[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
Joe Dunnaway
dunnaway at hbcomm.net
Wed Sep 22 21:57:46 AKDT 2010
Matt,
If it doesn't work we can always submit another rules proposal to
change it back.
Give it a chance. :-)
Joe
On 9/23/2010 12:30 AM, Matthew Frederick wrote:
>
> Sad news for pattern...
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *John
> Fuqua
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 22, 2010 8:23 PM
> *To:* 'General pattern discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011
> and beyond
>
> Based on the votes I have received the proposal has passed.
>
> John Fuqua
>
> CB Chairman
>
> *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 7:12 PM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011
> and beyond
>
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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>
> [mailto: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 <http://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 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://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
>
>
>
> 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 01:34:00
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100923/5ab3d990/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list