[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - My thoughts - Long
Scott McHarg
scmcharg at gmail.com
Mon Jun 19 08:44:07 AKDT 2017
Someone supports a P and F for Masters?
*Scott A. McHarg*
VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
Texas A&M University
PPL - ASEL
Remote Pilot Certified Under FAA Part 107
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:30 AM, DaveL322 <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:
> I think in part what these recent discussions have missed is the simple
> fact that we have a very detailed document originally prepared based on a
> survey of the membership. I think it is a very reasonable expectation of
> the membership that the organization follow the rules.
>
> To my eye, the last several iterations of the sequence committee have not
> followed the sequence guidance document(s). Sequences proposed should be
> compliant with the guidance. The guidance document should not be changed
> after the fact to match the sequences. Changes to the guidance document
> for the purposes of clerical / clarification / consistency can and should
> made by the seq com, and updates to varieties of permitted maneuvers should
> be made. No other changes should be made without direction, consensus,
> approval from the membership as a whole.
>
> The precious time of our volunteers should not be spent developing ideas
> that the organization as a whole may or may not support. Ad hoc sales
> pitch last minute surveys to a limited segment of the membership is not an
> accurate or effective way to determine the desires of the membership.
>
> If I can ask a question of the current and probable Masters pilots that
> support the idea of P and F for Masters..... Why are you not moving to F3A?
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
> Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note5.
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Scott McHarg via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> Date: 6/19/17 11:41 AM (GMT-05:00)
> To: Richard Wallace <rickwallace45 at gmail.com>
> Cc: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - My
> thoughts - Long
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> I think that we are almost in a place for sequence development that the
> committee just cannot do right. There is a push to continue to increase
> the difficulty of Masters to "try" and keep up with FAI (good luck). But
> for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. You are correct
> in that increasing difficulty in Masters almost makes you increase the
> difficulty in the other classes just to maintain an increase that is
> acceptable between classes and not some huge hurdle that is
> insurmountable. This has been the battle for ever.
>
> In D7, they have the numbers to fly a 6th class that they call "FAI
> Silver". Essentially, this is a class between AMA Masters and FAI in which
> they simply fly the P pattern. Personally, I LOVE this idea. It allows
> those wishing to move up to FAI eventually a much easier way of actually
> making this step by flying P and then, preferably on off-years, start
> flying FAI full time as you would then only have to learn 1 pattern (F).
> In a perfect world, this would certainly be the answer. Unfortunately, we
> are far from that world. The argument against a 6th class is the amount of
> Masters and FAI participants doesn't allow for that class to be created in
> most districts (although I feel that the strong Masters pilots and the
> (please forgive the term) lower FAI pilots would move to this class to be
> competitive), the cost for a club to add a 6th class may not be profitable,
> the judging could potentially cause an issue (although I see many ways this
> would be OK), etc. I definitely understand why, in our present state, it
> does not make sense to create this class but it sure as heck seems like it
> works in D7. If it were here in D6, I'd make that step. I feel that my
> skills aren't close to being competitive in any sense of the word in F but,
> one day, I'll get there. I do feel like I could compete in P. Why don't I
> just step up to fly FAI and only fly P now? There is no way I could win or
> place at a contest only flying P and I'd have to essentially miss 2 flights
> on Sunday or just fly P for no reason while everyone else flew F. You must
> fly F to be competitive and I definitely do this to compete and be
> competitive. It is my sport. When I finally do move up, do I expect to
> win and place right away? Heck no but I also would like to be able to get
> through without a zero. Unfortunately, that in itself is an accomplishment
> in F.
