the bathwater so to speak. 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
>[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Marty King
>Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 11:33 AM
>To: discussion at nsrca.org
>Subject: RE: Sequence Poll Results
>
>
>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.
>
>==============================================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/20050104/10992076/attachment.html