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

Thu Sep 23 04:25:20 AKDT 2010

I agree this would be the best "System" for advancement, implementation would be an entirely different matter.

I always thought "Moving up" was a right to be earned and celebrated when achieved.

--- On Wed, 9/22/10, John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net> wrote:

From: John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Wednesday, September 22, 2010, 11:28 PM

Dave,

Every time you move to a new class including sportsman there are potential airplane killers lurking. Long ago and far away, I remember losing two airplanes learning to do three consecutive rolls centered.  If combined roll/loop maneuvers were introduced to Masters, the Masters pilots would quickly sort out how to execute them.  My only point in addressing the lack of these maneuvers in Masters is the fact that it is the final AMA destination class and as such should deliver equivalent difficulty to F3A. Otherwise it is a feeder class without Advancement requirements.

In other countries where advancement to the next class has to be earned (by scoring average and the national organization keeps track), getting an advancement notice is cause for celebration and usually involves lots of beer. In Australia everyone aspires to gain admittance into the top level (which flies the F3A schedules and from which their World team is selected).  The flip side is that if you start flying poorly or not at all, you find yourself moving back a class or two.

Such a system has a lot of merit. Keep flying well against your peers, you move up. Fly poorly, you move down. The beer sounds good too. Celebrate on the way up, commiserate on the way down, drinks all around in either case.

John

On 9/22/2010 6:28 PM, Dave wrote: 

John,

First, without picking a side on this particular debate, I’d offer the following comments / perspectives –

- Historically, surveys and polls have answered that integrated looping/rolling maneuvers should not be included in the Masters pattern.
- an “airplane killer” looks a lot differently to a skilled Masters pilot compared to a middle of the pack advanced pilot moving into Masters, and this concern has historically been expressed, and is a hot button for a substantial number.

Second, my opinions -

I fly FAI because I want to…I want the more challenging schedules and higher level of competition.  Arguably, the FAI P schedule is not more difficult in some years, and I could easily argue it does not contain state of the art maneuvers, but flying FAI is still more difficult if for no other reason than a pilots time must be split between flying P, F, and unknowns.

Masters has a wide range of pilot abilities, and is “home” for many for different reasons.  As such, it will always be a compromise class, unlike FAI F3A which is focused on picking the best F3A Team in the world and the best individual pilot in the world.  So long as the majority of Masters do not want state of the art maneuvers, Masters should not have state of the art maneuvers.

I do believe it might be a little easier to establish and maintain the difficulty level of each class and the steps between the classes IF a system were established that required a pilot advance to the next higher class based on achieving a given proficiency, and also demoted a pilot who did not achieve a minimum standard.  Several countries use this approach, and from what I have seen, it appears to work as well or better than the point system used in the US .  Mandatory advancement to F3A is a separate, but related topic.

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 John Gayer
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 6:40 PM
To: General pattern discussion ; Mark Hunt
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

Derek,

I thought we already selected a pattern through the survey. Is the survey now meaningless because it chose the wrong length pattern?

I'm not quite sure I understand the logic behind raising the complexity of the short pattern at this late date, either.  The sequence committee has worked on these patterns for two years or so and now it appears that because of a few comments at the Nats or whatever that all that work and the surveys are to be thrown out or at least revisited.
I offered comments on the patterns 6 months ago and and said at that time that the Masters pattern was too easy in some areas. Didn't see anyone jumping to and making changes then. 
Comments about airplane killer maneuvers are also uncalled for. Any Masters pilot should be able to perform integrated roll/loop maneuvers without endangering the airplane. Making them good enough to score 8s and 9s, well that's a different matter.  If you are making changes to the Masters pattern and keeping its role as a destination class, I firmly believe it should contain state of the art pattern maneuvers.

John Gayer
District 6 Advanced pilot

On 9/22/2010 4:10 PM, Derek Koopowitz wrote: 
Dave, 

You are correct in that everyone is impacted on a short vs long schedule - my apologies for the definition of who is impacted.  Regardless, please voice your opinion to your District VP.

-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
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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/20100923/3b7a9dde/attachment.html>