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

[rcpilot at wowway.com]

+10000

Sent from my iPad

> On Jun 15, 2017, at 10:22 PM, Atwood, Mark via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
> Recently our District VP distributed proposed new sequences for 2018, and it’s resulted in quite the brew-ha-ha in our district (D4).  There’s really two issues of concern being debated in our district list and I’d like to address them both, and open up the floor for nation-wide, full membership discussion.
> 
> Since I suspect this could become a long post, I’ll create a quick exec summary to start.  I want to emphasize that this is all simply MY opinion.  It carry’s no more weight than any other member.  
> 
> Issue #1) there’s significant concern that the NSRCA Leadership isn’t listening.  That they have their own set opinion, and are going to use their authority to make that opinion reality.
> 
> I believe that perception IS reality.  Regardless of the truth of these accusations, I feel it needs to be addressed.  
> 
> Issue #2)  The new sequences.  The comments are that they are too hard, too many (masters P&F), no collaboration, no voice from the membership, no survey, etc.   
> 
> I think…   Sportsman, intermediate, Advanced are fine.  I also think they should change less frequently, OR…ideally we create 3 sequences for each (A, B, C), and rotate them every 2 years.  More on why in the details.
> 
> Masters - I think we should STRONGLY consider having masters fly the current FAI P pattern.  Always.    LOTS of supporting comments on this below.  It fixes MANY problems (and as always, creates a few).
> 
> 
> So the first issue is of deep concern to me, because I see people leaving the NSRCA, and Pattern in general as a result.  That’s personally painful as I’ve been a member for a very long time and have always felt it was a great organization and have worked hard to encourage others to join us.  I don’t believe that anyone in the organization is trying to be a dictator, or usurp the control from the masses.  But I do believe that the lack of transparency in some of the more recent issues has lead to mistrust.  And WE MUST FIX THAT. 
> 
> The current issue with the Nationals is a prime example.  D4 is a heavy participant at the nationals due to our geographic proximity (we LOVE Muncie!).  But we understand the need to move it around and our group was a strong supporter of trying a new venue even though we personally would all have farther to travel.  Not all, but many of our regulars will be in Arkansas.   But as a group, we were all in Muncie when there was collective agreement that Al Glenn had done a great job in 2016, and was selected to be the ED for 2017, which was later confirmed by the BOD.    We also knew that there was an official vote to move the Nats to Arkansas and that Mike Harrison would be facilitating that move.  
> 
> Changing those rolls, making Mike the ED, Is not only seen as being horribly disrespectful to Al Glenn, but smacks us (the outside membership) as “behind closed doors” politics.  Something that’s intolerable in a hobby.   Mike may be the greatest ED of all time.  But there’s a process we go through, membership to communicate with and get consensus from, and general common courtesy to Al, ALL of which appears to have been laid to waste.  If that’s NOT the reality… it’s clearly the perception.  It may be too late to fix the reality of who’s doing what for the nats.  But I would very much like NSRCA leadership to start addressing the issue, perception or reality, in a meaningful, transparent, and communicative manner.  And if decisions were made inappropriately, simply apologize, and we’ll move on, and make an effort not to repeat them.  No one here is a paid professional. EVERYONE is doing their best to promote the hobby they love.  We all have opinions (I’m clearly expressing mine), and we won’t all agree.    Just remember that board members are elected to voice the opinions of their ENTIRE district, which may differ with their own personal opinions.  
> 
> ‘Nuff whining on that.  
> 
> Issue 2.   Sequences
> 
> Lower classes - Meant to be the Building blocks for Pattern.  Each class having increasing difficulty, measured spacing in complexity, designed to prepare the pilot for the next class.   ALL classes are potential “Destination” classes for a variety of reasons, (Time, age, interest, talent, etc).   As such, changing the schedules periodically allows for some variety without moving classes.   All Good.  
> 
> But that said, creating all new sequences ever few years is both a time consuming effort, and requires strict discipline and guidelines to prevent complexity creep.  So my suggestion is, rather than a new committee making a new set of sequences every few years, that instead, we take the time to create 3 sequences for each class, an A, B and C pattern, which would allow a one time effort to produce balanced, thoughtful, progressive sequences that would effectively create a 6 year cycle in any class before the patterns repeated (assume you flew each for 2 years).  Even for the perennial Advanced flyer, that’s sufficient to provide challenge if they truly are unable to move up.    As always… My $0.02
> 
> MASTERS.   This one I have strong opinions on so bear with me.  We have numerous issues to solve…
> 
> *
> Bored perennial Masters pilots that want ever increasing complexity but who lack the desire to attempt to fly the F pattern in FAI.   
> *
> An every increasing complexity gap as FAI continues to push the boundaries of what our aircraft can do
> *
> A dwindling FAI class due to that gap, and a Masters sequence that does little to truly prep a pilot for FAI
> *
> Judging challenges, as ever increasing complexity in our routines makes them harder to judge if you’re not intimately familiar with the sequence.
> * 
> Contest Logistics - Too many in one class, not enough in another (typically Masters vs FAI)
> 
> In my mind, ONE thing fixes all of this.  Adopting the P pattern as our Masters class sequence.
> 
> In the rest of the world, The P pattern IS the pattern for those not flying the full FAI program.   It’s designed with that in mind.  It’s complex, but very much on par with our typical Masters programs.  It will challenge those bored pilots and changes reliably every 2 years with NO effort!
> As FAI adds new maneuvers, they put components of them into the P pattern.  More snaps, some KE segments, introductory integrated rolling, etc.   Without this, the gap between FAI and Masters will continue to widen, making the jump for all but a few virtually impossible.
> 
> By flying the P pattern for the season, should a masters pilot choose to try FAI, they only have one additional pattern to learn.  It’s a less daunting exercise than suddenly having 2 new sequences.  In reverse, should there be limited FAI participants at a contest, eliminating the FAI class for logistical reasons allows the one or two FAI pilots to simply fly Masters at the local event and not have it be a complete unknown.  Or alternatively, several of the top Masters pilots could opt to fly with the FAI group, and possibly agree not to fly the F sequence.  Bottom line, there are more options.
> 
> Judging - BOTH classes benefit tremendously from improved judging as more people will know the nuances of the sequence they’re judging as an active flyer of it.  No more missed zeros because they don’t know it.   
> 
> There are so many reasons (ok, in MY mind) why this makes sense that I don’t really understand the opposition to it.  Yes, the FAI crew throws in a half integrated loop here and there and I know some are deathly opposed to that.  I also recall the first time we told masters pilots to roll both right AND left… 1998.  My world came to an end.  But we learned.  Our planes roll so easily now by comparison to a curare that we should expect the maneuvers to advance with them.  
> 
> Ok, I’ll get off my soap box.  These are MY opinions.  I think they’re born from a good deal of experience, but they’re still just one person’s thoughts.   We need to get back to open discussion, survey’s, and consensus.   No, we won’t please everyone.  But we do need to please “most”.  We all love this niche of the hobby.  We all want it to grow.  We all have good intentions.  Let’s go into conversations with that in mind. 
> 
> -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
>  
> Powering The Digital Experience
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> 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/20170616/1c498e05/attachment.html>