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

Thu Sep 23 18:56:12 AKDT 2010

My two cents:
A loop with an integrated 4 point roll at the top is a no brainer to add to Masters.  I've done them, not well, but I've done them.  No more danger to the plane than an avalanche.

I also think an integrated half loop with half or full roll as an end box manuever (increasing altitude) would also be a good manuever.  I've done it, and if I can do it, anyone in masters can do it.

I vote to change the Sequence guide ASAP.

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

The Seq Com indeed wrote the document…..basedon data collected from multiple surveys and smaller bits of data/guidance generatedby prior Seq Coms.  It is by no means a stagnant document, it was designedto be flexible, and has been updated several times since it was originallypenned.

As Arch stated, the current doctrine doesnot allow integrated loop/roll maneuvers, and that is based on majority feedbackto date.

My personal opinion is that something likea loop with a roll on top would be a good maneuver for Masters….it is nothard to do, but it is very hard to do well.  If the majority of those witha direct stake in Masters want the loop with roll on top, we’d likely seeit added to both the Masters sequence and the Seq Guidance Doc would beupdated.

And just to be clear, my use of “directstake” means pilots currently in Masters, those in Advanced moving up toMasters, 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, 20107:07 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

Didn't the sequence committee write the doctrine? Itshould be a living document with a clear and easy path to modify it and keep itcurrent. 
That is the problem with many process documents. Once written they become lawand immutable.

John

On 9/23/2010 4:53 PM, Archie Stafford wrote: 

The 4pt is exactly the type of maneuver Dave isreferring to. I know becausehe and I have both pushed for that. I dont think weneed some of the really crazy stuff, but we need to start adding some. I dontthink we need them at the bottom of loops, but the current doctrine thesequence committee has to follow will notallow a loop with a 4pt at thetop. 

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’ integratedmaneuver.

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, 20105:31 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

Whynot?  An avalanche is an integrated maneuver. A 4pt roll at the top of aloop 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 disagreetotally…..FAI and IMAC style integrated maneuvers don’t belong inMasters.

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, 20109:58 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

I totally agree with you, Dave, however, I wouldencourage the Masters sequence to begin including some integrated, safe stuff,such as a loop with  roll at top or some such thing.  It just simplymakes 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, 20109:13 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 thedifficulty level for the “destination” class Masters.  It isonly a destination for some, and regardless of whether or not it is adestination class (in practice, name, or design), the difficulty level shouldbe set based on the wishes of the majority – not the difficulty level ofFAI.  We (AMA pattern pilots) can always choose to set the difficultylevel of Masters slightly less than, equal to, or slightly greater than FAI. But since we (AMA pattern pilots) have pretty much zero input orinfluence on FAI, we should never tie ourselves to the FAI schedule allowing itto dictate the difficulty level of Masters.  Masters and FAI do not sharethe share goal, and never will.

Advancement systems aside, someone will be moving up or down forwhatever reason(s), and I’m happy to partake in the celebrating orcommiserating  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 potentialairplane killers lurking. Long ago and far away, I remember losing twoairplanes learning to do three consecutive rolls centered.  If combinedroll/loop maneuvers were introduced to Masters, the Masters pilots wouldquickly sort out how to execute them.  My only point in addressing thelack of these maneuvers in Masters is the fact that it is the final AMAdestination 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 (byscoring average and the national organization keeps track), getting anadvancement notice is cause for celebration and usually involves lots of beer.In Australiaeveryone aspires to gain admittance into the top level (which flies the F3Aschedules and from which their World team is selected).  The flip side isthat if you start flying poorly or not at all, you find yourself moving back aclass or two.

Such a system has a lot of merit. Keep flying well against your peers, you moveup. Fly poorly, you move down. The beer sounds good too. Celebrate on the wayup, 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’doffer the following comments / perspectives –

- Historically, surveys and polls have answered that integratedlooping/rolling maneuvers should not be included in the Masters pattern.
- an “airplane killer” looks a lot differently to askilled Masters pilot compared to a middle of the pack advanced pilot movinginto Masters, and this concern has historically been expressed, and is a hotbutton for a substantial number.

Second, my opinions -

I fly FAI because I want to…I want the more challengingschedules and higher level of competition.  Arguably, the FAI P scheduleis not more difficult in some years, and I could easily argue it does notcontain state of the art maneuvers, but flying FAI is still more difficult iffor no other reason than a pilots time must be split between flying P, F, andunknowns.

Masters has a wide range of pilot abilities, and is“home” for many for different reasons.  As such, it willalways be a compromise class, unlike FAI F3A which is focused on picking thebest F3A Team in the world and the best individual pilot in the world.  Solong as the majority of Masters do not want state of the art maneuvers, Mastersshould not have state of the art maneuvers.

I do believe it might be a little easier to establish and maintainthe difficulty level of each class and the steps between the classes IF asystem were established that required a pilot advance to the next higher classbased on achieving a given proficiency, and also demoted a pilot who did notachieve a minimum standard.  Several countries use this approach, and fromwhat I have seen, it appears to work as well or better than the point systemused 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 nowmeaningless because it chose the wrong length pattern?