>
> It is also my opinion that P15, 17, and 19 are easier than our current
> Masters sequence and certainly, what was initially proposed this year (I
> hope we see another iteration which I'm sure we will). Following this
> "average" of P over the last 6 years actually would solve many problems in
> my opinion. As Mark explained, if a Pxx was to have a Barrel Roll in it,
> the Sequence Committee could simply put something else in its place. Hard
> maneuver not suitable for Masters taken out and solved. I have no problem
> with Masters being a destination class. Actually, I have no problem with
> Intermediate being a destination class IF that's where someone feels most
> comfortable and, most importantly, continues to participate. There's the
> problem of a sandbagger in that case (heck it's there in Masters) but,
> honestly, if they want to sandbag, we need to simply get better to beat
> that person and when we do, we probably have a better chance of being
> better in the next class as well. I remember back in '93 and '94 when
> Rusty Fried used to dominate the Masters class. I was all of 23 and it
> pissed me off he wouldn't move up and let the rest of us have a chance to
> win. I told him one day and I'll never forget what he said. He said
> "Scott, consider me a barrier to the next level. When you beat me, you're
> ready for the next class. Until then, take your whoopin and keep
> practicing". Much to my chagrin, he was right. I never did beat him at a
> contest but it did push me to be able to take a round from him now and then
> and that was a great accomplishment. I had gotten better. I do also
> understand how this could be a detriment to others attending that don't
> have the drive that I did/do to keep after it. As I stated at the
> beginning, I'm not so sure one solution is going to serve everyone
> perfectly.
>
> All this to say, there are several ways to skin a cat. There are pros and
> cons to each. With the complexity of what is being proposed versus the
> fairly steady consistency of P over the years, it's at least something for
> this board to consider. After all, that's all we're asking for;
> consideration.
>
> All the best,
> Scott
>
> *Scott A. McHarg*
> VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
> Texas A&M University
> PPL - ASEL
> Remote Pilot Certified Under FAA Part 107
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Richard Wallace <rickwallace45 at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Scott, all -
>> This is quite a discussion - and it seems there are some major points of
>> agreement here - as well as some triggers for introspection and
>> re-examination about why folks do the "Pattern" thing.
>>
>> I'm one of those who no longer flies competitively, after being pretty
>> active for a decade. I was never really competitive in Pattern, but had a
>> great time, made some true friends, and became a MUCH better R/C pilot
>> through my few thousand practice and contest flights. I wanted to share
>> share some thoughts about staying in Pattern, and about sequence design,
>> and ... stuff.
>>
>> I stayed in Pattern for more than a decade because it was a challenge
>> that seemed (for the first years) achievable. I certainly got better as i
>> flew more, and had some limited success at local contests (never at the
>> Nats, tho that was fun too for a long time) - and again, it was FUN hanging
>> out with, and competing against the local gang. I even had fun as a DVP for
>> a few of those years, and hopefully made a difference while in that
>> position.
>>
>> A few things piled up later on to make Pattern less fun. First, my job
>> moved me to a new area where there is little Pattern activity.
>>
>> Second, the move from Glow to Electric turned out to be quite a change -
>> "Tradin' in my WIndex for a Generator" turned out to require a new mindset,
>> different skills (power / mah management!), equipment, etc, and a different
>> approach to casual flying - hard to decide on Saturday morning to go out to
>> the field if you didn't invest part of Friday night charging batteries...
>>
>> Third, I realized that I probably had some hard limitations on physical
>> ability (involving depth perception / distance - judging capability at 150m
>> at speed...)
>>
>> And changing sequences... both a blessing and a curse... Dave Lockhart,
>> Joey Lachowski and others on the first Sequence Committees laid down some
>> great guidelines, and I really enjoyed flying the sequences they proposed
>> and created. But.... it did get to be more work to stretch to each of the
>> new sequences as they came out. This is a good thing, I'm sure, up to a
>> point.
>>
>> All this, and consistent "also-ran" results at local Masters contests
>> (and bottom of the field results at the Nats) despite the practice and time
>> and $$ spent, made me decide over time that there might be better ways to
>> spend my leisure time...
>>
>> Anyway, the final thought about sequences is that Rick the former
>> mediocre, run of the mill Pattern pilot believes that Masters is *and
>> should remain* a true destination class, rather than some kind of
>> stepping stone to whatever the FAI puts out from cycle to cycle. The FAI -
>> aspiring pilots will get there on their own, without an ever-tougher US
>> Masters class as a stepping stone (and besides - if Masters gets tougher,
>> then doesn't that *mandate* tougher Intermediate and advanced sequences
>> as US Pattern stepping stones???).
