[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