[NSRCA-discussion] More thoughts on Sequences

[Matthew Finley]

+1

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid
On Jul 11, 2017 6:45 PM, DaveL322 via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
I've been attempting to keep up with all the recent posts regarding the Sequence Committee, proposed schedules, and leadership.  My thoughts......

Anyone elected or appointed to a leadership or committee position for the NSRCA should be monitoring this list, if not participating on the list.  I realize this list is not an official forum for business, but, it is if nothing else a valuable forum for gathering input and ideas.

Earl is 100% correct about F3A being an AMA class. That does not mean what FAI does with F3A is necessarily the best thing for the health of pattern as a whole in the USA.  Keeping that in mind, there is substantial value in minimizing the differences where possible.  It does not mean we should legislate ourselves to be tied to changes F3A makes.  We can choose to follow, adopt, mimic, or adapt with changes.

Small aside - FAI never intended F to be flown at local contests.  My personal opinion is that F should never be required at a local contest.  I think requiring F at a local contest makes F3A more intimidating and to an extent keeps some Masters pilots in Masters.  Having said that, I like the opportunity to fly F at local events to get feedback from judges and other pilots, and it gives judging practice to those that might judge F at the NATs.  And at events where several pilots are flying P at a high level, F is a separator.  The solution I have always advocated is 4 rounds of P on Saturday and 2 rounds of optional F on Sunday.  The contest is scored as the best 4 of 6, all scores are recorded on P sheets.  Pilots can choose to fly P or F for rounds 5 and 6.  In most cases, pilots not capable of F are not going to outscore pilots that are capable of F and choose to fly F.

The Sequence Guidance Document (SGD).   Much of the content was based on the results of membership surveys.  The SGD was never intended to be stagnant, inflexible, limiting, or cast in stone.  It was very specifically supposed to define the basic principles and parameters for each class, and, the ultimate difficulty level for Masters.  As originally written, it did to a degree relate the difficulty level of master to F3A P..... F3A P at that time.  However, as originally written, the difficulty level for each class was sourced from the results of a membership survey.  The thought was that membership surveys would be completed in the future at regular intervals and the desired difficulty level of Masters would be tied to membership surveys, and not what F3A happened to be doing at the time.

The SGD very clearly specifies a difficulty level for Masters.  Very clearly, the difficulty level of the originally proposed Masters grossly overshot the mark set by the SGD.  For that reason, and that reason alone, the original Masters  proposal should have been scrapped.  Did the lack of a full sequence committee contribute to the unsuitable masters proposal?  Maybe, maybe not, but really irrelevant.  NSRCA leadership took a step in the right direction correcting the make up of the sequence committee, but the end result in my opinion is a proposal that still overshoots the difficulty level defined in the SGD.  It is the job of the sequence committee to design sequences within the bounds of the SGD.  It is not the job of the sequence committee to redefine the difficulty levels of the sequences and then rewrite the SGD.  Changes to the difficulty levels of the sequences should only be done based on clear direction from the membership.

Can KFactors be intentionally "tweaked" to raise the difficulty level of a sequence without raising the actual total KFactor?  Absolutely.  Is KFactor the only indication of schedule difficulty?  Absolutely not.  The sequence of maneuvers matters as does the placement of spins, crossbow and large maneuvers.

Tony F pointed out a great number of examples where 2 maneuvers with equal KFactors were substantially different in actual difficulty, and I agree with that line of thinking.  Stu C pointed out that in practice a given KFactor represents a range of difficulty, and I also agree with that line of thinking.  The reality is KFactors have always been inconsistent and somewhat random.....at least since I have been flying pattern since the mid 1980s.  The KFactor scale of 1 to 5 is simply too granular for modern sequences and maneuvers.  Perhaps the KFactors worked better in earlier days of pattern, but I can't comment on that.  It is clear enough to me that we could devise a better system which assigned a K to each maneuver element and then summed the total of elements for the manuever KFactor.  Yes, some similarities to IAC and IMAC, but I am not suggesting we specifically adopt their systems.

With respect to the authority of the sequence committee to create new maneuvers or not.  I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to, but, difficulty creep is likely to happen, unless we have a better system of grading the difficulty of individual maneuvers.

D1 has had quite a bit of discussion about the proposed sequences at the last two contests.  I was one person that talked with Stu C about KFactors and presenting the alternate Masters schedule that did not make it out of the sequence committee.  From the discussions I have taken part of in D1, and observed on this list, the majority do not want the difficulty level of Masters increased.  The sequence proposed by Stu seems to be the closest to the mark, but still a bit too high.

Regards,

Dave

Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note5.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170711/86413cd9/attachment.html>