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

Thu Sep 23 14:50:27 AKDT 2010

Maybe add in a couple skeet shooters while you're at it?

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c373c95a/attachment.html>