[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - My thoughts - Long

Fri Jul 7 08:19:26 AKDT 2017

I have to agree with Tony on the Spin followed by the Slow Rolls.  The Slow
Rolls will require room and with a blowing in crosswind or a decent
headwind, this is going to be an issue.  Personally, I'm very pleased with
the other class sequences.

*Scott A. McHarg*
VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
Texas A&M University
PPL - ASEL
Remote Pilot Certified Under FAA Part 107

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Frackowiak Tony via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> The Intermediate and Advanced patterns look OK, but I don't think
> Intermediate should be changed as it is only on it's 2nd year.
>
> The Masters pattern is much more difficult then the current. 14 of the 19
> maneuvers have to be written in to the Guide. The assigned K-Factors are
> pulled out of thin air for many of the maneuvers. They are whatever they
> needed to be to stay under the K limit.
>
> Look at this pattern as an Advanced flier entering Masters. You now have
> two integrated rolling maneuvers. The full roll over the top 1/2 of a loop
> is much more difficult then the 1/2 roll over the top 1/4. Then the
> turnaround 1/2 loop with 1/2 roll will be much more difficult as you start
> low and have to end up quite high for the next maneuver. It will be a
> lengthy, difficult maneuver.
>
> The two maneuvers with snaps are right after each other. I would think you
> would want separation between snap maneuvers. And they will both be inside
> snaps.
>
> The vertical cuban 8 will be huge demanding lots of power.
>
> There is no chance to correct your box positioning after the spin. You
> have to go right in to the opposite slow rolls which have to start early.
> And you will be blown back in to the rolls from the spin.
>
> The trombone is a poor choice in between the vertical cuban and the golf
> ball. There will be very little distance in between the maneuvers. And it
> will only be able to be flown one way. No real choice here.
>
> The golf ball will be much more difficult then the current ke humpty.
> Since it is starting downwind with the ke starting on a 45 degree line you
> will be at ke for a very long time.
>
> The addition of instant roll reversal will make it much more difficult for
> the incoming advanced flier.
>
> As far as I know, you guys did nothing to address the improper make-up of
> the Sequence Committee. You cannot expect a proper Masters pattern without
> difficulty creep from a Committee made up of mostly Masters pilots.
>
> This pattern will keep Advanced fliers from moving up, which in most cases
> will have them quitting pattern.
>
> Since the make-up of the Sequence Committee does not follow the charter,
> with very little representation amongst the classes, this is a top heavy
> schedule. From my own personal standpoint, make Masters as hard as you want
> to. I have plenty of time to practice. But it will be a smaller group of
> Masters fliers.
>
> Tony
>
> On Jul 7, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Joe Walker via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>
> Hey guys!  Be sure to go to the main site now to take a look at the
> proposed sequences for Intermediate, Advanced and Masters.  Remember that
> we are in the commenting stage and all feedback is welcome.  My only
> request is that you be specific in your thoughts so the feedback can be
> productive in making the sequences the best they can be.  I really like
> them personally and look forward to diving in and practicing up!
>
> Best regards,
> Joe Walker
> NSRCA President
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 10:02 AM, Whodaddy Whodaddy via
> NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
>
> Administrator
>
> Please remove this email from the discussion list
> Whodaddy10 at gmail.com
>
> Thx
> Gary Courtney
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 21, 2017, at 8:50 AM, Don Ramsey via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> NSRCA had a meeting at the end of the pilots meeting at last year’s NATS
> and all pilots that were paying attention knew about it.  About 5 of the
> contestants stayed for that meeting.
>
> Don
>
> *From:* NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>] *On Behalf Of *John Gayer via
> NSRCA-discussion
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 20, 2017 5:35 PM
> *To:* Joe Walker; Scott McHarg; NSRCA Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - My
> thoughts - Long
>
> Joe,
> Thanks for the reply.
> One suggestion I have is to reinstitute the physical board meeting at the
> Nats or perhaps a meeting with beer and whatever. It's a great opportunity
> to meet your fellow board members and discuss the future of pattern. Just
> keep it informal and fun. The idea is more to form connections then to
> discuss normal board business.
>
> Concerning the list, set up a local folder for the list and use a filter
> to dump into it. Then you have no additional inbox clutter and its easy to
> tell when there is a hot topic.
>
> John
> On 6/20/2017 2:43 PM, Joe Walker wrote:
>
> Good afternoon John,
> I'm not certain that the entirety of the board subscribes to the list, but
> I'm here now and it is a voluntary discussion list.  It's also not the only
> way to communicate, so if there is a hot topic you would like to see
> immediate action on, please send an email to the person you are desiring to
> connect with.  Or better yet, a phone call.  I can tell you now from
> experience that it sure does fill up your inbox in a hurry!  My preference
> would be to change to a platform that is a bit more in line with the rest
> of the world, but I'm certain that will stir up another thread, thus
> contributing more to the inbox influx, so I'll save that for another time
> ;-). I can also say definitively that engaging every post is an *enormous*
> time commitment.  People like to type!
>
> I think there have been many great suggestions on a variety of topics.
> I'm certainly on board with several great ideas and have been, and will
