[NSRCA-discussion] Sportsman Option
Archie Stafford
astafford at md.metrocast.net
Thu Sep 23 06:38:22 AKDT 2010
And for guys flying smaller electrics, this would be tough. My son
Caleb is going to try his first contest hopefully next month at Green
Sea. He has a .40 size Great Planes Escpade on 4S 3000 packs. There
is no way he could fly the sequence twice on a charge. If we are
encouraging people to fly sportsman with anything they have, we could
potentially run some off if we did this.
On Thu 09/23/10 10:29 AM , "Atwood, Mark" atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
sent:
I think there is a lot of flexibility here. We had a contest a few
years back where we did the “fly through it twice” option and we
scored all the rounds and kept the best 8 of 12 for the contest.
Sportsmen got to fly more, and had more throw aways. Everyone seemed
to be happy.
The current sportsman schedule is not as short as the old one was
and so there has been less of a need to do this.
MARK ATWOOD
PARAGON CONSULTING, INC. | President
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
Phone: 440.684.3101 x102 | Fax: 440.684.3102
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com [1] | www.paragon-inc.com [2]
FROM: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] ON BEHALF OF
ldiamond at diamondrc.com
SENT: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:17 AM
TO: General pattern discussion
SUBJECT: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Sportsman Option
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 __wrote:
From: Jon Lowe
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
To: ldiamond at diamondrc.com; 'General pattern discussion'
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 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 [3]
Dallas, GA
AMA 3408
NSRCA 877
PACSS.sgmservice.com
FROM: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [4]
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [5]] ON BEHALF OF
ldiamond at diamondrc.com [6]
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 __ wrote:
From: Derek Koopowitz
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011
and beyond
To: "General pattern discussion"
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 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 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 [12]
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [13]] 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 [14]
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 [15]
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 [16]
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion [17]
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org [18]
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion [19]
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org [20]
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion [21]
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org [22]
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion [23]
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org [24]
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion [25]
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org [26]
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion [27]
Links:
------
[1] mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com
[2] http://www.paragon-inc.com/
[3]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=gene.maurice@sgmservice.com
[4]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[5]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org&
[6]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ldiamond@diamondrc.com
[7]
http://metromail.metrocast.net/HTTP://US.MC11.MAIL.YAHOO.COM/MC/COMPOSE?TO=DEREKKOOPOWITZ@GMAIL.COM
[8]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=derekkoopowitz@gmail.com
[9]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
[10] http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jgghome@comcast.net
[11] http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=burtona@atmc.net
[12]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[13]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[14] http://nsrca.us/proposedsequences/2011sequences.html
[15] http://www.avg.com/
[16]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
[17] http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
[18]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
[19] http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
[20]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
[21] http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
[22]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
[23] http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
[24]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
[25] http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
[26]
http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
[27] 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/dcbf8084/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list