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

Wed Sep 22 16:11:38 AKDT 2010

Jon,

Based on the preliminary votes I think the removal of the schedules from the
rule book will pass (I'll keep my fingers crossed), which essentially means
that we could possibly wait until 12/31/2010 before the NSRCA board
announces the new schedules for 2011/2012.  That won't happen (waiting until
12/31) since it isn't fair and doesn't make sense.  I've revised the guide
which includes a defined timeline and I'm just waiting on some minor
adjustments to be made before I have the board review and approve the guide.
 Here is the draft timeline that is in the revised guide:

1.0        Sequence Submittal Process

The following is the recommended timeline for the development and submission
of new sequences.  Sequence development should always start in the year
prior to when the sequence is to be replaced.  For example, if the Masters
sequence (2 year lifecycle) is to be replaced in 2013 (X) then work on the
development of a new sequence should start in 2011 (X – 2).  What follows is
a timeline showing the activity (task) and the month the activity should
start:

* *

*TASK*
  *TIMELINE*

Assign and approve Committee Chairperson                           October -
year X – 2

Committee Chairperson recruits Committee Membership        October – year X
- 2

BoD approves Committee Membership                                    November
– year X - 2

Establish development schedule
December – year X - 2

Review design criteria/receive BoD approval for changes       December –
year X - 2

Develop preliminary changes/sequences and flight test           January
through March – year X - 1

Publish for public comment on NSRCA website/K-Factor      April through May
– year X - 1

Finalize changes/sequence selection based on comments         June through
August – year X - 1

Submit proposed changes/sequences to BoD for approval       September – year
X - 1

Publish approved sequences on NSRCA website/K-Factor     October – year X -1

New sequences in use
  January – year X

Hopefully this answers your question.

-Derek

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com> wrote:

> Derek,
> When, exactly, do the District VP's vote on this? A "couple of weeks"
> doesn't mean much to me.   When, exactly, do we get to see the "new and
> improved" masters sequences?  Why aren't they posted now?  Why do we have to
> wait until after "the end of the weekend"?  It would appear that they would
> want as much feedback as they can get, especially at this late date.
>
>    When is the schedule for final approval and announcement of the new
> sequences going to be added to the Sequence development guide?  There is a
> schedule of sorts in there, but it doesn't state when final sequences will
> be announced. You asked this at the NSRCA Board Meeting this year, and I
> asked this shortly after the Nats, and got blown off, here:
>
> http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_9759516/anchors_9899988/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#9899988
> So I'm asking again since the guide hasn't been revised in this area.
>
>  Since the AMA contest board final vote isn't due to be announced until 30
> Sep (ballots were only due to the AMA on 15 Sep), are you sure we will be
> able to revise our own sequences?  Do you have advanced info from the AMA
> that it passed?
>
>  Jon Lowe
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wed, Sep 22, 2010 6:10 pm
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and
> beyond
>
>  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
>>
>
>   _______________________________________________
> 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/20100923/5a916f63/attachment.html>