[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
Ron Van Putte
vanputte at cox.net
Thu Sep 23 19:08:25 AKDT 2010
You are a baaad man. Can I go with you?
Ron
On Sep 23, 2010, at 9:58 PM, rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:
> Hmmmm! Interesting....but I don't have a clue
>
> On the other hand, I wouldn't mind getting looped with JLo
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Thu, Sep 23, 2010 9:50 pm
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011
> and beyond
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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