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

mjfrederick at cox.net mjfrederick at cox.net
Thu Sep 23 05:56:28 AKDT 2010 

No we can't. The AMA (contest board) will not want the responsibility again, and the NSRCA will not want to give up control.

Matt
---- Joe Dunnaway <dunnaway at hbcomm.net> wrote: 
  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
>

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list