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

Thu Sep 23 06:14:59 AKDT 2010

John,

The only bit of your discussion I differ on is regarding the difficulty
level for the "destination" class Masters.  It is only a destination for
some, and regardless of whether or not it is a destination class (in
practice, name, or design), the difficulty level should be set based on the
wishes of the majority - not the difficulty level of FAI.  We (AMA pattern
pilots) can always choose to set the difficulty level of Masters slightly
less than, equal to, or slightly greater than FAI.  But since we (AMA
pattern pilots) have pretty much zero input or influence on FAI, we should
never tie ourselves to the FAI schedule allowing it to dictate the
difficulty level of Masters.  Masters and FAI do not share the share goal,
and never will.

Advancement systems aside, someone will be moving up or down for whatever
reason(s), and I'm happy to partake in the celebrating or commiserating  :-)

Regards,

Dave Lockhart

  _____  

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 11:29 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

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 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/20100923/5846d150/attachment.html>