[NSRCA-discussion] Sportsman Option

Thu Sep 23 07:24:34 AKDT 2010

If you only had one or two Sportsmen flying electric, have their caller
carry a second battery out with them.  Land, swap batts, and go again.  I
guess this would also require a waiver to the "no touchy your aircraft"
rule, but I'm sure most guys would be OK with it in Sportsman.

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:11 AM, <ldiamond at diamondrc.com> wrote:

> 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<http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mark.atwood@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<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
> 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
>
>
>
>
> -----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
>

-- 

Keith Hoard
Collierville, TN
khoard at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100923/270b5218/attachment.html>