[SPAM] Re: Sequence Poll Results

Tue Jan 4 11:57:33 AKST 2005

Bill:

Actually, you want to have a very close (within say 2) K-Factor number for each class.  You also want to put in the total number of maneuvers.  These two figures will give you the ability to change the schedule, but keep an identical difficulty factor.  

Tony Stillman
Radio South
3702 N. Pace Blvd.
Pensacola, FL 32505
1-800-962-7802
www.radiosouthrc.com
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bill Glaze 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 1:54 PM
  Subject: Re: Sequence Poll Results

  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/e0175ff1/attachment-0001.html