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

Thu Sep 23 06:04:38 AKDT 2010

The rule for sportsman only says "suggested procedure".  Where the suggested procedure leaves off and the requirement restarts is unclear.  We've used the tow rounds per fligh

Jon Lowe

-----Original Message-----
From: Gene Maurice <gene.maurice at sgmservice.com>
To: ldiamond at diamondrc.com; 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thu, Sep 23, 2010 8:48 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

"BTW, the rules also state that a CD can haveSportsman fly their sequence back-to-back if they'd like to fly a littlelonger."

It'sa little vague, but I don't interpret the Sportsman Option to be considered astwo rounds. I have seen this done in the past (albeit not recent). The scoringis the best sequence of the flight with TO/L counting the same for both.PACSS doesn't solve for this, so it's difficult to produce scores for this(suggested procedure).

I’m working on it, but, as you said, “it’ difficult to produce……….”AND difficult to program. Part of the problem is the statement in the rulesthat “The Contest Director may use this option on a round by round basis.”.  

The scoring can be handled in the system today by changing theScoring Parameters to “Throw Out 0 High Rounds  and Throw Out 0 Low Rounds”,produce the standing for all 12 rounds and manually determine the ‘keepers’.   

 I would like to hear how you would like to see this presentedin the system.

Thanks,

Gene Maurice
gene.maurice at sgmservice.com
Dallas, GA
AMA 3408
NSRCA 877
PACSS.sgmservice.com

From:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of ldiamond at diamondrc.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 9:12 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 andbeyond

"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."

It's  a little vague, but I don't interpret the Sportsman Option to be considered  as two rounds. I have seen this done in the past (albeit not recent). The  scoring is the best sequence of the flight with TO/L counting the same  for both. PACSS doesn't solve for this, so it's difficult to produce scores  for this (suggested procedure).

OK,  back on topic...

Masters  Short Vs Long...I haven't compared the two...However, IMHO keep the length  and K-Factor constant in terms of flight time and difficulty for every AMA  Class. If the Masters Class is subjected to a "Feature Creep"  process to challenge those that have been in the class many moons, then the  gap between Advanced and Masters grows. Not a good thing for all AMA classes  as this gap will surely be distributed to the lower classes for balance.

Using  this philosophy, if a Master Pilot feels that the sequence is too easy and no  longer a challenge to them, I say...Move up to FAI...

Looking  forward, into the future, seriously...If Masters Pilots do not move up to FAI  and see the Masters Class as a Destination Class, what competition  will our prospective US Team Pilots face to get ready? Currently, there are  few people flying FAI at local contests. This can only mean that the  level of competition for FAI is down in the USA. If the level of competition  is down, how can one become consistent and reach their potential as a World  USA Team Member?

If  the Masters Class is not held at a constant level of difficulty, then there  is No Incentive to move up to FAI. The US will suffer for it in World  Competition as pilots or not challenged on a regular basis and practicing for  the Worlds is not the same as Competition Experience at a contest.

For  the argument of a Masters Pilot to say, “I don’t have and never will have a desire  to fly FAI”, I say, "no problem"…Just don’t expect the level of  Masters to become more difficult to challenge you.

Now  that you read all this, I don’t have skin in the game, or do I…If a pilot  wants to fly, I will judge no matter how long the sequence is.

Many  of the guys at the top have invested their time in me to become a better  pilot. I would never turn my back and say, "I don't want to judge  because the Masters Class is too long". That, IMHO, would be a slap in  the face to every pilot that called and coached me to be a better pilot. I  don't know of anybody that has learned to fly Pattern on their own.

My  .02, flame suit on!!!

Larry  “No Skin in the Game” Diamond

Intermediate  Pilot, Bottom Feeder

NSRCA  3083

AMA 5024

  --- On Wed, 9/22/10, Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>  wrote:

  From: Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
  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, 7:10 PM

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> 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> 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 list
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

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

_______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100923/4069543d/attachment.html>