[NSRCA-discussion] Sportsman Option

Thu Sep 23 07:11:20 AKDT 2010

Arch, this is a great point. I sanctioned the Evansville contest with the Sportsman option to be determined at the pilots meeting. We had guys flying electric, and decided not to use it for this reason.

Larry

--- On Thu, 9/23/10, Archie Stafford <astafford at md.metrocast.net> wrote:

From: Archie Stafford <astafford at md.metrocast.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Sportsman Option
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, September 23, 2010, 10:38 AM

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  |  www.paragon-inc.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: 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

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 listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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

-----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/b33475d5/attachment.html>