[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

Wed Sep 22 14:58:31 AKDT 2010

John,

Actually the survey didn't focus on whether a long or short Masters sequence
should be used.  So the survey wasn't meaningless.  The key area that we
wanted to get right is to ensure that if a short sequence was selected, then
we needed to make sure we got it right.  We've never had a short Masters
turnaround sequence before so getting the balance right is key.  I know that
when the Sequence Committee originally did the proposed sequences last year,
they were really intending on just using the long sequence but there was an
initial groundswell building to do a short sequence and get everyone's
reactions.  I don't think we realized that the short sequence would become
as hot a topic not only with Masters pilots (both current and future) but
also with other participants (as Dave alluded to in his email) that would be
impacted by a short/long sequence.

As for the airplane killer comment - this has been around for a long time -
remember the outside loop with the snap at the bottom?  Comments were made a
long time ago about it being a plane killer... and were unfounded.  I'm just
stating what was relayed to me by the committee - and I do agree with you
that any Masters pilot should be able to fly the sequence without harming
their plane.  The comment was based more on the use of other maneuvers that
could be deemed plane killlers such as snap/roll combinations.

-Derek

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:39 PM, John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net> wrote:

>  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> 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] *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
>> 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
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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/20100922/63bb238a/attachment.html>