[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
Ron Van Putte
vanputte at cox.net
Thu Sep 23 18:52:24 AKDT 2010
What is a "Loop with Jon Lowe"? <VBG>
Ron
On Sep 23, 2010, at 9:46 PM, Jon Lowe wrote:
> My two cents:
> A loop with
>
> Jon Lowe
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Thu, Sep 23, 2010 9:41 pm
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011
> and beyond
>
>
> As Arch stated, the current doctrine does not allow integrated loop/
> roll maneuvers, and that is based on majority feedback to date.
>
> My personal opinion is that something like a loop with a roll on
> top would be a good maneuver for Masters….it is not hard to do, but
> it is very hard to do well. If the majority of those with a direct
> stake in Masters want the loop with roll on top, we’d likely see it
> added to both the Masters sequence and the Seq Guidance Doc would
> be updated.
>
> And just to be clear, my use of “direct stake” means pilots
> currently in Masters, those in Advanced moving up to Masters, and
> FAI pilots changing to Masters.
>
> 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: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:07 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011
> and beyond
>
> 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>
> 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] 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>
>> 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 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