[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed masters sequence thoughts

Sat Jul 8 11:40:37 AKDT 2017

Thanks, Joe, but first, go out flying and have some fun - lol

Verne Koester

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 8, 2017, at 3:26 PM, Joe Walker <vellum2 at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> 
> Transparency indeed!  That’s an easy fix.  On it and I’ll have those posted.
> 
> Oh, the easy part!  LOL.  The BoD has a meeting on Wednesday night and I’ve added the survey to the agenda to talk about.  Survey data is always good information and I’m completely on board with gathering up all the information to help guide the decision making process.
> 
> Thanks Verne!
> 
> Joe
> 
>> On Jul 8, 2017, at 3:12 PM, Verne Koester <verne at mi.rr.com> wrote:
>> 
>> First, go back and edit page 2 of the Sequence Development Guideline to describe all changes made from the original document to date. I think the buzzword for that is transparency. 
>> 
>> The survey part is easy. Ask the members what type of maneuvers they think should be at each level without putting a spin or sales pitch into the question and then act accordingly.  You should also be asking questions about rules proposals the NSRCA intends to submit to the AMA Contest Board. Lacking a survey to back up the proposal, it doesn't carry any more or less weight than any other submitted proposal. 
>> 
>> I've known you for a long time and consider you a friend. I have no doubt your intentions are good. My decision to quit the NSRCA happened before you became President. You just happened to walk in as I was walking out. 
>> 
>> I'm hearing a lot of dissension out on the Contest trail. Most of it centers around the schedules, past and proposed. Masters looks like FAI, Advanced looks like Masters, and Intermediate is basically just screwed in the process. 
>> 
>> FAI has turned into an elite, professional class that most pattern pilots don't and won't have the time or skill to participate in. Masters was not categorized as a "stepping stone" to FAI when I was on the Sequence Committee, it was a destination class. I suspect that's part of the invisible adjustments I referenced on page 2 of the Sequence Development Guide.
>>  
>> If I were taking the survey, I'd tell you to take the integrated rollers and no hesitation reverse rolls out of Masters, and recognize that Advanced has more than enough on their plate learning to do a slow and 4 point roll, snap and spin in their schedule. Reclassifying a Figure M with Quarter Rolls as a K4 when it's always been a K5 and then throwing that in the mix for someone moving up from Intermediate is just outrageous. It was also the final straw that sent me out the door. 
>> 
>> Verne Koester
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Jul 8, 2017, at 2:18 PM, Joe Walker <vellum2 at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I completely understand that perspective Verne.  And I value that input.
>>> 
>>> That said, part of the reason I decided to jump into the fire was to help turn things around.  I personally reached out to folks in D2 before throwing my hat into the ring and gained a lot of insight on some of the underlying concerns and it was a big contributor to me offering to change things.  D2 has been doing a lot of work to help improve the organization and it’s very much appreciated.  D4 was not chastised by “the Board”.  We did not leave a conversation that was on the table with clear direction on how to proceed and folks had different understandings.  We are working hard to ensure that doesn’t happen anymore by being clear with language and ensure we have all the information before making a decision on any topic.  You’ll see that topic of clear communication and gathering all the information repeated over and over again, the sequence proposals bringing it to light once again.  You’ll notice that a big part of changing the guide this time is focused on clarification of language and terminology, rather than changing the intent.  
>>> 
>>> Regarding the survey of members, what would bring you back into the organization Verne?  What are the right questions do you feel need to be asked?  I’ll never have a problem asking for people’s thoughts.  My sole (soul? ;-) ) request is to keep the feedback focused on information and specifics.  That’s the only way to run an organization, right?
>>> 
>>> Joe
>>> 
>>>> On Jul 8, 2017, at 1:25 PM, Verne Koester <verne at mi.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Joe,
>>>> If it appears that I’m skeptical, you’re correct, I am.
>>>> You very nearly lost the NSRCA D4 VP after he was chastised for seeking input from the members he represents before the schedules were officially made public.
>>>> A few years ago, the NSRCA D2 resigned after his input within the Board was routinely ignored because he wasn’t part of the “inner circle”. The NSRCA lost nearly everyone from D2 in the process and they started their own organization called the Northeast Pattern Association. Nobody from the NSRCA even bothered to contact anyone from D2 to find out why. In fairness to you, you weren’t the President at that time. 
>>>> There’s been much mention of the Sequence Development Guidelines. Please look at Page 2 of that document. Numerous changes were made to it during the last administration which are properly noted and dated. However, there’s zero mention of what the changes actually were. So basically. It’s change the Sequence Development Guide it to whatever the Sequence Committee decides to do and then point to the guide as justification for what’s proposed. Pretty much turns it into a useless document.
>>>>  
>>>> The time for a survey of NSRCA members is long overdue. Do that, ask the right questions, post the results, and then the request is reasonable.
>>>>  
>>>> Verne Koester
>>>>  
>>>> From: J [mailto:vellum2 at bellsouth.net] 
>>>> Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2017 12:41 PM
>>>> To: Verne Koester; General pattern discussion
>>>> Cc: Vicente Bortone
>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed masters sequence thoughts
>>>>  
>>>> Thanks for chiming in Verne. Your perspective is very much appreciated. 
>>>>  
