[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA update- Survey

Sat Jun 17 14:35:11 AKDT 2017

I was sent the survey and I thank the NSRCA for doing that. I replied with a sincere OPPOSE. Here is the survey,

 Dear Masters Flyers, 
We are seeking input on the format for the Masters Finals at the Nats for this year’s competition in Blytheville, Arkansas. 
Existing Format: Count the highest four normalized scores out of six rounds to determine eight finalists. The contest resets in the finals to fly four flights and the best three of four normalized scores determine the winner. 
Proposed Format: Count the highest four normalized scores out of six rounds to determine ten finalists. Average the four normalized score and bring into the finals. Fly two flights and count the best two of three normalized scores. 
Why are we doing this? It all comes back to having Quality over Quantity. 
1. Quality of the event: 
a. As participation in the Nats has declined over the recent past, changes are necessary to ensure the prestige of the Nats is maintained. 
b. Shortening the time required for the finals and increasing the number of participants, help to reinforce this goal. 
2. Resources: 
a. Reducing the time commitment allows more availability of qualified judges that participate in judging or spectating the FAI finals. 
3. The proposed format allows for a strong preliminary performance to contribute to selecting a national champion. 
4. The proposed format is to fly masters in the morning, then pilots can relax and enjoy the FAI finals in the afternoon. 
5. A total of 8 flights of the same masters sequence will have been flown by the finalists. This will provide the highest quality result we can expect. 

Please reply to this email with a simple “AGREE” or “OPPOSE” 
AGREE = I understand the proposed format and support the change 
OPPOSE = I feel strongly that the existing format is preferred 
Thanks for your participation in this survey and we look forward to seeing you in Blytheville! 
Sincerely, 
Mike Harrison & Al Glenn 
Co-Event Directors 

First off, this isn't a survey. It's a sales pitch. A true survey would not be so one-sided and only praise the virtue of one choice.

It is important to realize that the only reason for cutting the Masters Finals to 2 rounds is so that they can fit in the 4 Round F3A Finals. Having Masters first and probably not giving out awards until the conclusion of F3A keeps warm bodies present to use as F3A judges. You would think that since this is a non-team trials year a little more emphasis on AMA might be prudent. 

Since only one side was praised in the survey, I thought I might show a difference in opinion to the proposed format.

Item 1b. I don't understand that logic at all. Shortening the time and increasing finalists does nothing to increase the prestige of the Nats. The Nats is about picking a National Champion in each of the classes competing. How does reducing the number of finals flights and bringing in a questionable qualifying score increase the validity of the results? I just don't see it.

Item 2a. I'm really not sure what this means. Unless it means that they are going to use F3A finalists as judges and they don't want them to have to judge too long before their Finals. Again, non-team trial year.

Item 3. Preliminaries are used for trying to determine the top pilots to go in to the finals. The very make-up of the preliminary rounds with unequal judging and possibly widely varying conditions makes their results questionable. Using questionable results only lessens the final results.

Item 4. Only if relaxing means judging 4 rounds of F3A Finals. I've never found judging F and Unknowns relaxing.

Item 5. Well, unless you can consider 10 flights with 4 of them being Finals flights. That is a higher quality result. And the one that F3A Finalists will get.

I understand there are a lot of issues to consider when planning an event such as the Nats. Many of the issues are greatly complicated with reduced participation. But I see what is being planned as only continuing the reduction, at least in Masters. You might want to consider why, with there being so many more masters pilots in the country, that currently there are fewer of them entered then in F3A? Maybe the year no Finals was flown in Masters turned a lot off? And now plans to snub them in deference to F3A during a non-team trials year might be keeping them away?

Just my viewpoint. By the way, I had entered last years Nats but due to a situation I had no control over I was unable to attend. I hope to make this Nats but I am waiting for a decision.