I'm not quite sure I understand the logic behind raising the complexity of theshort pattern at this late date, either.  The sequence committee hasworked on these patterns for two years or so and now it appears that because ofa few comments at the Nats or whatever that all that work and the surveys areto be thrown out or at least revisited.
I offered comments on the patterns 6 months ago and and said at that time thatthe Masters pattern was too easy in some areas. Didn't see anyone jumping toand making changes then. 
Comments about airplane killer maneuvers are also uncalled for. Any Masterspilot should be able to perform integrated roll/loop maneuvers withoutendangering the airplane. Making them good enough to score 8s and 9s, wellthat's a different matter.  If you are making changes to the Masterspattern and keeping its role as a destination class, I firmly believe it shouldcontain 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 thateveryone is impacted on a short vs long schedule - my apologies for thedefinition of who is impacted.  Regardless, please voice your opinion to yourDistrict VP.

-Derek

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at3:05 PM, Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net> wrote:

Derek,
Ireally object to your definition of who has “Skin in the game” - We all do if we pay our dues and attendcontest.
The“skin” is the impact of a long vs. short sequence for every Mastersflyer, Flyer who will be flying Masters in the next two years, every flyer/nonflyer who judges at a contest, and every other flyer in all the other class whohave to wait until the typically large Masters class finishes whatever sequencethey fly.
So,whether I fly Masters in the next two years or not, I intend to let my opinionbe known to my district VP and I expect him to give my view the same weight ofany other opinion from “Masters” flyers or others. 
Thisis an issue that should not be decided by only “Masters” flyers.
DaveBurton

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

Over10 months ago the NSRCA Sequence Committee completed its work on the newsequences.  These were posted on the NSRCA website for review and comment- see below:

http://nsrca.us/proposedsequences/2011sequences.html

Includedin all this material was a draft document that outlined the process on howsequences are developed, tested and approved and the makeup/content of thesequences based on the class it is meant to serve.  This document istitled "NSRCA Procedures, Standards and Guidelines for AMA R/C PrecisionAerobatics Sequence Development".  A mouthful, but it does outline alot of information.  It details the charter for the Sequence Committee,sequence development standards and guidelines for all classes, catalog ofmaneuvers for all classes and the process that the NSRCA will follow indesigning, testing and approving changes to sequences, or for proposedsequences.  These sequence development standards and guidelines have beenin place for about 4 years now and have been used very successfully to buildthe current set of sequences that everyone is flying today, in addition to theprior Masters sequence (and the new one as well).

Overallwe received positive comments on the proposed sequences from Sportsman throughMasters.  As you know, there were two sequences developed for Masters, along sequence using the standard 23 maneuver count and a short sequence using19 maneuvers.  In the time since we posted the sequences, some informalsurveys were also made on the NSRCA website as well as on RCU asking for apreference of either the short or long Masters schedule.  The overwhelmingmajority of respondents chose the short sequence.  However, these surveyswere 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 longsequence, or were they really current and/or future Masters pilots that reallydid want to fly a shorter sequence.

Sincethe release of the proposed schedules, and some post Nats comments, thesequence committee has been hard at work making some tweaks to the shortschedule with a view to increasing the difficulty level of the short Masterssequence to bring it into line with the long Masters sequence and also toensure that we weren't lowering the bar in difficulty by introducing a shortersequence.  Bear in mind that the short sequence is only 19 maneuvers (17of them flyable) so raising the difficulty level is a challenge if one is toavoid using some existing F3A type maneuvers, or "airplane killers",and to only use maneuvers that match the philosophy that we've embraced for anumber of years.  Since we've never developed a short Masters sequence, weneed to make sure we get it right and that it not only provides a challenge tothose that fly it but that it still provides a somewhat relatively higher jumpfor those pilots that are moving up from Advanced.  We realize thatcreating a perfect schedule is not going to happen - we won't be able to pleaseevery pilot that moves up from Advanced, nor will we be able to please someformer F3A pilots that think the schedule is too easy and isn't enough of achallenge.  There has to be a balance.  The Sequence Committee came upwith some good positive changes and these are being vetted/tested as I writethis.  They've received extremely positive feedback from everyone that haseither flown the newer short sequence on a simulator or using their patternplane at the field.  By the end of this weekend we'll know for surewhether it is a keeper or not.

Whenwe do post the revised sequence I would like all of you that have "skin inthis game", meaning you are a current Masters pilot or will be moving toMasters in the next year or two, to please contact your NSRCA District VP andlet them know what your preference is - short or long sequence.  Thereason they need to know is that the NSRCA board will vote in the next coupleof weeks to approve all the proposed sequences and also to select whichsequence the Masters class will be flying in 2011/2012.

TheSequence Committee is comprised of Joe Lachowski, Dave Lockhart, Verne Koester,Bill Glaze, Archie Stafford, and Richard Lewis.  They've put in anextraordinary amount of work on these sequences and documentation and deservehuge kudos from everyone!  Thanks guys - your work is very muchappreciated!

We'vealso created a Sequence Committee section on the NSRCA website which will havemore information soon.  It will contain the updated draft documentationand all the proposed sequences in one location.  You can get to the newsection from the main menu - just look for Sequence Committee - it is near thebottom of the menu.

Novirus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3152 - Release Date: 09/22/1002:34:00

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100924/2a643729/attachment.html>