>>>> As a point of clarification, there is much listening going on. The perception that the board is acting devoid of any input is incorrect. The BoD's main responsibility is to ensure compliance. There were some issues that were out of compliance that have since been corrected and the result of the direction was a revised sequence that has now been posted for member comment. We are in that process now and it's our job to filter through those comments and consolidate that information to give back to the sequence committee for revisions. 
>>>>  
>>>> There has been much work in pulling this current proposal together that has included a lot of member input. And that process continues now. Let's all give the process a chance to work. Is that an unreasonable request?
>>>>  
>>>> Best,
>>>> Joe Walker,
>>>> NSRCA President
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> On Jul 8, 2017, at 11:21 AM, Verne Koester via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Vicente,
>>>> You just made the case AGAINST adopting the FAI P pattern for Masters. You have all those Masters pilots at your contest and most of contests in your District. If they wanted to fly FAI, they already would be flying it. The last time the NSRCA actually surveyed its members, Masters pilots overwhelmingly rejected Masters adopting the FAI P pattern. They also agreed by a slim majority to try a few simple integrated loop roll maneuvers. That doesn't seem to matter anymore either. As a member of the AMA Contest Board, it's my job to LISTEN to what the people in my AMA District are saying and then vote on Rules Proposals. What I'm hearing locally at contests is that members aren't happy about the schedules, difficulty creep, and the growing gaps between the classes. The NSRCA needs to listen to what it's members are saying, not just the few that sit on the board. 
>>>>  
>>>> Verne Koester
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 8, 2017, at 9:08 AM, Vicente Bortone via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Jon,
>>>>>  
>>>>> The reason to adopt P Pattern is to make easier to split groups between masters and fai in local contest.  It makes easier to flip flop between both.  This weekend we have the Cedar Rapids contest.  We have about 6-8 masters no FAI and one Advanced.   We got 4 or 5 in club and sportsmans.  Looks like we are going to have judging problems or overloading the guys that know how to judge.  I know  about the Silver class but that is a good solution when we have a lot of pilots in masters and FAI.   That is not the case in most contest around D5 in the last few years.    
>>>>>  
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>  
>>>>> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>>>>>  
>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:47 PM Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>>>>> This email to the list is derived from one I sent Joe Walker. I think it bears some thought.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> We still don't have a timeline for approval of new sequences by the membership as required by AMA rules. We also don't know how long we have for making comments to the proposed sequences.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Given the comments so far on Masters, there is still a long way to go. I agree with Tony F. If the intent is to drive people from masters, this is the sequence to do it.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Some people have compared the new Masters sequence to what IMAC does.Trying to compare pattern to IMAC is apples and oranges. IMAC doesn't have to center, match radii, match line lengths, fly in a box, maintain 150 meters or have an emphasis on smoothness and gracefulness. Heck, they don't even have to land their own aircraft. Their emphasis is on snaps, via the 1 point per 5 degree rule, if I understand their rules. Witness what happened when top IMAC fliers came over to pattern for a couple of years thinking they would make the team. They left with their tails between their legs. So saying we should do something because IMAC does is not a valid argument. Different skill set and emphasis.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> I was ok with a simple roller that was safe when it was first proposed. There was a howl when we did it that it would open Pandora's box, and unfortunately, it appears it did. I don't believe anyone at the time contemplated there being more than one per sequence. And with the infatuation with knife edge manuevers, we are making the transition from advanced way too difficult. We do NOTHING in the lower classes that prepares them for what they now face in Masters. We had that right about right two sequences ago, and now we screwed it up. Now we are even throwing in instantaneous transition between roll directions. So a new Masters pilot faces two rollers, three complex knife edge maneuvers,  and instant roll direction changes. Why would anyone want to move up? Heck, if I was still in advanced, I wouldn't want to. From what I've seen this year in advanced flying, that pattern is very difficult to fly well, but it still doesn't have the building blocks for the current or proposed masters sequences. Have we abandoned the building block approach, and preparing the Masters pattern accordingly?
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> I also don't understand the tendency to completely ignore the maneuvers in the guide. They are there for a reason. Seems to be a tendency to incorporate FAI maneuvers and ignore the building block concept which the guide maneuvers provide. I'd suggest that the development guide restrict the introduction of new, non-guide maneuvers to no more than two per sequence, certainly not the majority of maneuvers as in the proposed sequence. There is zero reason to make Masters just like FAI. FAI already exists, go fly it if you want.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Personally, I think the instant roll direction changes are ugly and hard to judge in FAI. What's the point of putting them in Masters?
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> I applaud the decision to get rid of the Masters F sequence. It was an answer to a question no one asked.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Jon
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/20170708/007c3d6d/attachment.html>