[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - My thoughts - Long
Joe Lachowski
jlachow at hotmail.com
Mon Jun 19 17:13:43 AKDT 2017
Looks like a rules change proposal for the next cycle to add flexibility for when changes are to be made.
________________________________
From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on behalf of Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 1:50 PM
To: atwoodm at paragon-inc.com; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - My thoughts - Long
Mark, what are we going to do with you??!!
Here is the applicable paragraph directly from the AMA rule book:
"15. Sequences
The Radio Control Aerobatics sequences will be developed periodically by the
National Society of Radio Control Aerobatics (NSRCA) Sequence Committee
which is appointed by the NSRCA Board of Directors. The NSRCA Board of
Directors will supervise the sequence development and will submit the proposed
sequences to the membership for approval before they approve all sequences for
use in RCA competition. All current sequences can be found at the NSRCA website. The NSRCA will modify the sequences for classes 401, 402 and 403,
Indoor R/C Aerobatics Sportsman and Indoor R/C Aerobatics Intermediate at
least every four years and the sequence for class 404 will be modified at least
every two years, but sequences may be updated more frequently as required.
Sequences will be published no later than December for the following year. A
description of each maneuver for all sequences can be found on the NSRCA
website at: http://nsrca.us/index.php/sequences."
Jon
________________________________
On Monday, June 19, 2017 Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:
Is there a requirement that the schedules change?
I realize we adjusted the timing to coincide with FAI so that judging schools and tests would be in synch, but I don’t think there’s a requirement to have new schedules… ever. It’s a “nice to have” isn’t it?
Speaking of judging… are the same rules applying at the Nats regarding judge certification? And will there be a judging school there?
-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
www.paragon-inc.com<http://www.paragon-inc.com/>
<http://www.paragon-inc.com/>
Powering The Digital Experience
On Jun 19, 2017, at 4:11 PM, Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
Unfortunately, at this point, we are where we are in putting together new sequences for next year. None of us like it, but it's a fact of life. We can point fingers, but it won't help moving ahead.
The question is what can be done for next year with the time available, and how does NSRCA correct the problem so it doesn't happen in the future?
A couple of thoughts/suggestions:
According to the AMA rulebook, the only sequence that has to change every two years is Masters. If the other sequences are going to take an inordinate amount of time to finalize, and will take time away from the sequence that HAS to change, they could slide to the next cycle. I don't know about other districts, but at least in mine, pilots would benefit from more time with the existing sequences. Maybe the NATs will change my opinion. Like it or not, Advanced, for example, is where Masters was a few years ago in terms of difficulty. This might not be popular, but the rules allow the other classes to change every 4 years.
Another decision that I suggest needs to be made post haste is to kill F in Masters for this cycle. That will get that controversy off the table, and allow everyone to concentrate on the new sequence. IF the sequence committee wants to propose a change to the guide for future cycles, then they need to provide ALL of the changes required, as well as complete supporting rationale for their position.
In 20/20 hindsight, one thing I wish I'd done as president, together with the BoD, was establish a standing committee for sequences, with members named in the charter, at least for a few key slots. That way there would be continuity and corporate memory for the development process. As I told Dave Lockhart at the time, I simply did not know there had been several long time members that were excluded from the new committee until after the fact. I was under the mistaken impression that each committee was disbanded after their job was done for that cycle. My bad. When someone was recommended to chair the committee, and the BoD agreed, no one mentioned an informal standing committee had previously existed to the best of my recollection. AMA has named standing committees for the Contest Board, and the FAI Team Selection, and their names an contact info is on AMA's website. No reason NSRCA cannot do the same.
I'm not sure why the Sequence committee charter document contains the development schedule rather than the Development guide. There is no reason that schedule should change. It is not year specific. The guide could easily be revised to incorporate it. Similarly, I don't know why the charter was not on the website, but the guide is.
Dave Lockhart is correct in saying that some people have felt that sequences could be developed, and the guide changed after the fact to reflect the schedules they developed. During my tenure, I "lurked" on the committee's discussion list, and had to reign in the committee through the chair a few times, off line. If the committee thought the guide needed changing for the next cycle, they were free to propose those changes, but the BoD had to approve them, and they had no effect until the next cycle.
The guide is not always perfect. For whatever reason, when I came up from sportsman thru advanced, no sequence had inverted entrances or exits. I got to Masters, and I think the first sequence I encountered had 6 or 8. I know the guide now requires them earlier. Similarly, rolling in opposite directions was not emphasized at the time. I spent a lot of the off season learning how to roll left. I believe the guide requires that in lower sequences now. So the guide shouldn't be looked at as a static document, IMHO. But changes need to be well thought out and fully supported with rationale.
I hope others will contribute some ideas to move ahead.
Jon
On Jun 19, 2017 12:53 PM, DaveL322 via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> 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 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<tel:%28440%29%20229-2502>
c. (216) 316-2489<tel:%28216%29%20316-2489>
e. atwoodm at paragon-inc.com<mailto: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/>
<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<tel:%28440%29%20229-2502>
c. (216) 316-2489<tel:%28216%29%20316-2489>
e. atwoodm at paragon-inc.com<mailto: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/>
<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: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/20170620/e0fc4aac/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list