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

Fri Sep 24 04:41:40 AKDT 2010

 As long as its not integrated, it shouldnt be too bad.  
 On Fri 09/24/10 8:29 AM , Phil Spelt chuenkan at comcast.net sent:
  I think I'll pass on that one...lol
 At 22:49 2010/09/23, you wrote:
 What is a "Loop with Jon Lowe"?  
 Ron
 On Sep 23, 2010, at 9:46 PM, Jon Lowe wrote:
 My two cents:
 A loop with
 Jon Lowe
 -----Original Message-----
 From: Dave 
 To: 'General pattern discussion' 
 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 [1]-
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"   
 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 [2]] 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"   
 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 [3]] 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 [4]] 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 &shy; 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 [5]] 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 &shy;
 - 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 [6]] 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   
 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 [7]] 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 [8]
 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 [9]
 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 [10]
   _______________________________________________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 [11]
 _______________________________________________
 NSRCA-discussion mailing list
 NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
 http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion [12] 
_______________________________________________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:// [13]
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 [14]
 _______________________________________________
 NSRCA-discussion mailing list
 NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
 http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion [15] 

	_-->_ 

	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 

Links:
------
[1] mailto:nsrca
[2] mailto:nsrca-%20discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[3] mailto:nsrca-%20discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[4] mailto:nsrca-%20discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[5] mailto:nsrca-%20discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[6] mailto:nsrca-%20discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[7] mailto:nsrca-%20discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[8] http://nsrca.us/proposedsequences/2011sequences.html
[9] http://www.avg.com/
[10] http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
[11] http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
[12] http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
[13] http:///
[14] http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
[15] http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100924/2307603e/attachment.html>