[NSRCA-discussion] CB member RFC on Proposed MastersSequence for 2009/2010
Del K. Rykert
drykert2 at rochester.rr.com
Sat Jul 28 05:21:20 AKDT 2007
Hi Dave..
Agreed may never be a goal but is often a by product of the changes and choices. Not always for the betterment of the sport IMHO. Yes also agreed on the feedback after the fact but when rules are proposed at end of flying season for some is impossible for many to go out and try the maneuvers that are being suggested till well into the proposition. Not ideal for sure.
Del
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Lockhart
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] CB member RFC on Proposed MastersSequence for 2009/2010
Del,
I've been involved with the sequence committees pretty regularly for close to 20 yrs now. It has always been a struggle to get feedback BEFORE and DURING the process of developing new sequences (commentary after development has always been far more voluminous). Recent sequence efforts have been as or more attentive than in the past, and the amount of data/input to base the new sequences on has been more than in the past. The simple fact is that the average plane at the average contest is capable of more demanding maneuvers than in the past. So yes, this is reflected in part by more difficult sequences, but mostly it is a reflection of the input from those in the pattern community that completed the survey and took the time to interact with the volunteers that worked on the new sequences. Care has been taken to keep the entry level from escalating. Obsolescence has never been a goal.
Regards,
Dave
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Del K. Rykert
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 3:46 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] CB member RFC on Proposed MastersSequence for 2009/2010
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>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <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>
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <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> 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>
>>>> Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <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
>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> http://newlivehotmail.com
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> 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/20070728/03ad5b26/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list