[NSRCA-discussion] New sequences

Tue Jul 18 12:38:20 AKDT 2017

The Sequence Guidance doc did not fail. 
In the absence of majority approval/desire of the Masters pilots wanting more difficulty,  the sequences have become more difficult. 
This happened for 2 reasons.... 
1.  Nsrca leadership did not actively stay in touch with the desires of the membership as a whole.2.  The sequence committees allowed or forced difficulty creep without directive or approval to do so.
It seems to me this is largely a communication issue... Losing touch with the membership, and losing touch with established process and procedure. 
It seems to me going back to regular surveys of the membership would help. Requiring all elected and appointed reps of nsrca to monitor this list would help.  Avoiding 100% changes in leadership and committees would help. 
Masters or any ama class should never be tied to F3A simply because we can not control what f3a does.  And the goals of f3a are different in many respects (and similar in others). 
I have never advocated the F sequence be required at any local contest.  Local contests should be the P sequence only, with the winner determined by the best four out of six rounds.  Having F as an option for rounds 5 and 6 would work very well.  Write the scores on the P sheet.  Forget about KFactor differences.  The vast majority of the time, the final results are not going to be any different. 
Based on the responses on this list, it seems to me if F were optional, some of the often largest class Masters, would move to F3A, often the smallest class. 
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note5.
-------- Original message --------From: Scott McHarg via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> Date: 7/18/17  1:57 PM  (GMT-05:00) To: Vicente Bortone <vincebrc at gmail.com> Cc: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] New sequences 
Vicente and Dave,
The problem with this is that the majority of FAI pilots want to fly F at the local contests.  Honestly, I can't blame them.  As a CD, I want to give my pilots what they want.  As a pilot looking forward to FAI myself, I'm not excited about the drastic jump and learning two sequences at the same time with F being as crazy as it is.  Yes, I know I could just fly P but if I can't do what the rest of the class is doing,  I'm just not that interested, frankly.
This is the reason for either Masters flying P or a new class.  With our participation where it is, a new class is not really possible.  Earl said that FAI is an AMA class.  Everyone agreed that was the best email yet.  But still, we don't want to consider the step between Masters and FAI.  This, I cannot understand.
Scott A. McHarg
VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research PilotTexas A&M UniversityPPL - ASELRemote Pilot Certified Under FAA Part 107

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Vicente Bortone <vincebrc at gmail.com> wrote:
Scott,
There has been more than one  solution for that.  We all know those.  In any case, per FAI rules F cannot been flown in a two day contest.  I could be wrong on this conclusion.  We need to check the rule book.  I remember reading this few years back.  There was already a similar comment on this.   However,  this is easy one to take care.

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:32 PM Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com> wrote:
Because even at local contest, FAI flies both P and F.
On Jul 18, 2017 11:33 AM, "Verne Koester via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
And the masters pilots aren't simply flying fai now because?
Verne Koester

Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 18, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Vicente Bortone <vincebrc at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Verne,
I am sure that all Masters pilots that usually come to my contest still will come.  They just love this stuff too much.  We already discussed.  I am also sure more FAI pilots will attend if they see more participation in their class.  Yes, I have been collecting a lot of FAI trophies.  We will be able to flip flop more easily between Masters and FAI.  Then judging becomes easier and a lot more precise since we will be judging similar schedule.  In any event, when I see the proposed new Master schedule many of those manuevers were already in old FAI-P so it is not really a big deal.  I understand that we want to revise it and change the elements that do not meet the Masters (sometimes we will need to make it more stringent) requirements and fix the flow is required.  Furthermore, will make the life of the committe in charge a lot easier.  
Best,

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:38 AM Verne Koester <verne at mi.rr.com> wrote:
Or perhaps then you won't have any masters pilots at your contests either. 
Verne Koester 

Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 18, 2017, at 8:39 AM, Vicente Bortone via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

Her my humble opinion:

I think the best solution is to adopt the FAI-P modified to
meet Master requirements.  Here the
reasons:

1.     
We are overloading the lower classes judging
Masters in local contest.  As time pass
we have seen less FAI pilots in local contest. 
Clearly the norm is to have 46-8 Masters, 0-2 FAI, 0-3 Advanced, 0-3 Intermediate
and 0-3 Sportsman.  This is a reality
that has been happening in the last few years. 
There are some cases different but this has become normal.

