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

Fri Jun 16 07:42:15 AKDT 2017

>From my experience in the past we had a bunch of people who were supposed to participate in the sequence development process. It always wound up being a hand full doing all the work and the rest looking in or not even  participating like they should have. It was frustrating to see.

________________________________
From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on behalf of Frackowiak Tony via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 7:49 AM
To: Jon Lowe; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - My thoughts - Long

I was told it is Sean (D8- Masters), his friend Derek Emmett (D7 - Masters), Stuart Chale (?) and Jim Hiller (?). Sorry, I don't know the districts and classes of Stuart and Jim. But this in itself seems against the norms. Only 4 members? 2 of which as far as I know are from the west coast. Really improper.

Tony Frackowiak

On Jun 16, 2017, at 7:09 AM, Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion wrote:

Anthony,
Who is on the sequence committee besides Sean Mersh?

Jon

________________________________
On Thursday, June 15, 2017 Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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: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<mailto: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/>

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

<http://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

_______________________________________________
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/aa6e9a70/attachment.html>