>>
>> I was a below-average Masters pilot who loved flying and hanging out and
>> judging (even those impossible P and F sequences!) ... but never had any
>> desire at all to get proficient in rolling loops or circles or that kind of
>> stuff *as part of a graded sequence*. I'll mess with them with a sport
>> plane, sure, but just don't want to be required to fly them with my main
>> competition bird under all the possible weather conditions we'd compete
>> in...
>>
>> Staying in the NSRCA?
>> - Is the local pattern group fun to hang out with?
>> - Are there contests within reasonable driving distance?
>> - Is the NSRCA leadership visible and accessible? Can a guy just talk to
>> them?
>> - Is what they're doing visible to the members? (this whole discussion
>> thread may shed some light on that... ???)
>> - Is there a way for the Board to find out periodically what the members
>> are thinking / wanting/ needing? (and this set probably looks different for
>> different age / skill / interest / $$-equipped groups)
>> - What does the NSRCA add to the Pattern experience of the local pattern
>> guy? - or the guy who's considering trying pattern out?
>>
>> Thanks for listening, those of you still carrying the torch - maybe I'll
>> see you on the flightline sometime!
>>
>> Exiting the (soap)box!
>> Rick Wallace
>> AMA L727
>> (Former) NSRCA 2792
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Scott McHarg via NSRCA-discussion <
>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Mark and I spent some time yesterday talking about all of this being
>>> discussed. I am completely on board with his proposal(s) personally and,
>>> to be honest, it would be nice to hear from the board on these matters.
>>> I'd like to thank Anthony Romano for saying something to this discussion.
>>> I do think it's important for us to remember that Scott McNickle put these
>>> "proposed" sequences out to his district for comment (as we are all doing)
>>> but *prior* to the BoD even having a discussion about these for
>>> submission to the populace. It is possible the BoD may reject this in part
>>> or in whole. What has come out is the first step. The second step is for
>>> the BoD to make a decision if it's even something they want to put out for
>>> us to decide if we like it or not. Then, we get our hands on it and have
>>> our say-so. In essence, I think we should give the BoD a chance to filter
>>> through the information. These are not what the BoD has approved for our
>>> digestion, merely, a proposal from a committee.
>>>
>>> Lastly, I've been thinking a lot about the pattern community and why its
>>> membership is declining. We spend a lot of time trying to figure out how
>>> to get new blood in to increase attendance. I think it's important, as
>>> some have eluded to, to concentrate to some extent on keeping those
>>> involved in pattern happy and involved. Attendance has always come in
>>> waves. Some years we have a ton in the lower classes followed by lower
>>> attendance in those classes. It's been the norm forever. What I see
>>> happening now is that does indeed continue. The problem is the decline in
>>> the upper classes. Our staunch supporters and purveyors of pattern on
>>> packing it up and doing something else. We no longer have a jam in Masters
>>> at every contest and this holds true even in FAI while Advanced and
>>> Intermediate thrive at about the normal average. Just have a look at the
>>> NATS registration in Masters for proof. Maybe our thoughts need to turn
>>> more to keeping our members that have been flying forever. The most
>>> attractive thing to a newcomer isn't what plane is being flown or whose
>>> sandbagging. It's looking around the pit area and seeing everyone having a
>>> great time and taking interest in what's in the air and whose flying. Who
>>> has smiles on their face versus what group is huddled together complaining
>>> about the complexities of political BS. If I were new to this sport and
>>> the people that have been doing this a while...the people I should be
>>> looking up to...are all disgruntled by what's going on, I'm not too sure
>>> I'd want to be a part of that and become "grumpy" about my sport that I was
>>> considering.
>>>
>>> I suggest turning to the folks that are in the sport and enjoy it and
>>> see how to keep them. This, in turn, will actually help bring in new folks
>>> as well. People enjoying what they do instead of wanting to get out will
>>> surely attract more than the other way.
>>>
>>> *Scott A. McHarg*
>>> VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
>>> Texas A&M University
>>> PPL - ASEL
>>> Remote Pilot Certified Under FAA Part 107
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Joe Lachowski via NSRCA-discussion <
>>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20170619/945a57f3/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list