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

Fri Jun 16 06:33:17 AKDT 2017

+1

Vicente "Vince" Bortone

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Atwood, Mark via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> So first, I’ll apologize a little for stirring the pot last night, but my
> desired result was this conversation.  People expressing their concerns and
> opinions, so this is GREAT!
>
> At the risk of filling my inbox even more, I’d encourage many of the
> lurkers out there that monitor this list, but seldom chime in, to do so.
> Even if it’s simply to endorse or oppose an already expressed opinion.
>
>
> On the subject of adopting the P pattern in masters, I’d like to clarify.
> I’m NOT proposing, or endorsing being tied to FAI P.  Meaning we don’t need
> a proposal that legislates we follow the FAI P pattern for Masters.  I
> agree with those that state that FAI can create some wacky sequences and we
> don’t want to be locked to that.  BUT… we CAN put forth the proposed P
> pattern as our next Masters pattern and look to each successive P sequence
> as our starting point.  If there’s a crazy maneuver (ala the Barral roll),
> then we simply alter it.  It still gives us most of the advantages in
> judging, and flying by having a very similar pattern.  Currently, both P-17
> and P-19 are very viable Masters sequences with no alteration.   Why not
> start there?  If P-21 is good, then great, if not, we can consider changing
> the one or two maneuvers that seem questionable.   That was really my
> intent.  Not a binding proposal.
>
> -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
>
> <http://www.paragon-inc.com/>
> *Powering The Digital Experience*
>
> On Jun 16, 2017, at 10:09 AM, Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com> wrote:
>
> Anthony,
> Who is on the sequence committee besides Sean Mersh?
>
> Jon
>
>
> ------------------------------
> On Thursday, June 15, 2017 Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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 Tab® S2
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: "Atwood, Mark via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.
> org>
> Date: 6/15/17 11:13 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com>, General pattern discussion <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.  atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
>
> *Paragon Consulting, Inc.*
> 5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
> www.paragon-inc.com
>
> <http://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> 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> 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
>
> <http://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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170616/e92de8b6/attachment.html>