[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
Atwood, Mark
atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
Fri Sep 24 04:44:35 AKDT 2010
And I don’t even want to know if it’s over the top or on the bottom…
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 Archie Stafford
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 8:40 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
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- 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<mailto:nsrca-%20discussion-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"
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-%20discussion-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-%20discussion-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<mailto:nsrca-%20discussion-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<mailto:nsrca-%20discussion-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
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-%20discussion-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
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
<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/d10e9bdd/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list