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

[Vicente Bortone]

Hi Dave,

Choose to adopt the P to Masters will help a lot in local contest when we
have too many Masters pilots registered.  Then it is easier to split the
group.  I understand that it is very specific situation that happens in
local contest.  Also when there is only one FAI-F3A pilot and he does not
want to fly alone.  This actually happened in my contest last week end.

Vicente "Vince" Bortone

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 6:11 PM Dave Lockhart via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> John,
>
>
>
> In my recent posts, I’ve specifically not referenced individuals as it is
> not my goal to negatively portray any individuals that are volunteering
> time in complex processes.
>
>
>
> The cycle after I was not invited to participate in the Sequence
> Committee, I’m pretty sure no one from my District was asked to be involved
> initially (they would have asked why I was not involved).  After being
> added, there were a great many times the guy from my district asked my
> advice and expressed frustration with how the process was not following the
> guidelines.  The biggest issue was plain and simple…difficulty creep in all
> classes.  The most blatant example was the inclusion of more complex
> maneuvers that were artificially assigned low KFactors to stay within
> guidelines.
>
>
>
> Regarding my prior use of P and F…..I may have been too brief with my
> prior question.  To restate – For the current and probable Masters pilots
> that support the idea of a preliminary and finals sequence (both unique to
> Masters) for the Masters class, why are you not moving to FAI?
>
>
>
> I’ve previously noted I do not support tying AMA Masters to FAI Prelims
> schedule.  IF the FAI Prelims schedule is a good one, we can CHOOSE to
> adopt it for Masters, or modify to the extent that makes sense, and adopt a
> modified FAI Prelim schedule for Masters.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> *From:* NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> *On Behalf Of *John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion
> *Sent:* Monday, June 19, 2017 4:21 PM
> *To:* DaveL322 via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - My
> thoughts - Long
>
>
>
> Dave,
>
> The previous two sequence committees under Dale Olstinske made a definite
> effort to comply with the guidelines for setting up the committee. There
> were committee members from most districts and I believe all classes were
> covered, including Sportsman. There was a definite effort to comply with
> the specific sequence guidelines for each class. It's possible that
> something fell in the cracks but I doubt it. There were a lot of eyes
> looking for guideline violations.
> As has been the history of a number of sequence committees, the guidelines
> were modified to incorporate some new maneuvers. Also, the guidelines were
> changed and approved by the committee and the board to allow simple
> roll/loop combinations. No such maneuvers were incorporated  until the
> following cycle so there was springing of previously illegal maneuvers all
> in one cycle.
>
> Which brings us to the current committee and there I agree with you about
> both charter and guideline violations.
>
> When you refer to P and F for Masters, Are those the international symbols
> or strictly local for Masters dedicated sequences? I haven't heard of
> anyone supporting using both FAI p and f sequences for masters. For that
> matter, I don't know who, aside from the current sequence committee, is in
> favor of using two sequences in Masters at all. I'm certainly not.
>
> I am in favor of using the FAI "P" for Masters, particularly if we can
> avoid this major bruhaha every two years. All the other classes tend to
> shut up and go fly their new sequence.
>
> John
>
> On 6/19/2017 10:30 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>
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> Date: 6/19/17 11:41 AM (GMT-05:00)
>
> To: Richard Wallace <rickwallace45 at gmail.com> <rickwallace45 at gmail.com>
>
> Cc: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> <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>
> wrote:
>
> Scott, all -
>
> This is quite a discussion - and it seems there are some major points of
> agreement here - as well as some triggers for introspection and
> re-examination about why folks do the "Pattern" thing.
>
> I'm one of those who no longer flies competitively, after being pretty
> active for a decade. I was never really competitive in Pattern, but had a
> great time, made some true friends, and became a MUCH better R/C pilot
> through my few thousand practice and contest flights. I wanted to share
> share some thoughts about staying in Pattern, and about sequence design,
> and ... stuff.
>
> I stayed in Pattern for more than a decade because it was a challenge that
> seemed (for the first years) achievable. I certainly got better as i flew
