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

Sat Jul 8 11:20:16 AKDT 2017

Chatter = Chat.  Cursed autocorrect.

> On Jul 8, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Joe Walker via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
> Rules citation from Jon Lowe.  
> 
> And all the background chatter from the discussion list.  Super fun, I gotta tell ya.  Ugh.
> 
> Joe
> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> From: Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com <mailto:jonlowe at aol.com>>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences	-	My thoughts - Long
>> Date: July 8, 2017 at 11:59:47 AM EDT
>> To: J <vellum2 at bellsouth.net <mailto:vellum2 at bellsouth.net>>
>> 
>> I sent this before, but here it is again, from the 2016-2017 AMA RC Aerobatics Rules:
>> 
>> "15. Sequences
>> The Radio Control Aerobatics sequences will be developed periodically by the 
>> National Society of Radio Control Aerobatics (NSRCA) Sequence Committee which is appointed by the NSRCA Board of Directors. The NSRCA Board of Directors will supervise the sequence development and will submit the proposed sequences to the membership for approval before they approve all sequences for use in RCA competition. All current sequences can be found at the NSRCA website. The NSRCA will modify the sequences for classes 401, 402 and 403, Indoor R/C Aerobatics Sportsman and Indoor R/C Aerobatics Intermediate at least every four years and the sequence for class 404 will be modified at least every two years, but sequences may be updated more frequently as required. 
>> Sequences will be published no later than December for the following year. A 
>> description of each maneuver for all sequences can be found on the NSRCA 
>> website at: http://nsrca.us/index.php/sequences <http://nsrca.us/index.php/sequences>."
>> 
>> The current sequence guide doesn't contain the approval requirement.
>> 
>> I would suggest that the guide incorporate the specific approval requirement, as well as a general rule received to this paragraph, since it also dictates how often sequences must change. I would also recommend that the guide contain a "T-minus" schedule for sequence development, since it won't change. Right now the schedule has been in the Sequence Committee Charter, (if there is one for this year). And I'd include a requirement that sequence committee members names and contact info be posted on the NSRCA website. It was difficult to find out who they were this year. Tony F said his DVP wouldn't tell him. I couldn't find any info on the committee when I looked a few weeks ago. Charters also need to be posted on the website.
>> 
>> Note also the requirement for indoor sequences. Frankly, I wish F3P would go away. We only had 3 people at the last team trials, and one of those cancelled right before the last WCs. I don't know how many entered lower classes. The trials need to be held in the Feb-March 2018 timeframe if there is going to be another US team.
>> 
>> Jon
>> 
>> On Jul 8, 2017 8:49 AM, J <vellum2 at bellsouth.net <mailto:vellum2 at bellsouth.net>> wrote:
>> Doh! Compliance is a full time job. Mind citing the violation so we can get it corrected?
>> From Sean:
>> 
>> Hi Joe,
>> thanks for your comments! Below is a proposed revised schedule (in bold):
>> 
>> Publish for public comment on NSRCA website/K-Factor  April through May July – year X -1 
>> Finalize changes/sequence selection based on comments   June through August July through August – year X - 1
>> Submit proposed changes/sequences to BoD for approval   October– year X - 1
>> Publish approved sequences on NSRCA website/K-Factor  November – year X -1
>> New sequences in use      January – year X 
>> 
>> I will have the updated guidelines (and again, at this point, I will only add the new maneuvers and make some basic corrections) and maneuver descriptions to you by 14 July <>. We can discuss updating the design criteria and possibly K-Factors next year for the 2020-21 sequences.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Sean
>> 
>> Joe
>> 
>> On Jul 8, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com <mailto:jonlowe at aol.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Joe,
>> Just remember that the guide is not in compliance with the AMA rule book, in that the rules say the membership has to approve the sequences before the BoD implements them. That time is not allowed for in the current guide. We missed that when I was president, but now that I'm on the AMA Contest Board, I found it.
>> 
>> Again, when does the comment period end?
>> 
>> Jon
>> 
>> On Jul 8, 2017 8:00 AM, J via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> 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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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/20170708/184c9412/attachment.html>