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

Thu Jun 15 19:51:08 AKDT 2017

I don't recall when the last membership survey was completed.  Maybe it is
time for one?

Something like P+F for Masters is a BIG change and I think inappropriate
without a substantial consensus approval from Masters pilots and potential
Masters pilots (those currently flying Advanced or FAI).

Many of us have watched FAI do some rather foolish things over the years,
and the goal(s) of F3A are not necessarily aligned with the goal(s),
desires, or best practices for pattern in the USA.  To that end, as I and
others have said many times before, legislatively tying Masters to F3A is
not the most prudent thing to do.  IF elements of F3A meet the needs of USA
pattern, we can always CHOOSE to adopt them without being locked into
following them.

Regards,

Dave 

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Anthony Romano via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 11:41 PM
To: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>; General pattern discussion
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - My
thoughts - Long

Before you all get out your lanterns and pitch forks let me provide a little
of the pending update. 

The sequences were given to the board just a few hours before last night's
meeting. Since the board did not have time to review them and had more
pressing concerns we agreed to table them until a separate meeting could be
scheduled for the BOD to review them and vote on them before they are
distributed. 

An update on the Nats will be published before the weekend. 

Anthony 

Sent from my Galaxy TabR S2

-------- Original message --------

From: "Atwood, Mark via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> > 

Date: 6/15/17 11:13 PM (GMT-05:00) 

To: Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com <mailto:jonlowe at aol.com> >, General pattern
discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> > 

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

Umm.. Sorry guys.  My DVP has been doing his best to forward minutes and
documents to our D4 Mailing list as soon and as often as he can.  We love
him!   

I will try to attach here the sequence proposals that were sent out last
night prior to the BOD Meeting (he received them last night as well, and
circulated them for feedback from our District.).  The resulting email
firestorm and discussion is what prompted my earlier diatribe and
recommendations. 

MARK ATWOOD

o.  (440) 229-2502

c.  (216) 316-2489

e.   <mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> atwoodm at paragon-inc.com

Paragon Consulting, Inc.

5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124

 <http://www.paragon-inc.com/> www.paragon-inc.com

Powering The Digital Experience

On Jun 15, 2017, at 11:05 PM, Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> wrote:

For those of us who haven't seen the proposed sequences, what are they?  Are
you implying that Masters might have a P&F? Good god, I hope not. And only
Masters has to change every two years, according to AMA rules. Other classes
change every four years. Further, according to the AMA rule book, NSRCA must
submit the sequences to the membership for approval prior to implementation
by the BoD.

We still have also not heard a peep from the BoD on the Nats situation. A
month out and we still don't know who is in charge, or what the FAI and
Masters finals are going to consist of?I've also heard of some sort of
unpublished MOA between NSRCA and Mike H about the NATS. Would be nice to
know if that is true, and, if so, see a copy. I looked thru the BoDs book of
motions, and at least thru April of this year, there is no mention of one
being accepted by the BoD. There was also no mention of any particular NATs
format being accepted by the BoD.

I hope someone from the BoD will let us know soon what is going on with the
NATs and the sequences.

Jon

  _____  

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 Atwood, Mark via NSRCA-discussion
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto: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.   <mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> atwoodm at paragon-inc.com

Paragon Consulting, Inc.

5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124

 <http://www.paragon-inc.com/> www.paragon-inc.com

Powering The Digital Experience

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion____________________
___________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto: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/20170616/4bd39c3a/attachment.html>