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

Mon Jun 19 15:12:43 AKDT 2017

For what it's worth, I generally agree with Tony's comments on the "P" pattern. A few other comments are below. Note that this sequence does not meet three different criteria in the development guide.

#14 (Double key). This is listed by the FAI as a K5 without any rolls in their advanced pattern. The proposed manuever has several, which would bump it to a K6 or better. Doesn't meet the guidelines, in my opinion, which only allow K5 maneuvers.

 #4, #6, #12. There seems to be an infatuation with knife edge flight in this sequence, and the double immelmann has two. With all of the manuevers in the guide, it would appear something else could be substituted.

Too many overly tall maneuvers necessitated by either point rolls on down lines, or as Tony said, the Z with KE at the bottom. I've been able to live with 4500 mAh packs up to now. No more.

Doesn't meet criteria of minimum of one 4 of 8 or an 8 pt. roll in the sequence.

Doesn't meet criteria for placement of positioning manuevers at approximately 1/3 and 2/3 of way thru sequence. Para 3.1 of criteria. Currently placed at #11 and #17 of 19.

Jon

On Friday, June 16, 2017 Frackowiak Tony via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

I agree. Looking at the Masters proposal it is a HUGE pattern. Full of asymmetrical maneuvers that not only look bad but will be very hard to judge. Terrible pattern. 

Going over the Masters proposal here are my thoughts. Also, sure wish they could have supplies the Aresti's.

#2. With the full roll requirement this will have to be flown huge to have the time for any hesitations before and after the roll, especially since the roll is downwind.

#3. There isn't really a requirement to make the two legs of this maneuver the same length. I don't like that interpretation because it removes the symmetry that I always loved in pattern. Nevertheless, having no roll on one leg and a 2 of 2 on the other will drive it to be asymmetrical big time.

#4. Having the roll sequence on the bottom leg will again drive it asymmetrical. What will be the center of the maneuver?

#5. I absolutely hate the Clown Dances. Putting a spin immediately after a 1/2 loop is just stupid. Too difficult to judge the entry to the spin.

#6. OK.

#7. You want to put in these kind of maneuvers in Masters, I am personally not against them. But it will drive away many current Masters pilots and keep many Advanced fliers in that class.

#8. OK.

#9. This is the second snap roll. Both of the snaps are downline snaps, which for the most part are easier then level or climbing snaps. The one snap is dictated as a positive and this snap will be flown as a positive by 99% of the pilots. I feel this is making the snaps too easy.

#10. OK.

#11. OK.

#12. OK.

#13. Description doesn't state about a hesitation between the reversing 1/4 rolls. Is there a hesitation allowed?

#14. Maneuver will have to be huge to have correct geometry and time for the rolls.

#15. Will have to be very tall to get in that diving 4-point roll.

#16. Putting in no hesitation brings in all the problems that F3A has with no hesitation. It's unnecessary in Masters. Judging will be confusing. 

#17. Again, this will need to be tall.

#18. OK.

I'm not even going to comment on the individual maneuvers in the proposed Masters "F". I find that idea to be so against what Masters is supposed to be that I can't even believe they did this proposal without discussing it amongst the membership.

Can the Committee tell us what models were used to fly this pattern and what the average mAh use was for each model?

I currently fly Masters as at my age I really have zero chance of being competitive in F3A F. I'm still OK at some of the technical stuff like roll integration. But I really suck at the many varied snaps in F. Let alone the Unknowns. A man has to know his limitations. So I've been flying Masters for the last two seasons with the hope of being able to go to the Nats. But now that desire has been eliminated with the announcement that Masters will only have a 2 round Finals. I'm not going all that way, spend all that money and have it end up in just a 2 round Finals. Sorry, I won't do it. It leaves too much to chance. I hope this will be resolved but with the Entry deadline coming up next week I don't know if it will be fixed before that passes. And I won't be paying the ridiculously high late entry fees.

Tony Frackowiak

On Jun 16, 2017, at 8:13 AM, Dave Lockhart wrote:

Yes…..quite a bit of P17 has to be flown big to look good…..I’d wager MORE of the proposed Masters has to be flown BIG to look good.  I haven’t flown the proposed Masters, but after designing sequences for 20 years and flying F3A Unknowns for more than a decade……a vote for the proposed Masters is a vote for increased mah for the average Masters pilot.

Being open to adopting “P” for Masters has many positive points as Mark originally noted…..clarifying that is does not have to be adopted is an essential element.

Regards,

Dave

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Frackowiak Tony via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 10:44 AM
To: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - My thoughts - Long

IMO P-17 sucks. No real flow to it. Too many maneuvers that have to be flown big followed by maneuvers that look terrible flown big. I haven't even looked at P-19 as I was sure I didn't need to do so!

Tony Frackowiak

On Jun 16, 2017, at 7:30 AM, Atwood, Mark via NSRCA-discussion wrote:

So first, I’ll apologize a little for stirring the pot last night, but my desired result was this conversation.  People expressing their concerns and opinions, so this is GREAT!

At the risk of filling my inbox even more, I’d encourage many of the lurkers out there that monitor this list, but seldom chime in, to do so.  Even if it’s simply to endorse or oppose an already expressed opinion.  

On the subject of adopting the P pattern in masters, I’d like to clarify.  I’m NOT proposing, or endorsing being tied to FAI P.  Meaning we don’t need a proposal that legislates we follow the FAI P pattern for Masters.  I agree with those that state that FAI can create some wacky sequences and we don’t want to be locked to that.  BUT… we CAN put forth the proposed P pattern as our next Masters pattern and look to each successive P sequence as our starting point.  If there’s a crazy maneuver (ala the Barral roll), then we simply alter it.  It still gives us most of the advantages in judging, and flying by having a very similar pattern.  Currently, both P-17 and P-19 are very viable Masters sequences with no alteration.   Why not start there?  If P-21 is good, then great, if not, we can consider changing the one or two maneuvers that seem questionable.   That was really my intent.  Not a binding proposal.

-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

Powering The Digital Experience

On Jun 16, 2017, at 10:09 AM, Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com> 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

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

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170619/b1ba299e/attachment.html>