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

Thu Sep 23 22:44:35 AKDT 2010

I'm definitly a +1 on the integrated rolling/looping maneuvers. Lots of fun!

Keith Black

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Archie Stafford
<astafford at md.metrocast.net> wrote:
> We arent talking about totally changing everything. Unfortunately the
> average age of pattern flyers is constantly getting older. There are a few
> young new faces but not many. Many of those also fly helis or IMAC and at
> some point they will migrate that way. The planes have progressed, the
> equipment has progressed, but unfortunately a lot of the mindsets haven't.
> Adding new maneuvers which arent more difficult, but add new skills is
> essential in the progression of the sport. The sequences need to be designed
> to be a challenge for the top 50%, not made easier for those not there. Like
> it or not, Masters is a destination class and the skill level should reflect
> that. If guys dont have time to practice or skill levels are diminishing
> then avenues for them to move back a class. Not comparing us and IMAC, but
> in there sportsman sequence theyhave guys doing partial rolling circles. I
> have seen the pilots, they are certainly no better than our intermediate
> pilots. Their schedules FORCE guys to try new things. Its OK to try new
> things. Most people will find they arent as difficult as we think. No Im not
> advocating rolling circles, but how many pattern guys ever go out and just
> fly. Trying new maneuvers and trying to learn new skills. It will really
> improve your flying skills.  OK. Ill shut up on the subject now.
> Arch
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 23, 2010, at 7:44 PM, "Dave Harmon" <k6xyz at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>> Wouldnt you like to see an updated catalog? <<
>
> Not really.
>
>
>
>>> Flying the same maneuvers in a different sequence seemslike it would get
>>> old<<
>
> It might if I was able to fly at your level….unfortunately….I don’t.
>
>
>
>>> It seems like many are against trying anything new<<
>
> Not at all….but…see next.
>
>
>
>>> even if it doesnt raise the difficulty level.<<
>
> Flying Pattern competitively at any level is difficult enough at best.
>
> Doing the maneuvers is not really the problem but doing them WELL enough to
> be competitive
>
> even at local contests is a major challenge for many participants.
>
> Perhaps we need a class between Intermediate and Masters…..the headcount in
> this ‘new’ class would
>
> not necessarily add to the total headcount at any contest or take more time
> because the new class would
>
> be populated from the other classes….like Masters and Intermediate.
>
> Sort of a ‘half step’ if you like.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 6:17 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
>
>
>
> Wouldnt you like to see an updated catalog?  Flying the same maneuvers in a
> different sequence seemslike it would get old. It seems like many are
> against trying anything new, even if it doesnt raise the difficulty level.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 23, 2010, at 7:13 PM, "Dave Harmon" <k6xyz at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Why do “we need to start adding some”?
>
> Who says so?
>
> The avalanche at the bottom of a loop has already been done…the outgoing
> pattern has one at the top of a loop.
>
> Nothing new about the avalanche…and the 4-pt is not allowed so….what
> maneuvers then?
>
>
>
> 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 5:53 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
>
>
>
> 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 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
>