[NSRCA-discussion] Sportsman Option
John Gayer
jgghome at comcast.net
Thu Sep 23 06:58:18 AKDT 2010
Instead of flying back to back sportsman schedules, I suggest that the
CD direct the judges to use that time for an immediate two minute
debrief with the pilot, gently pointing out where he could improve and
praising the good parts. If the contest is not under severe time
pressure, I believe this would do a lot for the Sportsman, both in his
flying and in feeling included. Assigning experienced callers often has
a similar effect.
John
On 9/23/2010 8:16 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
>
> *"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
> <http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=gene.maurice@sgmservice.com>
> Dallas, GA
> AMA 3408
> NSRCA 877
> PACSS.sgmservice.com
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org&>]
> *On Behalf Of *ldiamond at diamondrc.com
> <http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ldiamond@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
> <http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=derekkoopowitz@gmail.com>>/*
> wrote:
>
>
> From: Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com
> <http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=derekkoopowitz@gmail.com>>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for
> 2011 and beyond
> To: "General pattern discussion"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@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
> <http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jgghome@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
> <http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=burtona@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
> <http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@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
> <http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org>
>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@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://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@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://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@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/20100923/555bafd6/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list