[NSRCA-discussion] Sportsman Option

Thu Sep 23 06:29:06 AKDT 2010

I think the ' fly sportsman twice' option goes back several years to a
previous ( pretty short) sequence.  The situation was corrected by a rework
of that sequence, but the fly twice rule was left in place.
The rule probably no longer makes sense/ haven't seen it  used since the
sequence changed several years ago.
On Sep 23, 2010 10:17 AM, <ldiamond at diamondrc.com> wrote:
> I agree, hence why I stated it in parenthesis at the end of my comment. My
opinion is that a Sportsman pilot would only fly 1/2 of the rounds as the
rest of the pilots. Pro's and Con's with this...When I flew Sportsman, I can
say I felt a little cheated not flying on a Sunday because all my rounds
were complete by the third round on Saturday.
>
> I also believe the intent was to allow for more flight maneuvers at a
contest to increase the learning curve of the Sportsman and reward the best
sequence of the flight. I would find it difficult to believe the intent of
this rule was get them done faster.
>
> As a CD I would never use the Sportsman Option to count as two rounds.
>
> Larry Diamond
>
> --- On Thu, 9/23/10, Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and
beyond
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Thursday, September 23, 2010, 10:04 AM
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> #yiv371565653
#yiv371565653AOLMsgPart_3_5370b143-3606-4520-b045-2be5abcb700e
td{color:black;} _filtered #yiv371565653 {font-family:"Cambria
Math";panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv371565653
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv371565653
{font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv371565653
{font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv371565653
#yiv371565653AOLMsgPart_3_5370b143-3606-4520-b045-2be5abcb700e
p.yiv371565653MsoNormal, #yiv371565653
#yiv371565653AOLMsgPart_3_5370b143-3606-4520-b045-2be5abcb700e
li.yiv371565653MsoNormal, #yiv371565653
#yiv371565653AOLMsgPart_3_5370b143-3606-4520-b045-2be5abcb700e
div.yiv371565653MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"serif";}#yiv371565653
#yiv371565653AOLMsgPart_3_5370b143-3606-4520-b045-2be5abcb700e a:link,
#yiv371565653 #yiv371565653AOLMsgPart_3_5370b143-3606-4520-b045-2be5abcb700e

> span.yiv371565653MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv371565653
#yiv371565653AOLMsgPart_3_5370b143-3606-4520-b045-2be5abcb700e a:visited,
#yiv371565653 #yiv371565653AOLMsgPart_3_5370b143-3606-4520-b045-2be5abcb700e
span.yiv371565653MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv371565653
#yiv371565653AOLMsgPart_3_5370b143-3606-4520-b045-2be5abcb700e pre
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";}#yiv371565653
#yiv371565653AOLMsgPart_3_5370b143-3606-4520-b045-2be5abcb700e
p.yiv371565653yiv1960264070msonormal, #yiv371565653
#yiv371565653AOLMsgPart_3_5370b143-3606-4520-b045-2be5abcb700e
li.yiv371565653yiv1960264070msonormal, #yiv371565653
#yiv371565653AOLMsgPart_3_5370b143-3606-4520-b045-2be5abcb700e
div.yiv371565653yiv1960264070msonormal
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"serif";}#yiv371565653
> #yiv371565653AOLMsgPart_3_5370b143-3606-4520-b045-2be5abcb700e
span.yiv371565653HTMLPreformattedChar {font-family:Consolas;}#yiv371565653
#yiv371565653AOLMsgPart_3_5370b143-3606-4520-b045-2be5abcb700e
span.yiv371565653EmailStyle21
{font-family:"sans-serif";color:#1F497D;}#yiv371565653
#yiv371565653AOLMsgPart_3_5370b143-3606-4520-b045-2be5abcb700e
.yiv371565653MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv371565653 {margin:1.0in 1.0in
1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv371565653
#yiv371565653AOLMsgPart_3_5370b143-3606-4520-b045-2be5abcb700e
div.yiv371565653WordSection1 {}
>
>
> "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).
>
> 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 rules that
“The Contest Director may use this option on a round by round basis.”.
>
> The scoring can be handled in the system today by changing the Scoring
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 presented in 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 and
beyond
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "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
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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100923/1cf38231/attachment.html>