> more, and had some limited success at local contests (never at the Nats,
> tho that was fun too for a long time) - and again, it was FUN hanging out
> with, and competing against the local gang. I even had fun as a DVP for a
> few of those years, and hopefully made a difference while in that position.
>
> A few things piled up later on to make Pattern less fun. First, my job
> moved me to a new area where there is little Pattern activity.
>
> Second, the move from Glow to Electric turned out to be quite a change -
> "Tradin' in my WIndex for a Generator" turned out to require a new mindset,
> different skills (power / mah management!), equipment, etc, and a different
> approach to casual flying - hard to decide on Saturday morning to go out to
> the field if you didn't invest part of Friday night charging batteries...
>
> Third, I realized that I probably had some hard limitations on physical
> ability (involving depth perception / distance - judging capability at 150m
> at speed...)
>
> And changing sequences... both a blessing and a curse... Dave Lockhart,
> Joey Lachowski and others on the first Sequence Committees laid down some
> great guidelines, and I really enjoyed flying the sequences they proposed
> and created.   But.... it did get to be more work to stretch to each of the
> new sequences as they came out. This is a good thing, I'm sure, up to a
> point.
>
>
>
> All this, and consistent "also-ran" results at local Masters contests (and
> bottom of the field results at the Nats) despite the practice and time and
> $$ spent, made me decide over time that there might be better ways to spend
> my leisure time...
>
> Anyway, the final thought about sequences is that Rick the former
> mediocre, run of the mill Pattern pilot believes that Masters is *and
> should remain* a true destination class, rather than some kind of
> stepping stone to whatever the FAI puts out from cycle to cycle. The FAI -
> aspiring pilots will get there on their own, without an ever-tougher US
> Masters class as a stepping stone (and besides - if Masters gets tougher,
> then doesn't that *mandate* tougher Intermediate and advanced sequences
> as US Pattern stepping stones???).
>
> I was a below-average Masters pilot who loved flying and hanging out and
> judging (even those impossible P and F sequences!) ... but never had any
> desire at all to get proficient in rolling loops or circles or that kind of
> stuff *as part of a graded sequence*. I'll mess with them with a sport
> plane, sure, but just don't want to be required to fly  them with my main
> competition bird under all the possible weather conditions we'd compete
> in...
>
>
>
> Staying in the NSRCA?
>
>  - Is the local pattern group fun to hang out with?
>
>  - Are there contests within reasonable driving distance?
>
>  - Is the NSRCA leadership visible and accessible? Can a guy just talk to
> them?
>
>  - Is what they're doing visible to the members? (this whole discussion
> thread may shed some light on that... ???)
>
>  - Is there a way for the Board to find out periodically what the members
> are thinking / wanting/ needing? (and this set probably looks different for
> different age / skill / interest / $$-equipped groups)
>
>  - What does the NSRCA add to the Pattern experience of the local pattern
> guy? - or the guy who's considering trying pattern out?
>
> Thanks for listening, those of you still carrying the torch - maybe I'll
> see you on the flightline sometime!
>
> Exiting the (soap)box!
>
> Rick Wallace
>
> AMA L727
>
> (Former) NSRCA 2792
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Scott McHarg via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> Mark and I spent some time yesterday talking about all of this being
> discussed.  I am completely on board with his proposal(s) personally and,
> to be honest, it would be nice to hear from the board on these matters.
> I'd like to thank Anthony Romano for saying something to this discussion.
> I do think it's important for us to remember that Scott McNickle put these
> "proposed" sequences out to his district for comment (as we are all doing)
> but *prior* to the BoD even having a discussion about these for
> submission to the populace.  It is possible the BoD may reject this in part
> or in whole.  What has come out is the first step.  The second step is for
> the BoD to make a decision if it's even something they want to put out for
> us to decide if we like it or not.  Then, we get our hands on it and have
> our say-so.  In essence, I think we should give the BoD a chance to filter
> through the information.  These are not what the BoD has approved for our
> digestion, merely, a proposal from a committee.
>
>
>
> Lastly, I've been thinking a lot about the pattern community and why its
> membership is declining.  We spend a lot of time trying to figure out how
> to get new blood in to increase attendance.  I think it's important, as
> some have eluded to, to concentrate to some extent on keeping those
> involved in pattern happy and involved.  Attendance has always come in