Tony Frackowiak

> But they aint
> 
> G
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jun 17, 2017, at 8:50 AM, ronlock--- via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
>> Of course surveys should go to all members.
>> 
>> Ron Lockhart
>> 
>>> On June 17, 2017 at 1:07 AM Curt Oberg via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Amen
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Curt Oberg
>>> 
>>> Fort Walton Beach, Fl
>>> 
>>>  
>>> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of David Harmon via NSRCA-discussion
>>> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 12:00 AM
>>> To: 'Jon Lowe'; 'General pattern discussion'; anthonyr105 at hotmail.com
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA update
>>> 
>>>  
>>> I think these surveys should go out to all paid up members regardless of past contest attendance.
>>> 
>>> It’s the right thing to do.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> David Harmon
>>> 
>>> NSRCA 586
>>> 
>>> Sperry, OK
>>> 
>>>  
>>> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion
>>> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 6:35 PM
>>> To: anthonyr105 at hotmail.com; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA update
>>> 
>>>  
>>> I was told by a senior BoD member that since I didn't enter last year for personal reasons ( even though I'd attended the prior 10 years), and I hadn't signed up yet because of questions I had about the format that had not been answered, I wouldn't get a survey. I guess we don't count
>>> 
>>> Nuff said...
>>> 
>>> Jon
>>> 
>>> On Friday, June 16, 2017 Frackowiak Tony via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I would like to be included in the Masters survey. My email is frackowiak at sbcglobal.net.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Tony Frackowiak
>>> 
>>> On Jun 16, 2017, at 1:45 PM, Anthony Romano via NSRCA-discussi
>>> 
>>> on wrote:
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Hello Pilots,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> There has been so much great work in seeking ways to enhance and grow our sport, not only from a participation level, but also from a qualitative value.  Part of this exploration has been to look to the successes of the past to help pave the way for future success.  One successful venture from the past was providing a National event as a traveling competition that allows people from all reaches of the country to reasonably participate.  This allows the Nats to be more than just another competition, but an opportunity to see new folks participate, enjoy different areas of the country and bring the family along to make it a fun adventure.  Remember those days of traveling to Lake Charles, Lincoln, or Westover AFB?  These were trips that offered more than just a location to fly our planes. 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Much of the motivation in making adjustments to the NSRCA and the Nats has been driven by changing the direction of the strategies of the past that have resulted in less passionate participation in our sport.  We were presented an opportunity to change the status quo and make the Nats a traveling competition once again.  Mike Harrison stepped up to offer a choice for our future competition format.  He has worked tirelessly with Al Glenn to bring back that special quality that seems to have been missing from the Nats in recent memory.  Both Mike and Al have championed making this change of venue a premier event and I look forward to seeing as many of you there that are able to make the journey.  The site is an old air base that been converted to a salvage yard for decommissioned airliners.  How cool is that?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> That said, with all the changes, the Board has failed to properly get the word out promptly on what some of the changes are.  There two hot topics that are being discussed across social media outlets, namely logistics of the Nats and the proposed new sequences for the AMA classes.  In an effort to clear up some of the missing information and confusion, the following is copied directly from the BOD meeting minutes of 6/14/17 that have yet to be published. Minutes are normally voted on by the board at the beginning of the following months meeting and published on the website.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Discussion about who is the ED for the 2017 NATS; Mike Harrison was authorized by the board to plan the 2017 NATS at a new venue, Blytheville, AR; however, no formal designation of Mike as the ED was ever voted on - Al was appointed the ED for 2 years, 2016-2017 - 
>>> The ED position is important for perception from the membership - Motion appointing Al and Mike as Co-ED’s approved - With 2 ED’s, how will disputes be settled; a motion to appoint a Jury, consisting of the Co-ED’s and the CD was approved by the board for the 2017 NATS; the ED’s have the option to recues themselves from the jury, if there is a conflict; the position would be filled by the Site Director - 
>>> FAI finals will consist of 2 F and 2 Unknown flown in the morning -
>>> Masters finals are under discussion; a survey has been sent to Masters competitors that competed last year at the NATS and are competing again this year, to hear their input - 
>>> Discussion:
>>> The ED has the final say as to how the NATS finals will be conducted (as has always been the case with the Nats) 
>>> It is important that no misinformation be given through our social media 
>>> A survey was developed for this reason, to dispel rumors and get input from the membership
>>> A motion to send the survey was approved (Masters Pilots who participated in last year's Nats and are registered for this Year's Nats should have that in their email now, so please respond).
>>> Regarding the new sequence proposals, there was enough conversation to warrant a dedicated meeting to review the sequences and rationale.  Though those sequences have been distributed out prematurely, it's important that until they are posted as official, they are just that; proposals.  Once the sequences have been properly vetted, they will be published for comment.
>>>  
>>> Our intent is to improve the quality of the NSRCA organization and the Nats.  Practice up and make the commitment to join in the fun.  We all look forward to seeing you in Blytheville next month.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Respectfully,
>>> 
>>> NSRCA Board of Directors
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170617/4d5fe15a/attachment.html>