[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - My thoughts - Long
Dave Lockhart
davel322 at comcast.net
Mon Jun 19 14:57:46 AKDT 2017
Tony,
I'm not sure I can dig up a specific print copy. To recall,it was part of
the formational process for the first NSRCA membership survey...it was quite
a process deciding what topics should be surveyed, and then what to do with
the results. It may also be referenced in the publication of the results of
the survey.
Regards,
Dave
From: Frackowiak Tony [mailto:frackowiak at sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 4:18 PM
To: DaveL322 <DaveL322 at comcast.net>
Cc: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - My
thoughts - Long
Dave, I never heard of that 60% survey number. Can you show me were that is
laid out?
As to established cornerstones, the times they do a change. Integrated
rolling maneuvers are a fact of life and I think they stayed away from
Masters about as long as they could. The ones that have been used are pretty
basic, but with how I see them being flown we don't need to be in a rush to
make them harder.
Ain't politics a bitch!
Tony Frackowiak
On Jun 19, 2017, at 10:53 AM, DaveL322 wrote:
Tony,
The point of my prior post was not to get I to the minutia of each cycle and
survey, but to point out it is very reasonable for an organization to expect
its leaders to follow the organization rules/structures.
I don't recall the exact dates of the first survey, or the number that have
been completed. I do know that from the beginning, specific changes in
direction were not be acted upon without a significant 60% consensus. That
was intentionally done to keep a degree of stability.
Specific to integrated loop/roll maneuvers in Masters, the exclusion of them
was one of the cornerstones in the Seg Guidance doc when written as a
distinction between masters and f3a. Including loop/roll and immediate
reverse rolling maneuvers in Masters has always been contentious. To
recall, on the survey that included a positive response to add loop/roll to
Masters, it was a very close vote, and did not achieve 60%. It was added
anyway.
I can also say with absolute certainty, myself, Joe L, and Verne K
habitually had to keep in check other committee members whom continually
pushed to ignore the Sequence Guidance docs and felt it was appropriate to
rewrite them after the fact.
Similar to you, my time on the Seq Com ended without notice. A new Seq Com
was formed with no notice to myself or several other members. Much like a
newly elected official cleaning house and putting in place the staff they
want.
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note5.
-------- Original message --------
From: Frackowiak Tony <frackowiak at sbcglobal.net
<mailto:frackowiak at sbcglobal.net> >
Date: 6/19/17 12:56 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: DaveL322 <DaveL322 at comcast.net <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net> >, General
pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >
Cc: Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com <mailto:scmcharg at gmail.com> >, Richard
Wallace <rickwallace45 at gmail.com <mailto:rickwallace45 at gmail.com> >
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - My
thoughts - Long
Dave, if I'm not mistaken there was a survey made about using integrated
rolling maneuvers in Masters and the consensus was for approval. Since I was
on the Sequence Committee for the two previous schedule changes I'm pretty
sure that is what happened. Other then roll integration what other major
changes were made? None really in the other classes. Just added some
maneuvers that were basic roll, loop, roll/loop combinations.
I do agree that the idea of a P and F in Masters seems like it was pulled
out of thin air with no membership input.
Tony Frackowiak
On Jun 19, 2017, at 9:30 AM, DaveL322 via NSRCA-discussion 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
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >
Date: 6/19/17 11:41 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: Richard Wallace <rickwallace45 at gmail.com
<mailto:rickwallace45 at gmail.com> >
Cc: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> > on behalf of Frackowiak
Tony via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto: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 TabR 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 <tel:(440)%20229-2502>
c. (216) 316-2489 <tel:(216)%20316-2489>
e. <mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
Paragon Consulting, Inc.
5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
<http://www.paragon-inc.com/> 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 <tel:(440)%20229-2502>
c. (216) 316-2489 <tel:(216)%20316-2489>
e. <mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
Paragon Consulting, Inc.
5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
<http://www.paragon-inc.com/> 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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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/20170619/c5dea10a/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list