[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - My thoughts - Long
John Gayer
west.engineering at comcast.net
Sat Jul 8 06:28:22 AKDT 2017
Joe,
The Sequence committee Chairman and members used to be posted on the
website but I can't find it now.
Would it be possible to list the full committee somewhere?
Thanks
John
On 7/8/2017 7:00 AM, J via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
> Good morning all,
> The make up and compliance of the committee has been corrected. The
> Charter outlined a committee make up that Should be 6 plus the chair
> and Shall contain a BoD member. Mark Barnett (BoD member) and Don
> Ramsey (Judges perspective) have both been added to the committee. The
> submittal was indeed 1 month late. Part of the requirements of the BOD
> to the committee was to provide a schedule to finish the process as
> close to the original schedule as possible. They have also done that.
>
> The board's role is to ensure compliance with the guidelines and the
> charter. The commenting phase is for the membership to give specific
> feedback (which many have!) and for that feedback to influence the
> sequence committee (which it is).
>
> My suggestion is that folks go out and try flying through it a few
> times and let that experience inform the comments even more.
>
> Joe Walker,
> NSRCA president
>
> On Jul 7, 2017, at 10:18 PM, Frackowiak Tony via NSRCA-discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>
> I agree with Joe L and it is something I recommended earlier to Joe W.
> Since the Committee was not formed correctly regarding it's
> composition everything they have done should be suspect. And it seems
> they have had very little regard for the Guide, at least in developing
> a Masters proposal.
>
> Tony Frackowiak
>
> On Jul 7, 2017, at 7:07 PM, Joe Lachowski via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>
>> My opinion is start fresh with people who have had experience
>> designing sequences for the Masters Sequence. Intermediate and
>> Advanced I can barely tolerate. If there is no drastic change to
>> follow the guide and use at least 80% of the maneuvers from the
>> existing guide catalog for Masters, this pattern flyer is moving onto
>> sailplanes. There should be no more than a few new maneuvers
>> introduced to the existing catalog of maneuvers. As it stands, no
>> matter what you do to the proposed sequence it is way more difficult
>> than what we do now, is a battery destroyer, just plain sucks, will
>> crash a few planes and is going to be intimidating to the guy who
>> moves up from Advanced.
>>
>> By the way when integrated rollers were introduced by those at the
>> helm, they said we will only us a simple loop with an integrated
>> roller across the top. Obviously that didn't happen.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:*NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>> on behalf of Joe
>> Walker via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
>> *Sent:*Friday, July 7, 2017 8:30 AM
>> *To:*Whodaddy Whodaddy; Don Ramsey; General pattern discussion;
>> General pattern discussion
>> *Subject:*Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences -
>> My thoughts - Long
>> 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
>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Administrator
>>
>> Please remove this email from the discussion list
>> Whodaddy10 at gmail.com <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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]*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>
>> <mailto: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 gmailcom <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto: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/20170708/dc6cd2e7/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list