Sequence Poll Results
Derek Koopowitz
derekkoopowitz at earthlink.net
Tue Jan 4 18:18:05 AKST 2005
When we worked on the schedules in 1999 we specifically used a lot of the
criteria you mentioned below... So there was a somewhat seamless progression
from class to class. i.e. the Cobra without rolls in Sportsman to the Cobra
with 1/2 rolls in Intermediate, and the Non-rolling Triangle loop in
Intermediate to the Triangle Loop with 2/4 points. Introducing the Snap in
Intermediate caused a bit of a problem but I don't see any difference to
that and 3 consective rolls that used to be in that sequence.
-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 7:09 AM
To: tony at radiosouthrc.com; discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: RE: Sequence Poll Results
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.
=================================================
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.
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list