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

Fri Jun 16 07:38:57 AKDT 2017

I think you nailed it Bob. 
The virtuoso flyers and flyers with lots of time will be in Masters briefly on their way to F3A.  The majority of Masters pilots are best served with schedules on par with the current Masters or P17.... Not the proposed Masters. 
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note5.
-------- Original message --------From: Bob Kane via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> Date: 6/16/17  11:31 AM  (GMT-05:00) To: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>, Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com>, General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> Cc: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - My thoughts - Long 
I am aligned with Mark's ideas.  I have commented many times that this year's FAI P sequence is perhaps a little easier than Masters so I am not opposed to flying FAI P in Masters with the additional stipulation Mark outlined below about modifying the FAI P sequence if we feel it is necessary.
I like the idea of a set of rotating sequences for the other AMA classes.
I am against a prelim-finals format for Masters, but that is my opinion. I was watched TV documentary on the band Lynyrd Skynyrd recently.  They were often compared to the Allman Brothers. Someone in the documentary made the comment that one big difference was the Allman Brothers were good because they were virtuosos, and Lynyrd Skynyrd was good because they practiced a lot.
I am no flying virtuoso (as anyone in D4 can attest). I need to practice . . . . . .a lot.  A single sequence is enough for me. Bob Kane getterflash at yahoo.com

       From: "Atwood, Mark via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
 To: Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com> 
Cc: "nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
 Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 10:31 AM
 Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - My thoughts - Long

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

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

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

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/20170616/3595b5b5/attachment.html>