2.     
Is we used modified P in Masters the Masters
pilots will be more willing to fly FAI and slit the class.  This will make the contest more balanced and
avoid overloading the lower classes pilots.

3.     
This will help Master pilots to try FAI and
try to practice F.  Top FAI pilots will be more willing
to go to local contest since they will have more competition.  

4.     
In my contest one traditional FAI pilot call me
to ask me how many pilots were flying FAI. 
I told him you will be the only one. 
He turned around and went home. 
This is a reality that we need to take into account.  It is happening.  

5.     
If I were and Advanced or Intermediate pilot and
I go to a contest to judge 4-5 times a bunch of Masters pilots I will try to do
something else in my weekend.

I know that there are other reasons but I need to go back to
work.  

Best,

Vicente "Vince" Bortone

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Curt Oberg via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

60 aged?  YGTBKM.  My son is almost that
old.

Curt

From: NSRCA-discussion
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
On Behalf Of Joe Lachowski via
NSRCA-discussion

Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 4:07
PM

To: Derek Koopowitz; General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
New sequences

To that I have to respond. A vast majority of
Masters pilots are in the same category if you think 59 going on 60 is aged.
LOL.

From: Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>

Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 1:59
PM

To: Joe Lachowski; General pattern discussion

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
New sequences 

Age!!!

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 17, 2017, at 1:42 PM, Joe Lachowski via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
wrote:

There are two more things we need to seriously
consider with these sequences. Judgeability of course and something no one ever
talks about, ability to memorize a sequence and retain it. Not all of us have a
caller readily available when practicing. The current sequence bit me twice so
far this contest season. I actually started to swap  two maneuvers
out of sequence even with a caller. Took my 0's and throw away round. I now
make sure my caller reinforces that part of the sequence when calling for me.
 In all my years of flying pattern this has never ever happened to me
before. My memory isn't bad. I usually have  a new sequence or previous
seasons sequence down in less than two practice sessions at the
beginning of every season.

From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>

Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 11:43
AM

To: Joe Lachowski

Cc: General
 pattern discussion

Subject: Re: New sequences 

In reply I’ll admit I
did not evaluate it against any guideline criteria.  I only flew it for
“feel” and admittedly, I’m somewhat proud to say I’ve flown enough F and
Unknown sequences now that it didn’t seem very unusual.   So your critique
there is likely valid.  Given that all the maneuvers were flyable with
little more than calling the primary maneuver name along with the individual
elements, real time, I’m hard pressed to call them “fabricated garbage”, as I
think that needlessly insults the people that worked hard, with good intent, to
put these together. 

I do fly a fairly low
drag, power efficient setup, so that point is valid.

I will also agree that
our constant evolution and increasing difficulty of sequences has generally
stagnated class advancement.  When I was moving up, the classes never
changed.  So once you were proficient in a class, the only new challenge
was to move up.  Now, with new classes every 2 years, even if the
difficulty is the same, you can stay put and still feel challenged learning
something new.

-M

MARK ATWOOD

o.  (440)
229-2502

c.  (216) 316-2489

e.  atwoodm at paragon-inc.com

Paragon
Consulting, Inc.

5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124

www.paragon-inc.com

Powering
The Digital Experience

On Jul 17, 2017, at
2:30 PM, Joe Lachowski <jlachow at hotmail.com>
wrote:

There are still too
many new maneuvers introduced to the eligible maneuvers list. Only a couple
should be introduced each rules cycle if necessary. That was part of the intent
of the guide. Battery consumption is too high
with the low drag plane and motor combination that you use Mark in comparison
to others. I'm assuming this is the sequence that is on the NSRCA site.

A few of the maneuvers
are just fabricated garbage. When the guide was put together it was done to
keep getting carried away with this stuff and adding a boat load of 
"Oh, this would be cool to do" type maneuvers which have already
infiltrated FAI. There is a lot of stupidity designed into the sequence. 

