[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - My thoughts - Long
Scott McHarg
scmcharg at gmail.com
Mon Jun 19 09:44:58 AKDT 2017
Tony,
I totally understand your point, especially about people flying Masters so
that they can fly at the NATS. IF, and this is just us talking, IF that
class were to be officially created, it would then be a class at the NATS.
Since D7 flies the class to offer it as a local solution, it does make
sense that people wanting to go to the NATS would fly Masters as it
stands. I do understand how, at our present level of participation, it
doesn't make sense to create another class. My thought process was then to
consider utilizing P for Masters and having the Sequence Committee massage
it as necessary should there be maneuvers that don't fit in the development
charter/guide for this class per Mark A. Nothing is perfect, there's
always a pro and a con. It simply should be a consideration. Whether the
pro side is heavier or the con side is heavier, the findings should then
help lead this board to a determination and then offer it to us for comment.
IF F3A is going to continue down the path they have for the selection of
maneuvers, there's going to have to be a large step somewhere between the 5
classes. In my opinion, the step between Advanced and P is even smaller
than the current step between Advanced and Masters and there's a pretty
good chance, based on what's been shown but, again, not approved for our
consumption by the board, it's only going to increase further.
*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 12:09 PM, Frackowiak Tony <frackowiak at sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> Scott,
>
> In my opinion the F3A Silver Class in D7 is really a failure. No one
> flying in it has any intentions of moving to F3A. In fact, the only pilots
> who have or are going to move to F3A are flying Masters. Because they want
> to compete at the Nats and so they fly Masters locally. I will probably
> never return to F3A because I consider it's format to be somewhat
> ridiculous. The amount of work it takes is about 10 times what I need to
> spend on Masters. And I would never again be competitive in that class. And
> like you, I do this to compete and be competitive. If I spend the amount of
> money I have to to go to the Nats it would be nice to leave with the
> thought that I at least have a chance to win.
>
> To me F3A Silver here just seems like just another set of trophies that a
> CD has to come up with and that some want. But it solves no problems.
>
> Since we are supposed to have a working Sequence Committee that can and
> should be creating sequences for Masters, why tie us in any way to F3A? I
> personally dislike P17. It has no real flow and it's just ugly. I admit I
> have not even seen P19 as I thought it had zero effect on Masters patterns.
>
> Tony Frackowiak
> Masters Sandbagger
>
> On Jun 19, 2017, at 8:41 AM, Scott McHarg via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>
> 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
>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c977e5e1/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list