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

Wed Sep 22 17:23:56 AKDT 2010

Guys

Having flown the proposed changes the last 2 nights the biggest thing I can say about the changes is that it flows better. A couple of slight changes were made and Im sure will be available in the next day or two. The final descriptions and such have to be finalized. All changes were fairly minor as to not make it significantly more difficult. Essentially we were trying to get the K-factors of the short sequence close to that of the longer with a few less maneuvers. No major changes, but some slight ones such as changing the square loop with half rolls to a square on corner with half rolls. I really like the new sequence. 

Arch

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 22, 2010, at 9:12 PM, "Dave Burton" <burtona at atmc.net> wrote:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b71217e1/attachment.html>