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

Wed Sep 22 15:10:10 AKDT 2010

Pattern length for each class has been a design criteria for a number of
years and it has been used very successfully to build current and past
sequences.  Since we are using each of the classes as a building block to
the next higher class, it makes sense to use each sequence to work on and
build flying skills.  One can only do so much with maneuvers in a class
before it becomes too intense for the pilot and wears them out (in the lower
classes) - that's why Sportsman has box entry/exit breaks during the
sequence.  BTW, the rules also state that a CD can have Sportsman fly their
sequence back-to-back if they'd like to fly a little longer.

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:53 PM, John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net> wrote:

>  Derek,
>
> When it comes to the pattern length we should all have a say. Why should
> the Masters pattern have more maneuvers and take longer than any other
> pattern? You cannot say there is no impact on other flyers and their judging
> duties when Masters is often the largest class and use more than their share
> of the contest time as well. You *could* say that the "content" of each
> class pattern should be up to those with "skin" in the game.
>
> There was nothing in the survey that stated "Vote only for the patterns in
> the class you are flying or may fly next year". Nor do I believe that such a
> statement should be added.
>
> John
>
>
> On 9/22/2010 4:30 PM, Derek Koopowitz wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
>  After writing my reply to you I got to thinking again and I don't agree
> with your assessment.  This is about selecting a sequence that matter to the
> people that fly it not to the people that judge it or to the people that may
> have to wait around to fly again because of a large Masters turnout.
>
>  Flame away...
>
>  -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/e95da14e/attachment.html>