> continue to be an advocate for reasonable discussion with suggestions to
> make what we do more fun for everyone.
>
>
>
> Best,
> Joe Walker
>
> On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 4:09 PM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> wrote:
>
> Scott,
>
> I can only ask why the board is not subscribed to this list?
> That is how you keep a finger on the pulse of the membership (or at least
> the vocal parts of it). Not the only way, of course.
>
> There is no requirement to respond or take action on anything the board or
> committee members read here but the threads exist to be pursued and ideas
> presented that may strike a chord.
>
> Not everything here has been negative. Many positive suggestions have been
> made.
>
> I'm sure the board could issue a waiver to the two year rule for Masters
> if they want to.  Or just change one maneuver, or two. I have candidates.
> :=)  Probably need to do that for Sportsman as well.
>
> John
> On 6/20/2017 7:51 AM, Scott McHarg wrote:
>
> Sorry, I would like to rephrase my last sentence.  I'd like to blame
> auto-correct but, I don't think that'll work in this case.  Sorry people.
>
> "Truly, great comments all around but if it's not being recognized or seen
> by those that can change it, what's the point?"
>
> *Scott A. McHarg*
> VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
> Texas A&M University
> PPL - ASEL
> Remote Pilot Certified Under FAA Part 107
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's one thing for us to debate a proposed sequence that hasn't even been
> approved by the board for public comment that got out by accident and quite
> another thing to break the AMA Rules stipulating that we do change Masters
> at least once every 2 years.  I'm all in favor of this discussion but
> wouldn't it make sense that we make sure our board was picking up what
> we're putting down?  Truly, great comments all around but if it's being
> ignored by those that can change it, what's the point?
>
> *Scott A. McHarg*
> VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
> Texas A&M University
> PPL - ASEL
> Remote Pilot Certified Under FAA Part 107
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Frackowiak Tony via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.
> org <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
> The Sequence Committee and the entire Sequence Development Guide was
> established for the NSRCA to create the schedules used in the AMA Pattern
> event. I believe the establishment of that process was key in getting the
> rules changed to where the NSRCA had control of the patterns, not the AMA
> R/C Aerobatics Contest Board. Are we supposed to just forget all that
> because the ball was dropped this cycle? I think the better option since we
> can no longer follow the established schedule is to not change the patterns
> for this cycle. What's the worst that could happen? Everyone gets better at
> flying them and newcomers to a class get a break?
>
> I don't understand your idea of forming another committee. Don't we
> already have a Sequence Committee and a Rules Committee? Seems like they
> are there to do what you are talking about. Of course it also seems like
> not much was done about submitting rules proposals from the NSRCA this
> cycle. But maybe I am not aware of why that happened.
>
> All in favor of eliminating the weight rule and allowing 12S. But that
> really is another story.
>
> Tony Frackowiak
>
> On Jun 19, 2017, at 9:31 PM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>
> >
> > I find it interesting that when we discuss using sequences developed and
> used internationally there is substantial resistance and a lot of not
> invented here, loss of control, etc. We can certainly overcome the loss of
> control by keeping a modification capability when we encounter something
> undesirable in a  sequence we want to use. Not invented here can save us a
> lot of work,
> >
> > On the other hand, when we talking about rewriting rules for using 12S
> batteries or eliminating/reducing weight restrictions for AMA classes,
> there is a hue and cry that we have to stay in lockstep with FAI or the sky
> will fall.
> >
> > I don't understand either position. We should take advantage of work
> done around the world but not be bound to it. If we can build a better
> mousetrap for less money, that's great. If we can't, then take advantage of
> published and available work wherever it comes from. P19 is not terribly
> exciting but it is easier than either the current or the new Masters
> sequence.
> >
> > Keeping that in mind, I suggest we accept P19 as the Masters schedule
> for next year only on a trial basis.
> > In the meantime, a committee should be formed to formulate a plan for
> future sequences.  The three sequence rotation makes a lot of sense to me
> for Sportsman and Intermediate. Advanced could go that way too but probably
> should adapt to whatever longterm plan is adopted for Masters. I would
> suggest having forms available at contest to survey contestants throughout
> the year about their sequences.
> > At the end of the year, the committee would publish recommendations for
> how to generate sequences for all classes. A recommendation I could make
> right now is that the board ensures the committee adheres to the guidelines
> and charter. The committee could make changes to the documents but would
> need board approval for those changes prior to implementation or ask for a
> waiver.
> >
> > John
> > ______________________________ _________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o rg <NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman /listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
>
> ______________________________ _________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o rg <NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman /listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> <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.nsrcaorg <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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170707/8c04f25a/attachment.html>