[NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences

Mon Aug 18 23:12:14 AKDT 2014

"Both Masters and Advanced can, and probably will be, changed next year. Any substantial problems can be addressed then.”

Hi John, all, given the feedback I have read / heard from pilots outside of D1, and the feedback I have received from within our D1 membership, what should probably NOT change next year (or any year soon) are the standards for the AMA classes in the Sequence Development Guide 1.3 (NSRCA Procedures, Standards and Guidelines for AMA R/C Precision Aerobatic Sequence Development, printed October 1, 2012).

I believe we have heard that the difficulty levels for each class are appropriate as they now stand, otherwise we would not have been able to offer the 2015 proposals under discussion and about to be adopted for the next cycle.  I think the Sequence Committee needs to be completely transparent about any intent to increase the difficulty level via changes to the Guide (or otherwise) well in advance of that occurring, such that there is ample time for broad discussion, agreement, and buy-in (or not) from both our Membership, and the AMA pattern community at-large, which is a key constituency that we serve.  This goes beyond a single NSRCA survey.  I think it is easy to forget that the broader AMA pattern community looks to NSRCA for stewardship of R/C Precision Aerobatics, and that we and the BoD enjoy trust and have a duty: we should protect that.  While I don’t have numbers for you, there is most likely a much larger - albeit silent - majority outside these conversations that is OK with the status quo on sequence difficulty.  OTOH, I have NEVER heard a remark along the lines of "I’m leaving pattern because it is not challenge enough for me, so I am going to fly IMAC (jets, helis, sailplanes, or what have you) instead.” 

The next AJ is not going to come from a far more complex/difficult set of schedules; the next AJ is going come along when somebody that talented puts in the time and effort to passionately realize perfection in their F3A performance on the world stage.   The rest of us will do the best we can to enjoy our hobby/sport with the reasonable level of challenge we now enjoy, given the little bit of talent that we have and can nurture in both ourselves and our local pattern communities.  The Nats are for the few; please we need to keep the many in mind, both within our local clubs and in-between.  We need to not lose sight of those folk who can and do enter our contests, and will stop coming if they don’t like the direction we are taking.  This I am already seeing in my local community of pattern pilots that I am vigorously trying to reactivate or motivate to stick with pattern.  Really, it is hard enough as it is!

Respectfully,
Dana Beaton

On Aug 19, 2014, at 1:42 AM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> Upon relooking at the diagram rather than the description, there appears to be a 2of 4 going up and a 2of 4 coming back down. So no knife edge corner.
> Note there is no downgrade for different radii. :)
> John
> 
> On 8/18/2014 11:20 PM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>> 
>> From the rulebook. 94-95. Actually describes both 1/2 roll and 1/4 roll
>> 
>> 
>> <Mail Attachment.png>
>> 
>> 
>> From an AAM article in 1969. I never saw anyone fly this maneuver in 1969 or for many years afterwards and it was optional. Picture seems to be pretty clear that it was intended to be a rolling loop, not a loop with a quick 1/2 roll every 90 degrees or some such. Same article also refers to an FAI rolling circle, for which I can find no definition.
>> 
>> <Mail Attachment.jpeg>
>> On 8/18/2014 10:50 PM, Dave Lockhart wrote:
>>> I am quite certain the #14 Cobra is a misprint…it should read ½ rolls….which is what the diagram shows.
>>>  
>>> My participation does not go back to the days before retracts….but I’d be very surprised if the two roll loop was 2 integrated rolls.
>>>  
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Dave
>>>  
>>> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 12:35 AM
>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
>>>  
>>> Advanced and Masters are not our entry classes and should not affect future participation. Those new to pattern should begin in either Sportsman or Intermediate depending on skill level. When a flyer feels he is ready to move up, he will try flying the next class in practice. If it is too difficult to even see a way to fly that sequence reasonably, then that pilot was not ready to move up and should stay in his current class another year (or more). We do not lose people because they stayed in their current class, we lose them because they moved up when not ready and find they are outclassed without the vision, coordination, time to practice (or name your reason) to be competitive. Not competitive for winning, just competitive. 
>>> Both Masters and Advanced can, and probably will be, changed next year. Any substantial problems can be addressed then. Many have tested these sequences. All have have flown them successfully, if not always happily. We can go on and on about ugly maneuvers, difficulty levels and dislike of change but that happens every cycle. 
>>> 
>>> Just for comparison here are Advanced and Masters from 20 years ago. Overall both appear somewhat easier than the current sequences we are flying but not a lot. Total KFactors are a bit lower. Also we are flying many of the same maneuvers. I hope you noticed the knife edge top of the cobra in masters. If you go back even further you can find a two roll loop in the days before retracts...
>>> 
>>> John Gayer
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <Mail Attachment.jpeg><Mail Attachment.jpeg>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20140819/32b6f728/attachment.html>