[NSRCA-discussion] Changing Sequences...

[Mark Hunt]

Joe,

I did not see anything in Richard's message that indicated that guidlines, flow,  and skill development would be thrown to the wind.  Also, as mentioned, a VP of the NSRCA would not be restricted to writing the entire sequences himself.  A committee of any size could be used (and encouraged) to properly design, well thought sequences.  I take my role as VP very seriously and if that included writing a new sequence, I would certainly make use of all my pattern resources (people, time, experience) to do the job.

Our good friends who fly those really big pattern planes (40%) have experienced good success with controlling their own sequences annually (not in their rulebook).


-mark

 

________________________________
From: Joe Lachowski <jlachow at hotmail.com>
To: NSRCA Discussion List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2009 1:41:41 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Changing Sequences...

Richard,
 
Strict guidelines must be followed to maintain the intent of skill development through the classes. A group of us drafted guidelines based on past sequence committee work. It is in Dereks' hands. It includes what must be taken into consideration for designing a given class sequence, the boundaries (ie total K range to keep within), as well as, a catalog of maneuvers for each class. My experience  being involved with the last few sequence committees is that people can get into the so called that'll be cool to do mode and they have to be reminded and kept in check.
 
Sequences also have to flow, allow for proper positioning in and out where needed, and allow sufficient room for long rolling horizontal manuevers. I can tell you right now that no matter how hard we tried, the sequences we ended up with were pretty good but not perfect when it came to this. There was always at least one place where there was a problem. An example in Masters, after the Figure-M we have a Top Hat which brings you in or out.  A good portion of the time, I find myself basically in no mans land. That being right where I really want to be position wise. When you get into this predicament you have to find a way to sneak in or out a little to give yourself the room to do a nice top hat that'll score. That being said, there is really only one maneuver that can be used after the Figure-M, the old Humpty Bump with Options. 
 
By the way, Derek has been looking for volunteers to get involved. Don't know if he got enough people yet. Are you game?
 
Oh, also, I believe the Competitions Board will probably have to approve the sequences in the end anyway to guarantee that they fall within the safety guidelines of the AMA. I'm sure tht is the only way we are going to get them out of the book. I could be wrong on that though.
________________________________
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 11:07:58 -0700
From: humptybump at sbcglobal.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Changing Sequences...


Derek,

You write:  "My feeling is that we leave the sequence building with the experts and they can create/build a sequence that is best for us."

Who are the "experts" on the sequence committees (past and present) that know what's "best for us"? I thought that regular pattern fliers, of all levels/districts were on the committees that came up with our current set of sequences.  May not be what you meant, but it sure seems like a very elitist statement.

There are only four sequences...Given several years notice, and no limits on resources that the responsible district can use, I see no reason that 4 sequences can't be developed, tested, and submitted.  If the responsible district wants to use a commitee pulled from the national pool of "experts", that's OK.  If they want to recycle an old, beloved sequence, that's OK.  As a bonus, if you don't like a particular set of sequences, you just have to fly it for a season and you get a new set of challenges.  Even our current sequences that were developed in the committees that you speak highly of have some mysterious flaws that we are stuck with.  If you really feel the need, the "failry srtict guidelines/procedures" can still be used, but I really don't think they are necessary.  IMO, the combination of ownership/responsibility coupled with creative freedom can produce some very high quality, interesting, and exciting sequences that just might
 make being a pattern pilot fun again.

And, there is always the Executive committee vote as a reaility check to ensure that nothing with errors or other anomalies gets through.

Richard



________________________________
From: Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2009 11:58:15 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Changing Sequences...


Richard,

I agree wholeheartedly with your step one - the sequences should be removed from the rulebook in order for us to modify them regularly and to modify rules associated with the sequences quickly without having to wait until the next rules cycle/emergency proposal.  Our core set of rules will remain in the rule book - lines, loops, rolls, etc.

Step two is much more difficult to achieve.  As anyone on the sequence committee will tell you (past and present), creating sequences is a painstakingly hard process especially if one wants to get it right.  We do have some failry srtict guidelines/procedures layed out for each class which does make it somewhat easier to build a sequence... however, getting all the sequences built together takes a lot of trial and error.  My feeling is that we leave the sequence building with the experts and they can create/build a sequence that is best for us.  Having said that I would expect that the sequence committee would rely on input so that they can get a sense for what works and what doesn't work.

Thanks for your comments.

-Derek


On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Richard Lewis <humptybump at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

While we are hashing out rule changes.....

Me and a flying buddy (who shall remain nameless to protect the innocent) have hashed out what we believe is a viable framework for changing sequences yearly by the NSRCA....

Step one is to remove the sequences from the rulebook.  Without this, nothing else matters.

Step 2, give each NSRCA District rotating responsibility for generating sequences each year.  The VP will manage the process, explicity or by delegation.  The method for generanting them is up to the VP.  They can do it themselves, by committee, or by rolling dice.  Sequences are due January 1 of the year they will be flown.  In september before the year the sequences are due, the VP submits them to the NSRCA executive council.  The NSRCA executive council can reject them and require they be revised with a required 2/3 majority vote.  If accepted be the council, they become the official sequences for the following season.  If new sequences are not presented by a district, then the prior years sequences are retained and the offending district has to wait another 8 years to have another opportunity.

There are 8 districts (9 if canada is included).  That would mean that a VP would have years of advanced notice of the impending deadline and have plenty of opportunity to process new sequences to be ready for their turn.  A natural sense of self preservation and responsibility, will automatically guide the sequences to criteria that meet the needs of the VP's district constituents and national constituants in all aspects such as difficulty, length, progression, etc...whether the yearly changes are radical departures, or subtle develpoments, the interest level within a given district preceding their "turn" and the will be healthy for the sport and should really keep inteterest up. 

....:)
Richard , D6


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


________________________________
Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. Check it out. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090507/c29d0146/attachment.html>