A fellow Masters pilot
tried to fly  some of this this weekend and concluded it was a bunch of
crap, ripped it up and threw it into the garbage.

I had an Advanced pilot fly the new sequence for Advanced this weekend also.
The Cobra with snap may be an issue.

There are also a lot
of 3/4 rolls in the sequence that an Advanced pilot will have to figure out
which way to roll. This may be an information overload requirement that might
be overcome by a lot more practice than typically required. You only have some
much time available to practice. The designers did not do a thorough analysis
of the roll elements.

I firmly believe we
need to dumb down on Masters. The current one is already difficult and
requires  more practice time than I would care to put into flying pattern.
The fun is starting to dissipate for this flyer and I'm retired.

Not everyone can get
out several evenings during the week and the weekend to practice. I'm thinking
of the 95% not the top 5% and I'm a middle of the road Masters pilot. I have
also seen decline in Masters attendance on the local level. Based on what I see
so far, I will either pack it in or reluctantly drop to Advanced which has
crept ever closer towards being a Masters sequence. This is the first time
I have seen so much controversy over one sequence.  Start fresh. There is
still time to form a new committee hopefully with some people who
previously served and get this thing right. There is still plenty of time to
get it right by December 31st. Heck I could do it all on my own and come up
with something more sane that what has been proposed or thrown out in this
discussion list! 

From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
on behalf of Atwood, Mark via
NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 8:09 AM

To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org

Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] New sequences 

Hey All, 

I was able to fly both
the proposed Masters and Advanced sequences this weekend with Chuck Edwards.
 All in all good, with a few thoughts.

Masters -  

I like it. Flows
reasonably well.  Some fun challenges, but nothing daunting.  The two
rolls opposite is easily the prettiest maneuver in the schedule, and it will
separate anyone not comfortable rolling both ways.  

One
concern - The
only sticky maneuver I thought is the 1 1/4, KE flight, 1 1/4.   It’s
simply too long to make look pretty, and if it’s a strong head wind, will
really look like crap.  You’re basically trying to fit 2 1/2 rolls AND
sustained KE flight on a downwind leg and stay in the box, thus forcing
somewhat rapid rolls which simply look rushed.  

I would strongly suggest changing it to 3/4 roll, KE, 3/4 roll.
  Same difficulty really, but a full roll shorter and thus allows for a
more graceful, controlled roll rate.

Total Mah draw in modest wind (7-9kt cross) was 3580mah
 without paying particular attention to throttle management, given that it
was the first time through the sequence.  Quite a bit less time and power
than the current schedule.

Advanced.  

It’s also nice, with
one major concern.
 The Cobra.  It’s not as conventional as I think is expected, and I
feel it’s too much for an advanced flyer just learning to snap their airplane
(my opinion).  You’re already a bit rushed going into is, and you’re
pushing in from Inverted.  No biggie.  Half roll up, over the top and
back down on a 45.  THEN you have a single snap on the 45 deg DOWN line.

I can tell you from personal experience and a re-kitted Spark (St. Clairsville flying F-11 with a 1 1/2 snap down on the
cobra) that a snap like this WILL crash an airplane.  You’re
heading down, not all that high to begin with, and if you badly miss the snap
and lose your orientation, you’re likely on low throttle and low airspeed and
will proceed to stall/snap it into the ground in your attempt to recover.
   I’d much rather see a snap on the UP leg of the cobra.  It
would still be rushed, but FAR more airplane and pilot friendly.  

Other than that, is has all the traditional challenges.  
  Power was very low as I flew the schedule with only 2800mah (also a
7-9kt crosswind).  

My $0.02 worth with 1
time through Advanced and twice through Masters.  So limited testing.
 Your mileage may vary.

Hope to see a bunch of you in Arkansas!   

-Mark

MARK ATWOOD

o.  (440) 229-2502

c.  (216) 316-2489

e.  atwoodm at paragon-inc.com

Paragon Consulting,
Inc.

5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124

www.paragon-inc.com

_______________________________________________

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

_______________________________________________
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

-- 
Vicente "Vince" Bortone

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170718/0f244682/attachment.html>