[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - My thoughts - Long
John Gayer
jgghome at comcast.net
Mon Jun 19 16:17:29 AKDT 2017
Both sets of comments are good. I have a few more.
The double Key with the same rolls as the proposed Masters sequence is
in P19 with a K of 5. I've noticed before that there is some kfactor
creep in maneuvers intended for the A sequences.
There are insufficient inverted exits as per the guide. 8 point already
brought up
Maneuver 4 is really a 3/4 roll and reverse 1/4 roll. No room in that
leg for extended knife edge but where's the center on that leg? Or is
this intended to be some kind of broad base slanted "Z" or Italicized Z?
12 should be the missing 8 pt.
In general there is an infatuation with excess in the vertical roll
segments causing the vertical issues mentioned. Even the keyhole could
be done with 1/2 rolls throughout. Doesn't lose difficulty only altitude.
One snap roll on 45 downline in 4 and a downline snap at the end of box?
How about making maneuver 4 a 1.5 snap and 2of4 on bottom leg? Put the
second snap somewhere on a climbing leg.
Speaking of weird KFactors - how about 16? 2 slow rolls opposite with no
hesitation is a K3? Really? This looks like a kfactor decrease to
avoid exceeding the maximum sequence kfactor of 63 listed in the guide.
What is the point of the 2of2 in the 1/2 square on corner? What is
accomplished that wouldn't be better with a 1/2 roll in each leg?
John
On 6/19/2017 5:12 PM, Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>
> 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
> <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
> <mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>>; 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
> 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 <mailto: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
> <http://www.paragon-inc.com>
> *Powering The Digital Experience*
> On Jun 16, 2017, at 10:09 AM, Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com
> <mailto: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 <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 Tab® 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
>
> c. (216) 316-2489
>
> e. atwoodm at paragon-inc.com <mailto: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
> <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
> <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
>
> c. (216) 316-2489
>
> e. atwoodm at paragon-inc.com <mailto: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
> <http://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: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/20170620/39e63a32/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list