[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

[John Gayer]

Peter,
On behalf of the rules committee I would like to thank you for your many 
well-reasoned, thoughtful  and thought-provoking posts. The one below 
goes far beyond the current rules cycle and addresses areas that are key 
to the future of pattern and the NSRCA. I would like to hear more ideas 
about the direction we should take, both from you and from others on 
this list.
John Gayer
NSRCA Treasurer
Rules Committee member


On 3/13/2012 1:42 PM, Peter Vogel wrote:
> Taking a lesson from our former CEO (Steve Bennett, protege of Jack 
> Welch) -- whenever there's a heated argument about a proposal, it is 
> very rarely the proposal itself that is the source of the argument, 
> rather, what people are disagreeing about is WHAT they are solving for 
> (the "big Y") and the dozen or so variables their perspective believes 
> influence the Y (the little X's) -- if you can agree on the big Y 
> before you even start talking about the little X's you think will move 
> the lever and then share your knowledge that leads to the things you 
> think will move the needle and everyone else does the same, then there 
> is rarely argument and you will reach a shared understanding of the 
> tactics and strategy that will move you forward.   And, of course, all 
> the Big Y's are in pursuit of "True North" which is what the 
> organization as a whole exists to achieve (in the case of a company, 
> it can be as simple as "maximum return for shareholders" in the case 
> of the company I work for it's Best-in-class results for all three 
> stakeholders (shareholders, customers, employees).
>
> So, let's start with the NSRCA itself, why do we exist, and what are 
> we solving for?  I think I heard someone say "to support US 
> participation in international competition" -- I'll go with that one 
> for a moment...
>
> Last I checked, FAI-level performance doesn't reside latent in the 
> fetus waiting to be activated when a child first touches the sticks on 
> a transmitter and delivers a phenom-level performance.  It might 
> happen, but I believe even Andrew Jesky spent over a decade in pursuit 
> of the goal of winning the precision competition at Tucson and 
> similarly in pursuit of a slot on the US world F3A team...  In short, 
> talent is developed -- that means brought up through progressive 
> levels of competition where a decent showing is possible for the 
> person's current skill level, or at least that they feel they are 
> making progress toward a successful showing.  If taking home wood 
> isn't a least a back-of-the-mind goal in the lower levels, that's a 
> rare circumstance (I admit, for me the starting goal was to not get 
> all zeroes and to improve my overall flying -- but I've been bitten by 
> the competitive bug and now I *want* to do well, though I recognize 
> I'm still probably years away from being near the top of the podium in 
> sportsman given limitations on the amount of practice I can fit into 
> my life).
>
> So, proposed Big Y number 1 -- Promote and Support classes that allow 
> talent to be identified and developed to ultimately lead to success in 
> FAI. -- Probably needs some word smithing, but I think it adequately 
> explains why 401, etc. exist.  In any well-formed development program, 
> you want to see a strong funnel of "newbies" coming in to the bottom 
> classes while people "leak" in the boundaries between classes for 
> various reasons (hitting a talent plateau, discovering the opposite 
> sex, lack of funds, other commitments more important, lack/loss of 
> practice facilities, etc.)  Some leakage is organic and unavoidable, 
> other leakage is manageable, some is reversable (i.e. many people come 
> back to the hobby after the, to quote Inga from /Young Frankenstein/, 
> "Sweet Mystery of Life", is no longer shiny and new, still fun, but 
> not the only thing to live for).  Controlling the controllable leakage 
> would be one of the X's to solve for here, as would the "development" 
> of talent (read: training and coaching that goes beyond the high-wing 
> trainer) and, arguably most importantly, bringing new blood into the 
> lower classes.
>
> I think a lot of the weight argument relates to a lack of clarity 
> about what we were solving for with that proposal:
>     Some think it relates to making the lower classes more accessible 
> -- I'm willing to buy that, to a point, in that getting a 2m bird to 
> make weight can be challenging and expensive, creating a barrier to 
> entry into the lower classes.  (as you progress through the classes, 
> the possibility of sponsorships, etc. increase, making cost less of a 
> concern -- I'll talk about sponsorship later...)  But the argument can 
> be made that at the lower classes you are actually probably a lot less 
> willing to put an expensive 2m 11lb (or 11+lb) plane at risk and so 
> you'll "fly what you brung" which is probably a smaller plane (47" 
