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

Ron Van Putte vanputte at cox.net
Thu Sep 23 14:44:00 AKDT 2010


What I want to see in F3A is an outside loop from the top, with two  
reversed integrated slow rolls at the bottom of the loop; severely  
downloaded if the rolls are started before or completed after the 90  
degree or 270 degree points of the loop.

Ron VP

On Sep 23, 2010, at 5:30 PM, Archie Stafford wrote:

> Why not?  An avalanche is an integrated maneuver. A 4pt roll at the  
> top of a loop is certainly in the skill set of a masters pilot.
>
> Arch
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 23, 2010, at 3:38 PM, "Dave Harmon" <k6xyz at sbcglobal.net>  
> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Dave l but otherwise  I disagree totally…..FAI and  
>> IMAC style integrated maneuvers don’t belong in Masters.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dave Harmon
>>
>> NSRCA 586
>>
>> K6XYZ[at]sbcglobal[dot]net
>>
>> Sperry, Ok.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca- 
>> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dr Mike
>> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:58 AM
>> To: 'General pattern discussion'
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011  
>> and beyond
>>
>>
>>
>> I totally agree with you, Dave, however, I would encourage the  
>> Masters sequence to begin including some integrated, safe stuff,  
>> such as a loop with  roll at top or some such thing.  It just  
>> simply makes the event so much more fun and exciting.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca- 
>> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave
>> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:13 AM
>> To: 'General pattern discussion'
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011  
>> and beyond
>>
>>
>>
>> John,
>>
>>
>>
>> The only bit of your discussion I differ on is regarding the  
>> difficulty level for the “destination” class Masters.  It is only  
>> a destination for some, and regardless of whether or not it is a  
>> destination class (in practice, name, or design), the difficulty  
>> level should be set based on the wishes of the majority – not the  
>> difficulty level of FAI.  We (AMA pattern pilots) can always  
>> choose to set the difficulty level of Masters slightly less than,  
>> equal to, or slightly greater than FAI.  But since we (AMA pattern  
>> pilots) have pretty much zero input or influence on FAI, we should  
>> never tie ourselves to the FAI schedule allowing it to dictate the  
>> difficulty level of Masters.  Masters and FAI do not share the  
>> share goal, and never will.
>>
>>
>>
>> Advancement systems aside, someone will be moving up or down for  
>> whatever reason(s), and I’m happy to partake in the celebrating or  
>> commiserating  J
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Dave Lockhart
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca- 
>> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Gayer
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 11:29 PM
>> To: General pattern discussion
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011  
>> and beyond
>>
>>
>>
>> Dave,
>>
>> Every time you move to a new class including sportsman there are  
>> potential airplane killers lurking. Long ago and far away, I  
>> remember losing two airplanes learning to do three consecutive  
>> rolls centered.  If combined roll/loop maneuvers were introduced  
>> to Masters, the Masters pilots would quickly sort out how to  
>> execute them.  My only point in addressing the lack of these  
>> maneuvers in Masters is the fact that it is the final AMA  
>> destination class and as such should deliver equivalent difficulty  
>> to F3A. Otherwise it is a feeder class without Advancement  
>> requirements.
>>
>> In other countries where advancement to the next class has to be  
>> earned (by scoring average and the national organization keeps  
>> track), getting an advancement notice is cause for celebration and  
>> usually involves lots of beer. In Australia everyone aspires to  
>> gain admittance into the top level (which flies the F3A schedules  
>> and from which their World team is selected).  The flip side is  
>> that if you start flying poorly or not at all, you find yourself  
>> moving back a class or two.
>>
>> Such a system has a lot of merit. Keep flying well against your  
>> peers, you move up. Fly poorly, you move down. The beer sounds  
>> good too. Celebrate on the way up, commiserate on the way down,  
>> drinks all around in either case.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On 9/22/2010 6:28 PM, Dave wrote:
>>
>> John,
>>
>>
>>
>> First, without picking a side on this particular debate, I’d offer  
>> the following comments / perspectives –
>>
>>
>>
>> - Historically, surveys and polls have answered that integrated  
>> looping/rolling maneuvers should not be included in the Masters  
>> pattern.
>>
>> - an “airplane killer” looks a lot differently to a skilled  
>> Masters pilot compared to a middle of the pack advanced pilot  
>> moving into Masters, and this concern has historically been  
>> expressed, and is a hot button for a substantial number.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Second, my opinions -
>>
>>
>>
>> I fly FAI because I want to…I want the more challenging schedules  
>> and higher level of competition.  Arguably, the FAI P schedule is  
>> not more difficult in some years, and I could easily argue it does  
>> not contain state of the art maneuvers, but flying FAI is still  
>> more difficult if for no other reason than a pilots time must be  
>> split between flying P, F, and unknowns.
>>
>>
>>
>> Masters has a wide range of pilot abilities, and is “home” for  
>> many for different reasons.  As such, it will always be a  
>> compromise class, unlike FAI F3A which is focused on picking the  
>> best F3A Team in the world and the best individual pilot in the  
>> world.  So long as the majority of Masters do not want state of  
>> the art maneuvers, Masters should not have state of the art  
>> maneuvers.
>>
>>
>>
>> I do believe it might be a little easier to establish and maintain  
>> the difficulty level of each class and the steps between the  
>> classes IF a system were established that required a pilot advance  
>> to the next higher class based on achieving a given proficiency,  
>> and also demoted a pilot who did not achieve a minimum standard.   
>> Several countries use this approach, and from what I have seen, it  
>> appears to work as well or better than the point system used in  
>> the US.  Mandatory advancement to F3A is a separate, but related  
>> topic.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Dave Lockhart
>>
>> DaveL322 at comcast.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca- 
>> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Gayer
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 6:40 PM
>> To: General pattern discussion; Mark Hunt
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011  
>> and beyond
>>
>>
>>
>> Derek,
>>
>> I thought we already selected a pattern through the survey. Is the  
>> survey now meaningless because it chose the wrong length pattern?
>>
>> I'm not quite sure I understand the logic behind raising the  
>> complexity of the short pattern at this late date, either.  The  
>> sequence committee has worked on these patterns for two years or  
>> so and now it appears that because of a few comments at the Nats  
>> or whatever that all that work and the surveys are to be thrown  
>> out or at least revisited.
>> I offered comments on the patterns 6 months ago and and said at  
>> that time that the Masters pattern was too easy in some areas.  
>> Didn't see anyone jumping to and making changes then.
>> Comments about airplane killer maneuvers are also uncalled for.  
>> Any Masters pilot should be able to perform integrated roll/loop  
>> maneuvers without endangering the airplane. Making them good  
>> enough to score 8s and 9s, well that's a different matter.  If you  
>> are making changes to the Masters pattern and keeping its role as  
>> a destination class, I firmly believe it should contain state of  
>> the art pattern maneuvers.
>>
>> John Gayer
>> District 6 Advanced pilot
>>
>>
>> On 9/22/2010 4:10 PM, Derek Koopowitz wrote:
>>
>> Dave,
>>
>>
>>
>> You are correct in that everyone is impacted on a short vs long  
>> schedule - my apologies for the definition of who is impacted.   
>> Regardless, please voice your opinion to your District VP.
>>
>>
>>
>> -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 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
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list