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

Sat Jul 8 18:57:27 AKDT 2017

The initial proposal had an avalanche with a half roll in and out.  It was changed to a regular avalanche to better comply with the existing guidelines.  Both Intermediate and advanced received minor tweaks to better follow the current guidelines.

Stuart Chale

D1 Masters member of the sequence committee.

On 7/8/2017 9:08 AM, Randy Forbus via NSRCA-discussion wrote:

The new Advanced when it was published a couple of weeks ago, showed a reverse avalanche, and the newest posted on the web site is just a avalanche, so which is it reverse or just regular.

________________________________
From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on behalf of J via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 8, 2017 1:00 PM
To: Frackowiak Tony; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - My thoughts - Long

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<mailto: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/20170709/e35bcc05/attachment.html>