> Osiris, 48" Vanquish, 62" Osiris, Wind50, hand-me-down Kaos, etc.) 
> where making weight isn't even a vague concern.
>     Some think it relates to aligning ourselves with the international 
> community -- I believe that was even one of the reasons for the change 
> documented in the proposal, someone did the research and found that a 
> number of other countries' development classes allow for 5500 grams 
> (which is only a 10% variance from the FAI standard) and, I believe, 
> there was/is some evidence for higher development class participation 
> in those countries than in the US.  We all know correlation is not 
> causation, so whether the increased weight limit is the reason for the 
> higher participation or whether there are other environmental factors 
> (i.e. BMFA's 'B' and 'C' certificate training programs that take 
> people beyond flying a circuit with a high wing trainer) is obviously 
> debatable.
>
> When I voted yes on the weight issue I did so in full knowledge that 
> we already have a 115g allowance in Intermediate and Advanced as well 
> as a "fly what you brung" convention in sportsman.  My thinking was 
> that in today's global community, people move from country to country 
> a lot (as director of training at my local field I recently signed off 
> two recent european transplants to fly solo at our field, my brother 
> and his family have lived in Indonesia and the UK for most of my 
> nephew's lives, having only just now returned to the states after 16 
> years as expats) and so we make it easier for people who may have 
> competed at their equivalent of Intermediate and Advanced or Masters 
> to compete in US competitions with the planes they moved with them.  I 
> saw no likely harm in the change because there's plenty of incentive 
> to "keep it light" to improve the flying characteristics (except in 
> the windiest conditions), the other restrictions regarding size, 
> voltage, and sound create further barriers to significant weight 
> increase if you want to be competitive.  So for people who, like me, 
> read the rules carefully before getting into competition (My AMA# was 
> on the right wing at my first competition, no one had to tell me I 
> needed it) the weight will be one less barrier to considering 
> competition.   I also thought it would encourage a degree of "casual" 
> competitors for whom pattern is not the end-all-be-all of their 
> participation in RC but they have a self-designed bird that competes 
> well but isn't a classic pattern ship.  "casual" competition at the 
> local level is, I believe, part of what it takes to create the 
> "critical mass" that makes a competition viable for the club to host, 
> and for participants to feel that the sport isn't dying off (similar 
> to church attendance, there's a certain level above which growth is 
> easier because people believe in the viability of the church).  In 
> short, I saw several positives and no negatives to the change, so I 
> voted yes.  Does it mean I'm going to go out and campaign a 5500g 
> plane?  No, it's not going to change what I do -- my Vanquish makes 
> weight easily and will continue to do so even if I have to repair the 
> LG 3 more times and I expect the 2M Osiris will be similar when I get 
> it later this summer.
>
> I promised I'd talk about sponsorship -- this is peripheral to the 
> weight issue, but something the NSRCA should think about if 
> development of talent within pattern is truly something we believe we 
> should be solving for -- I know there are some sponsored pilots here 
> in D7, but it is my impression that they are sponsored because they 
> rose in the ranks at a time when 3D didn't exist and so pattern 
> carried the "WOW" and was one of the premier competition classes in 
> the US.  I don't think I've ever seen, at least here in D7, a 
> manufacturer rep (as opposed to sponsored pilot) at a pattern event, 
> that says to me that pattern at the local level, at least, isn't a 
> "feeder" for manufacturers to find local pilots to represent their 
> brand well at their club field or local competitions.  Contrast that 
> with any local huckfest or strongly attended fun fly (which is mostly 
> 3D stuff and foam wing combat these days) and you'll see at least one 
> other reason that I think we don't draw the new blood that pattern 
> probably once did.  I "grew up" watching the pattern guys and their 
> tuned pipes and fast birds (mostly in magazines since I lived in 
> backwater Los Alamos, NM until I was in college in TX) and they were 
> almost gods to me with their JR and Futaba shirts.   Where's the 
> sponsor talent (which includes piloting, but also helping others with 
> their setups, coaching, etc. talent) identification in pattern these 
> days?  If pattern were *visibly* supported by the manufacturers more, 
> I think we'd also see an influx to our branch of the hobby.
>
> 'Nuff said.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20120314/9ff10061/attachment.html>