[NSRCA-discussion] CB member RFC on Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010

Mark Atwood atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
Fri Jul 27 12:29:18 AKDT 2007 

Hey Del,

I think he was referring to my comment about shortening the Masters
pattern...for which ONE of the benefits I stated was regaining some parity
for electrics since a smaller battery could be used...

-Mark


On 7/27/07 3:45 PM, "Del K. Rykert" <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com> wrote:

> Hi Vance..
>     I do have a couple of thoughts I need to share with your statement in
> reference to equipment.  Are you under the assumption that all competitors are
> using digital servos and 1.60 or supercharged engines?  Their was a time, in
> the not to distant past, when maneuvers were not created that mandated the
> latest and greatest equipment to fly them. Is it your intent and or that of
> the NSRCA to make older equipment intentionally obsolete except in the entry
> classes? 
>  
>         Del
>  
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lance Van Nostrand" <patterndude at tx.rr.com
> <mailto:patterndude at tx.rr.com> >
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 12:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] CB member RFC on Proposed Masters Sequence for
> 2009/2010
> 
>> > I'm on the contest board and there are more active pattern pilots on it now
>> > than ever before.  The recent change to 2 year cycles also happened with a
>> > breakup of contest boards.  Our board is exclusively to approve pattern.
>> > Can't get much more focused than that.  The process is cumbersome and I
>> > can't say I endorse it, but I'm going to work with it so the board support
>> > pattern and the collective wishes of the NSRCA.
>> > 
>> > The timeline is in the AMA CB Procedures doc, which I have in front of me
>> > right now.  There are many steps but the critical ones are simple:
>> > Basic (initial) Proposals submitted by Sept 30
>> > Dec 15, prelim votes by CB cast (1st cut to see which proposals are
>> properly 
>> > formed and should continue)
>> > Mar 1, Cross proposal deadline (alternate proposals accepted to achieve an
>> > approved initial proposal)
>> > May 15, Final ballots sent to CB and final vote is completed
>> > Jan 1, new rules take effect.
>> > 
>>> >>From this you can see that the process takes about 1 year and 3 months.
>> > Proposals in this Sept (07) take effect Jan 09.
>> > 
>> > This is the "normal" cycle, but there are off cycle proposals of type
>> > safety, emergency, urgent or interpretation.  I don't know about the board,
>> > but I'm totally open to any and all proposals as the workload to read, take
>> > the pulse of my district and vote/comment is far less than keeping up with
>> > this list!
>> > 
>> > Comment on sequences:
>> > *All sequences have squeezes and rough spots.  The more we worry about them
>> > the harder it is to change sequences when we want to.  Fly them as best you
>> > can and try to do better than the next guy.
>> > 
>> > *Masters should never conciously trend to easier sequences.  Sure one may
>> be 
>> > easier than the last, but this shouldn't trend.  It should be held at a
>> > constant difficulty at least, and other classes are stepping stones to it.
>> > The jump from Advanced to Masters last time was not enough as we beat that
>> > to death on the list.  Now we've swung the other way.  Shouldn't we balance
>> > the steps, not change the target difficulty level?.  Now let me take this a
>> > bit farther (maybe too far) The Masters sequence we flew a few years ago
>> > with YS120SCs were the same difficulty as the current sequences we now fly
>> > with 1.60 2 strokes and improved supercharged 4 strokes.  Airplane design
>> > has improved and so have the computer radios.  We used to have coreless
>> > servos, now digital.  Consider that maybe we should have harder sequences
>> if 
>> > we want to compare ourselves to our predecessors.
>> > 
>> > *I think the current feeling is that Sports, Int, Adv should change less
>> > frequently than Masters since designing building blocks is much harder than
>> > single sequences and many pilots move up after a few years.  What I've
>> heard 
>> > as the goal is to change the stepping classes no faster than every 4 years,
>> > but change Masters every 2.
>> > 
>> > *Let's not reorient the sequences to accommodate a new technology.
>> > 
>> > I do not want to form my opinion in a vacuum so feel free to comment.
>> > --Lance
>> > 
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Mark Atwood" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
>> <mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> >
>> > To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >
>> > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:20 PM
>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010
>> > 
>> > 
>>> >> Ron (RVP),  Can you lay out for all of us the chronology of what has to
>>> >> happen to get a new sequence in?
>>> >>
>>> >> I think this would be enlightening to most as to what a PITA it is
>>> >> calendar
>>> >> time wise.
>>> >>
>>> >> I.e. To put the process in place that Ed is suggesting, I think would put
>>> >> a
>>> >> new sequence out at least 4 years from the "start" of creating it.
>>> >>
>>> >> So I'd be curious to see the timeline..
>>> >>
>>> >> "We need a new sequence..." - Day 1
>>> >>
>>> >> Form a committee - x weeks or months
>>> >>
>>> >> Create sequence - X Months
>>> >>
>>> >> Review by NSRCA Board/put out for survey - X Months
>>> >>
>>> >> Blah blah blah...
>>> >>
>>> >> AND THEN...work backwards for the AMA process...
>>> >>
>>> >> Submission to the AMA for the 20XX year rules has to occur years before
