[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

Thu Sep 23 10:03:16 AKDT 2010

John,
I appreciate your response and respect your position, but no history lesson is necessary. I've been flying pattern longer than most people think. The issue I have with the "making things the same as IMAC" argument is that the development of IMAC competition and Pattern competition is totally different. IMAC started as its own organization. It held it's own contests independent of AMA sanction or rules. They did what they wanted and made their own rules and schedules. Only recently has the AMA even added their events as a competition type in the AMA competition regulations.
AMA pattern started out as an AMA event. We are governed by AMA competition regulations. Removing any portion of the Pattern schedules or rules from the AMA rule book marginalizes the legitimacy of said competition, and frankly, I don't trust the NSRCA to represent my interests in Pattern. While the NSRCA is the recognized SIG for AMA Pattern, they do not represent pattern pilots as a whole. The contest board should listen to the advice of the NSRCA, but should use their own good judgment and feedback from individuals not represented by the NSRCA to make determinations on any rule changes. Up to and including sequence changes.

Matt
---- John Fuqua <johnfuqua at embarqmail.com> wrote: 
Matt

Maybe some history is in order.   We tried maybe 8 or so years ago to put
NSRCA in the same condition that IMAC has enjoyed for many, many years -
take control of schedules.  At that time AMA shot it down against our wishes
- new leadership now and times have changed.  The Board did not arbitrarily
make a decision to give up its "responsibility".  Rather the Board choose to
give NSRCA the same privileges IMAC now enjoys.  The risk here is that NSRCA
will not step up to its new responsibilities.  So far the NSRCA leadership
seems to be stepping up to the plate.   NSRCA should not want to give up
control as WE are supposed to be the voice of RC Aerobatics (AMA has taken a
corporate position to hand over many day to day responsibilities to the SIGs
to include running the NATS).  As in any organization we will have differing
opinions on things but seems to me that we have the resources to discuss,
cuss and then come to consensus for the betterment of our avocation.

John  

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
mjfrederick at cox.net
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 8:56 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

No we can't. The AMA (contest board) will not want the responsibility again,
and the NSRCA will not want to give up control.

Matt
---- Joe Dunnaway <dunnaway at hbcomm.net> wrote: 
  Matt,
   If it doesn't work we can always submit another rules proposal to 
change it back.
Give it a chance. :-)

Joe

On 9/23/2010 12:30 AM, Matthew Frederick wrote:
>
> Sad news for pattern...
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *John 
> Fuqua
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 22, 2010 8:23 PM
> *To:* 'General pattern discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 
> and beyond
>
> Based on the votes I have received the proposal has passed.
>
> John Fuqua
>
> CB Chairman
>
> *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 7:12 PM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 
> and beyond
>
> Jon,
>
> Based on the preliminary votes I think the removal of the schedules 
> from the rule book will pass (I'll keep my fingers crossed), which 
> essentially means that we could possibly wait until 12/31/2010 before 
> the NSRCA board announces the new schedules for 2011/2012.  That won't 
> happen (waiting until 12/31) since it isn't fair and doesn't make 
> sense.  I've revised the guide which includes a defined timeline and 
> I'm just waiting on some minor adjustments to be made before I have 
> the board review and approve the guide.  Here is the draft timeline 
> that is in the revised guide:
>
> 1.0 Sequence Submittal Process
>
> The following is the recommended timeline for the development and 
> submission of new sequences.  Sequence development should always start 
> in the year prior to when the sequence is to be replaced.  For 
> example, if the Masters sequence (2 year lifecycle) is to be replaced 
> in 2013 (X) then work on the development of a new sequence should 
> start in 2011 (X -- 2).  What follows is a timeline showing the 
> activity (task) and the month the activity should start:
>
> * *
>
> _TASK_ _TIMELINE_
>
> Assign and approve Committee Chairperson                           
> October - year X -- 2
>
> Committee Chairperson recruits Committee Membership        October -- 
> year X - 2
>
> BoD approves Committee Membership                                    
> November -- year X - 2
>
> Establish development 
> schedule                                               December -- 
> year X - 2
>
> Review design criteria/receive BoD approval for changes       December 
> -- year X - 2
>
> Develop preliminary changes/sequences and flight test           
> January through March -- year X - 1
>
> Publish for public comment on NSRCA website/K-Factor      April 
> through May -- year X - 1
>
> Finalize changes/sequence selection based on comments         June 
> through August -- year X - 1
>
> Submit proposed changes/sequences to BoD for approval       September 
> -- year X - 1
>
> Publish approved sequences on NSRCA website/K-Factor     October -- 
> year X -1
>
> New sequences in 
> use                                                               
> January -- year X
>
> Hopefully this answers your question.
>
> -Derek
>
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com 
> <mailto:jonlowe at aol.com>> wrote:
>
> Derek,
>
> When, exactly, do the District VP's vote on this? A "couple of weeks" 
> doesn't mean much to me.   When, exactly, do we get to see the "new 
> and improved" masters sequences?  Why aren't they posted now?  Why do 
> we have to wait until after "the end of the weekend"?  It would appear 
> that they would want as much feedback as they can get, especially at 
> this late date.
>
>   When is the schedule for final approval and announcement of the new 
> sequences going to be added to the Sequence development guide?  There 
> is a schedule of sorts in there, but it doesn't state when final 
> sequences will be announced. You asked this at the NSRCA Board Meeting 
> this year, and I asked this shortly after the Nats, and got blown off, 
> here:
>
>
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_9759516/anchors_9899988/mpage_1/key_/ancho
r/tm.htm#9899988
>
> So I'm asking again since the guide hasn't been revised in this area.
>
> Since the AMA contest board final vote isn't due to be announced until 
> 30 Sep (ballots were only due to the AMA on 15 Sep), are you sure we 
> will be able to revise our own sequences?  Do you have advanced info 
> from the AMA that it passed?
>
> Jon Lowe
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com 
> <mailto:derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
>
> Sent: Wed, Sep 22, 2010 6:10 pm
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and 
> beyond
>
> 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 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto: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> 
> [mailto: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 <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 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>   
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto: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
>
>
>
> 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
01:34:00
>

_______________________________________________
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