[NSRCA-discussion] More thoughts on Sequences

Wed Jul 12 02:07:26 AKDT 2017

So do I.  Very well said Dave and Earl.

Vicente "Vince" Bortone

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:12 PM Ronald Barr via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> Dave,
>
>
>
> I agree with just about all you said.... well done.
>
>
> Ron Barr
>
>
>
> *From:* NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> *On Behalf Of *DaveL322 via NSRCA-discussion
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:44 PM
> *To:* 'General pattern discussion'
> *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] More thoughts on Sequences
>
>
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-- 
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170712/18be9c46/attachment.html>