> waves.  Some years we have a ton in the lower classes followed by lower
> attendance in those classes.  It's been the norm forever.  What I see
> happening now is that does indeed continue.  The problem is the decline in
> the upper classes.  Our staunch supporters and purveyors of pattern on
> packing it up and doing something else.  We no longer have a jam in Masters
> at every contest and this holds true even in FAI while Advanced and
> Intermediate thrive at about the normal average.  Just have a look at the
> NATS registration in Masters for proof.  Maybe our thoughts need to turn
> more to keeping our members that have been flying forever.  The most
> attractive thing to a newcomer isn't what plane is being flown or whose
> sandbagging.  It's looking around the pit area and seeing everyone having a
> great time and taking interest in what's in the air and whose flying.  Who
> has smiles on their face versus what group is huddled together complaining
> about the complexities of political BS.  If I were new to this sport and
> the people that have been doing this a while...the people I should be
> looking up to...are all disgruntled by what's going on, I'm not too sure
> I'd want to be a part of that and become "grumpy" about my sport that I was
> considering.
>
>
>
> I suggest turning to the folks that are in the sport and enjoy it and see
> how to keep them.  This, in turn, will actually help bring in new folks as
> well.  People enjoying what they do instead of wanting to get out will
> surely attract more than the other way.
>
>
> *Scott A. McHarg*
>
> VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
>
> Texas A&M University
>
> PPL - ASEL
>
> Remote Pilot Certified Under FAA Part 107
>
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Joe Lachowski via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> From my experience in the past we had a bunch of people who were supposed
> to participate in the sequence development process. It always wound up
> being a hand full doing all the work and the rest looking in or not even
>  participating like they should have. It was frustrating to see.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on
> behalf of Frackowiak Tony via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 16, 2017 7:49 AM
> *To:* Jon Lowe; General pattern discussion
>
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - My
> thoughts - Long
>
>
>
> I was told it is Sean (D8- Masters), his friend Derek Emmett (D7 -
> Masters), Stuart Chale (?) and Jim Hiller (?). Sorry, I don't know the
> districts and classes of Stuart and Jim. But this in itself seems against
> the norms. Only 4 members? 2 of which as far as I know are from the west
> coast. Really improper.
>
>
>
> Tony Frackowiak
>
> On Jun 16, 2017, at 7:09 AM, Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>
>
>
> Anthony,
> Who is on the sequence committee besides Sean Mersh?
>
> Jon
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> On Thursday, June 15, 2017 Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Before you all get out your lanterns and pitch forks let me provide a
> little of the pending update.
>
>
>
> The sequences were given to the board just a few hours before last night's
> meeting. Since the board did not have time to review them and had more
> pressing concerns we agreed to table them until a separate meeting could be
> scheduled for the BOD to review them and vote on them before they are
> distributed.
>
>
>
> An update on the Nats will be published before the weekend.
>
>
>
>
>
> Anthony
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my Galaxy Tab® S2
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
>
> From: "Atwood, Mark via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-
> discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> Date: 6/15/17 11:13 PM (GMT-05:00)
>
> To: Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com>, General pattern discussion <nsrca-
> discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - My
> thoughts - Long
>
>
>
> Umm…. Sorry guys.  My DVP has been doing his best to forward minutes and
> documents to our D4 Mailing list as soon and as often as he can.  We love
> him!
>
>
>
> I will try to attach here the sequence proposals that were sent out last
> night prior to the BOD Meeting (he received them last night as well, and
> circulated them for feedback from our District.).  The resulting email
> firestorm and discussion is what prompted my earlier diatribe and
> recommendations.
>
>
>
>
>
> *MARK **ATWOOD*
>
> o.  (440) 229-2502
>
> c.  (216) 316-2489
>
> e.  atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
>
>
>
> *Paragon Consulting, Inc.*
>
> 5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
>
> www.paragon-inc.com
>
>
>
> *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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-- 
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170620/de4550c9/attachment.html>