[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
John Gayer
jgghome at comcast.net
Thu Sep 23 15:09:48 AKDT 2010
Didn't the sequence committee write the doctrine? It should be a
living document with a clear and easy path to modify it and keep it
current.
That is the problem with many process documents. Once written they
become law and immutable.
John
On 9/23/2010 4:53 PM, Archie Stafford wrote:
> The 4pt is exactly the type of maneuver Dave is referring to. I know
> becausehe and I have both pushed for that. I dont think we need some
> of the really crazy stuff, but we need to start adding some. I dont
> think we need them at the bottom of loops, but the current doctrine
> the sequence committee has to follow will notallow a loop with a 4pt
> at the top.
>
> Arch
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 23, 2010, at 6:46 PM, "Dave Harmon" <k6xyz at sbcglobal.net
> <mailto:k6xyz at sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
>
>> An avalanche or 4 pt roll in a loop is not an /‘FAI or IMAC style’/
>> integrated maneuver.
>>
>> *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>
>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of
>> *Archie Stafford
>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 23, 2010 5:31 PM
>> *To:* General pattern discussion
>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011
>> and beyond
>>
>> 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
>> <mailto: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>
>> [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>
>> [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>
>> [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 <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* 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
>> *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
>> <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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100923/fa2649f8/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list