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

Thu Sep 23 19:09:57 AKDT 2010

This feels like a VERY bad slippery slope and one and only reservation that was discussed when debating the proposal to remove the sequences from the rule book.

Dave, to extrapolate this to the other classes, does this imply that we should only get input from those flying Sportsman in determining what that schedule should look like??

IMHO the sequence committee should be comprised of experienced, active, moderate to upper level pattern flyers.  They should solicit input from the classes, the pattern flying public in general regarding the likes and dislikes.  And then amongst themselves create new sequences (somewhat in privacy) taking that feedback, their experience, and the NSRCA guidelines, and put forth new schedules on some regular basis to be voted UP or DOWN for the subsequence period.

I'm a fan of democracy, but in this case I think we need an experienced Republic.  A group that we nominate/elect, and TRUST to put forth schedules that meet our needs.

Basically that's what FAI does.  I don't get to argue about the current sequence.  I CAN however comment and make my opinion heard for the next ones and hope that those concerns are echoed by other pilots and that those concerns are taken into account for the next schedules.

Progress is ok, but constant change of our schedule criteria to meet the whims of a vocal few would be a very very very bad thing.  The survey gives us general feedback from the masses.  Experience provides insight into how best to prepare each class for the next.  The guidelines provides some boundaries, some checks and balances to make sure the group doesn't stray too far afield in any one cycle of change.

Lets let the committee do their thing (they already have in my opinion for 2011-2012) and work with it.

I'm not a huge fan of the 6point roll segments they're introducing in FAI... but we have them in 2013.  We'll fly them. And we'll provide feedback. And the cycle will continue.

Mark Atwood
Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>  |  www.paragon-inc.com<http://www.paragon-inc.com/>

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 10:41 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

The Seq Com indeed wrote the document.....based on data collected from multiple surveys and smaller bits of data/guidance generated by prior Seq Coms.  It is by no means a stagnant document, it was designed to be flexible, and has been updated several times since it was originally penned.

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<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  :)

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<mailto: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/20100924/9236cfb1/attachment.html>