[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
John Gayer
jgghome at comcast.net
Wed Sep 22 14:40:19 AKDT 2010
Derek,
I thought we already selected a pattern through the survey. Is the
survey now meaningless because it chose the wrong length pattern?
I'm not quite sure I understand the logic behind raising the complexity
of the short pattern at this late date, either. The sequence committee
has worked on these patterns for two years or so and now it appears that
because of a few comments at the Nats or whatever that all that work and
the surveys are to be thrown out or at least revisited.
I offered comments on the patterns 6 months ago and and said at that
time that the Masters pattern was too easy in some areas. Didn't see
anyone jumping to and making changes then.
Comments about airplane killer maneuvers are also uncalled for. Any
Masters pilot should be able to perform integrated roll/loop maneuvers
without endangering the airplane. Making them good enough to score 8s
and 9s, well that's a different matter. If you are making changes to
the Masters pattern and keeping its role as a destination class, I
firmly believe it should contain _state of the art_ pattern maneuvers.
John Gayer
District 6 Advanced pilot
On 9/22/2010 4:10 PM, Derek Koopowitz wrote:
> Dave,
>
> You are correct in that everyone is impacted on a short vs long
> schedule - my apologies for the definition of who is impacted.
> Regardless, please voice your opinion to your District VP.
>
> -Derek
>
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net
> <mailto:burtona at atmc.net>> wrote:
>
> Derek,
>
> I really object to your definition of who has “Skin in the game” -
> *We all do if we pay our dues and attend contest*.
>
> The “skin” is the impact of a long vs. short sequence for every
> Masters flyer, Flyer who will be flying Masters in the next two
> years, every flyer/non flyer who judges at a contest, and every
> other flyer in all the other class who have to wait until the
> typically large Masters class finishes whatever sequence they fly.
>
> So, whether I fly Masters in the next two years or not, I intend
> to let my opinion be known to my district VP and I expect him to
> give my view the same weight of any other opinion from “Masters”
> flyers or others.
>
> This is an issue that should not be decided by only “Masters” flyers.
>
> Dave Burton
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] *On Behalf Of
> *Derek Koopowitz
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 22, 2010 5:31 PM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
>
>
> *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011
> and beyond
>
> Over 10 months ago the NSRCA Sequence Committee completed its work
> on the new sequences. These were posted on the NSRCA website for
> review and comment - see below:
>
> http://nsrca.us/proposedsequences/2011sequences.html
>
> Included in all this material was a draft document that outlined
> the process on how sequences are developed, tested and approved
> and the makeup/content of the sequences based on the class it is
> meant to serve. This document is titled "NSRCA Procedures,
> Standards and Guidelines for AMA R/C Precision Aerobatics Sequence
> Development". A mouthful, but it does outline a lot of
> information. It details the charter for the Sequence Committee,
> sequence development standards and guidelines for all classes,
> catalog of maneuvers for all classes and the process that the
> NSRCA will follow in designing, testing and approving changes to
> sequences, or for proposed sequences. These sequence development
> standards and guidelines have been in place for about 4 years now
> and have been used very successfully to build the current set of
> sequences that everyone is flying today, in addition to the prior
> Masters sequence (and the new one as well).
>
> Overall we received positive comments on the proposed sequences
> from Sportsman through Masters. As you know, there were two
> sequences developed for Masters, a long sequence using the
> standard 23 maneuver count and a short sequence using 19
> maneuvers. In the time since we posted the sequences, some
> informal surveys were also made on the NSRCA website as well as on
> RCU asking for a preference of either the short or long Masters
> schedule. The overwhelming majority of respondents chose the
> short sequence. However, these surveys were a little flawed in
> that we didn't really know who was voting for them - were they all
> judges/pilots who voted because they didn't want to judge a long
> sequence, or were they really current and/or future Masters pilots
> that really did want to fly a shorter sequence.
>
> Since the release of the proposed schedules, and some post Nats
> comments, the sequence committee has been hard at work making some
> tweaks to the short schedule with a view to increasing the
> difficulty level of the short Masters sequence to bring it into
> line with the long Masters sequence and also to ensure that we
> weren't lowering the bar in difficulty by introducing a shorter
> sequence. Bear in mind that the short sequence is only 19
> maneuvers (17 of them flyable) so raising the difficulty level is
> a challenge if one is to avoid using some existing F3A type
> maneuvers, or "airplane killers", and to only use maneuvers that
> match the philosophy that we've embraced for a number of years.
> Since we've never developed a short Masters sequence, we need to
> make sure we get it right and that it not only provides a
> challenge to those that fly it but that it still provides a
> somewhat relatively higher jump for those pilots that are moving
> up from Advanced. We realize that creating a perfect schedule is
> not going to happen - we won't be able to please every pilot that
> moves up from Advanced, nor will we be able to please some former
> F3A pilots that think the schedule is too easy and isn't enough of
> a challenge. There has to be a balance. The Sequence Committee
> came up with some good positive changes and these are being
> vetted/tested as I write this. They've received extremely
> positive feedback from everyone that has either flown the newer
> short sequence on a simulator or using their pattern plane at the
> field. By the end of this weekend we'll know for sure whether it
> is a keeper or not.
>
> When we do post the revised sequence I would like all of you that
> have "skin in this game", meaning you are a current Masters pilot
> or will be moving to Masters in the next year or two, to please
> contact your NSRCA District VP and let them know what your
> preference is - short or long sequence. The reason they need to
> know is that the NSRCA board will vote in the next couple of weeks
> to approve all the proposed sequences and also to select which
> sequence the Masters class will be flying in 2011/2012.
>
> The Sequence Committee is comprised of Joe Lachowski, Dave
> Lockhart, Verne Koester, Bill Glaze, Archie Stafford, and Richard
> Lewis. They've put in an extraordinary amount of work on these
> sequences and documentation and deserve huge kudos from everyone!
> Thanks guys - your work is very much appreciated!
>
> We've also created a Sequence Committee section on the NSRCA
> website which will have more information soon. It will contain
> the updated draft documentation and all the proposed sequences in
> one location. You can get to the new section from the main menu -
> just look for Sequence Committee - it is near the bottom of the menu.
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3152 - Release Date:
> 09/22/10 02:34:00
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100922/8478ed81/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list