[NSRCA-discussion] More thoughts on Sequences

[Peter Vogel]

I've been reading the posts.  Laying aside the "not invented in my brain"
objections, I think we fundamentally have 2 competing points of view:

1.  AMA & FAI are completely separate and AMA difficulty should stay
stagnant regardless of what FAI does
2.  AMA & FAI are part of a continuum of difficulty, each class is a
"stepping stone" to the next, with FAI-P, FAI-F, and FAI-Unknowns being 3
stones within the FAI continuum.

I'm afraid my choice of language (stagnant) reflects my POV here a little
bit, but hear me out...

I spent some time today researching what OTHER countries do (Gasp! how dare
I!  This is America! We don't do anything the way the rest of the world
does it! We're rugged individualists...) well, sometimes others have
interesting ideas...

In the nordic countries they have a SPORTSMAN sequence with a spin and a
total K=20, then they jump to the Nordic N sequence with a total K of 60
(no TO or Landing scored) (similar to our Masters sequence).  That's a huge
leap...  And, quite frankly, it looks wicked hard. Then P+F.

In Australia, they have a sportsman with a total K=30 (closer to our
intermediate than our sportsman despite the K+4 vs our Sportsman and K-17
of our Intermediate, max K=4), then they have an Advanced sequence with a
total K=47 (our intermediate's total K=47) with a max K=4 this has things
like an eye-catcher, spin, etc. an Expert class using FAI's A sequence with
a total K=53 (vs our advanced total K=47 excluding TO + Landing) and then P
(totalK=60), F (totalK=72), etc.  They also have a relegation system to
force people to move DOWN if they don't keep flying at the same success
level in each class, as well as a promotion system that makes you eligible
to move UP based on your performance in the class.

I've also noted a significant variation as to how K-factors are assigned.
I find that fascinating and something I'd love to research and understand
better how K-factors are determined globally...  (A problem I know exists
in diving, figure-skating, and equestrian competition as well).

Being hyper-competitive Americans (or we wouldn't be flying pattern) I
think there are a few largely *unrealistic *mental expectations that are
getting in the way here:
1.  Having been successful in one class when I move up I expect to still be
taking wood home regularly.
2.  Having been successful in class X (i.e. Masters) I expect to continue
to be successful in that class regardless of the fact that parts of the
continuum around me have moved on significantly (or I've aged, etc.)

But this idea of *stagnation* has come up before.  I read an article from
Scott Covey written in the mid-2000's where he (and several others) chose
to abandon flying pattern because they were bored, FAI's sequences were too
conservative and stagnant.  While IMAC was introducing rolling circles,
etc. none of that was in the FAI sequences.  We talk about all kinds of
things leading to the *death of pattern* to me, the greatest danger of the
death of pattern is likely stagnation.

That said, the Sequence committee definitely went too far with the proposed
F, I've come around to the idea that if someone wants to fly two sequences
they should move UP to FAI.  I personally liked the idea of adding F for
masters as it looked like a fun add that a CD could do, particularly at
large local contests with 10-15 masters pilots which makes judge
assignments and balancing lines hard (much easier if 1/2 of those guys are
flying F and the other half are flying regular Masters) but that's rare
enough that adding a masters F is probably going too far.

On the masters sequence, I'm obviously not a Masters pilot but putting on
my continuum hat, my only concerns would be the KE golf ball (KE and
heading toward the ground looks scary and very rudder-intensive to me and
I'm not sure anything but a very recent FAI design would handle it well)
and the loop with integrated roll on the top 180 would be a heck of a lot
easier to judge than the top 90 but does mean you are less able to rely
entirely on gravity to drive your loop while rolling as you can with the
top 90.  My final objection is aesthetic:  I think 1/4 rolls opposite looks
stupid, I hate watching them in the current FAI Sequences and I wouldn't
want to perpetuate them.

Speaking of aesthetics, I personally find the immediate reversals on
opposite rolls in FAI much more elegant to watch (and easier to judge) than
the hesitation between reversals allowed in AMA.  But that's fundamentally
a *personal preference* which should not influence my opinion on the
sequence.  What should matter is *substantive* objections that make the
sequence impossible or where the sequence represents the introduction of an
element that should be reserved for higher classes (i.e. KE loop requiring
rudder power all the way to baseline altitude, or non-gravity assisted
integrated rolls), or Tony or Stuart's point about the spin before the slow
roll and the inability to correct position after a maneuver that is highly
subject to wind effects.

The final objection that I've seen from people is "power hungry" comments.
To this my response is that seems like a very 1980's attitude.  I certainly
haven't owned a plane since 2000 that wasn't massively overpowered and
capable of pulling a vertical up-line FOREVER.  I land after an
intermediate sequence with about half of my 5000 mAh battery still
available and I suck at power management according to SOME masters pilots
who shall remain nameless... How can any of these proposed sequences that
don't involve aspects that haven't been flown successfully with YS and
electric power for over a decade in FAI be too power hungry?

I LOVE the Intermediate sequence, as an Intermediate pilot, I like that the
committee found a way to put aspects of a 4-point roll into the sequence,
removing one element of separation between Intermediate and Advanced but
doing it high in a nice safe place.  Rudder isn't forced, though the
maneuver will look a hell of a lot better if I learn to use my KE rudder
consistently.  I wish it were in the center, like on the up-line of a cuban
8 instead of on the box end, but I'll take what I can get...

The advanced sequence looks fine to me, as someone who is likely to move up
before the next change in sequences...

Peter+


On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:56 PM, J via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> I'm reading the posts Dave. Thanks for laying all your thoughts out
> articulately, as you always do.
>
> Kfactor and difficulty of the sequences are somewhat subjective criteria.
> I would suggest separating out the job of fixing those issues from
> commenting on the proposed sequences.
>
> As I read the proposed masters sequences, it seems like some tweaks could
> make them much more palatable.   There are general trends in the comments
> that share themes. Not everyone will be happy with the result no matter
> what it is, so the effort I am advocating is collect information, then
> adjust as required.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joe
>
> On Jul 11, 2017, at 6:47 PM, Matthew Finley via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> +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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training
Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark
Associate Vice President, Academy of Model Aeronautics District X
Treasurer, National Society of Radio Control Aerobatics (NSRCA)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170713/3e05ef51/attachment.html>