it
>>> >> goes into effect (prelim vote, changes, final vote, publication, etc etc)
>>> >>
>>> >> I think Ron has a feel for the required process, but I'd love to hear >>>
what
>>> >> the beginning to "in effect" time lag is for a new sequence under the AMA
>>> >> rules process.
>>> >>
>>> >> -M
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On 7/26/07 11:59 AM, "Ed Alt" <ed_alt at hotmail.com
>>> <mailto:ed_alt at hotmail.com> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>>> >>> Doug:
>>>> >>> I agree that we should not have a panel of non-enthusiasts in charge of
>>>> >>> the
>>>> >>> actual sequence design. I don't think I stated my point too well.  The
>>>> >>> SIG
>>>> >>> does contain the best source of knowledge to construct sequences.
>>>> Given 
>>>> >>> the
>>>> >>> right structure to how the committee is formed and how their work
>>>> >>> overseen
>>>> >>> is what is criitical.  I don't think NSRCA has this process quite right
>>>> >>> yet.
>>>> >>>   This isn't meant to criticize anyone, but I think that more thought
>>>> has 
>>>> >>> to
>>>> >>> be put into how we manage the process in the future.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> It seems to me that the Sequence Committee work should first pass
>>>> muster
>>>> >>> with the NSRCA board, who should review it to make sure that it certain
>>>> >>> criteria are met, not whether personally like it or not.  What is that
>>>> >>> criteria?  That needs to be better defined.  It appears to take the
>>>> form 
>>>> >>> of
>>>> >>> tribal knowledge. One attempt to put some structure to evaluating a
>>>> >>> sequence
>>>> >>> is via a tool that Dave Lockhart developed , which I think is very
>>>> >>> useful.
>>>> >>> However, is this developed to the point it needs to be?  Whatever
>>>> method 
>>>> >>> we
>>>> >>> use to create and evaluate should be well understood and applied
>>>> >>> consistently.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Beyond how we establish consistency within our SIG, it seems that the
EC
>>>> >>> role ought to be to review that their flock of SIGS followed AMA
>>>> >>> guidelines
>>>> >>> for producing their work, not to define exactly how they produce the
>>>> work
>>>> >>> product (the sequences in this case).  So, the EC should demand that
>>>> the 
>>>> >>> SIG
>>>> >>> has a defined procedure and that the SIG leadership has assured
>>>> >>> compliance
>>>> >>> through their oversight and ultimately, their signatures on the
>>>> product.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Ed
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>> From: Doug Cronkhite <seefo at san.rr.com <mailto:seefo at san.rr.com> >
>>>>> >>>> Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >
>>>>> >>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >
>>>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for
>>>>> 2009/2010
>>>>> >>>> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:04:26 -0700
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Just because you CAN change them every year doesn't mean you have to
or
>>>>> >>>> should. I agree with you that the lower classes should have some
>>>>> >>>> stability so newer pilots have a chance to build the foundation the
>>>>> >>>> higher classes require.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> I think the SIG should absolutely have control of the schedules, as
the
>>>>> >>>> people leading the SIG are generally actively involved in the sport.
>>>>> >>>> Other than Tony Stillman, are any of the EC active in pattern?
>>>>> Because
>>>>> >>>> if they're not, then I don't think they can make an accurate
>>>>> assessment
>>>>> >>>> of the needs of the SIG. Tony may be the only one on the EC who even
>>>>> >>>> flies anything on a regular basis now.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> -Doug
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> I like variety in schedules too, but I think there is a balance to
>>>>>> >>>>> strike with the lower classes.  It's a lot of effort each year to
>>>>>> >>>>> learn a new sequence.  Once you have enough experience flying
>>>>>> >>>>> aerobatics, you can focus on new sequences without detracting from
the
>>>>>> >>>>> other improvements you want to make.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> Re. giving the SIG all the control, I would not want to see that
>>>>>> >>>>> happen.  In the case of IMAC, the SIG leadership became very IAC
>>>>>> >>>>> centric and made changes that work against being able to learn
>>>>>> >>>>> fundamentals before moving up, in favor a being a carbon copy
>>>>>> >>>>> miniature of IAC.  Just look at what the IMAC lower class sequences
>>>>>> >>>>> now contain and consider what problems they represent for learning
>>>>>> >>>>> fundamentals.  I think you need an effective counterbalance to help
>>>>>> >>>>> keep sanity to the sequence design.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> Ed
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>> >>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>> >>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>> <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> >>> http://newlivehotmail.com <http://newlivehotmail.com>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>> >>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>> >>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>> <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>> <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
>> > 
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>> <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070727/d08ae5a0/attachment-0001.html

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list