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

Wed Sep 22 17:12:41 AKDT 2010

Dave, I think the effort to limit VP input only to Master's flyers is a few
NSRCA "Leaders" trying to get their way when they are in the majority. My
points  is that others are affected too and should not have their opinions
discarded.  

It doesn't really bother me that there is an effort to increase the
difficulty of the shorter schedule. Masters should be difficult, but not so
much that only Nats finalist pilots can fly it. Revisiting the sequences at
this late date seems counter-productive, but maybe it can be done. I seems
to me that it would be better to do it next year in the development process
(but I could be wrong again).

Dave 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 8:38 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

"The skids are being greased to slam in the long sequence no matter how the
majority feel about it - but I could be wrong (but I don't think so)."

Dave B - The input and feedback I've seen and received would suggest you are
wrong in this instance.

The majority favor the shorter sequence and I can't see that changing.
Subsequent to the 2010 NATs, I became aware of some interest in increasing
the difficulty of the short schedule.  IF everyone providing feedback had
done so in a timely manner, this would not be an issue now.  IF the proposal
to remove the schedules from the rulebook does not pass, this is not an
issue (there will simply not be a new sequence in 2011).  There are a lot of
IFs.  Bottom line is that there is an opportunity to revisit the short
Masters sequence, and that is being done at this time.  I have not seen any
diabolical plot or secret conspiracy to subvert or overthrow the work that
has been done or the discard the opinions and votes previously
taken/received.  As you stated, I could be wrong (but I don't think so).

Regards,

Dave Lockhart

DaveL322 at comcast.net

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Burton
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 6:40 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

OK, Apology retracted!

I guess VPs and others will have to decide how they feel about this and
choose how they respond to various opinions.

Here's what I think is happening.

The skids are being greased to slam in the long sequence no matter how the
majority feel about it - but I could be wrong (but I don't think so).

Dave

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 6:30 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100923/5020a34b/attachment.html>