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

[Phil Spelt]

I think I'll pass on that one...lol

At 22:49 2010/09/23, you wrote:
>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

-->There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.

Phil Spelt, Past President, Knox County Radio Control Society, Inc.
        URL: http://www.kcrctn.com
AMA--1294,  Scientific Leader Member  SPA--177, Board Member
       My URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/
       (865) 435-1476 v  (865) 604-0541 c  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100924/7e7c717f/attachment.html>