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

[Scott McHarg]

Sorry, I would like to rephrase my last sentence.  I'd like to blame
auto-correct but, I don't think that'll work in this case.  Sorry people.

"Truly, great comments all around but if it's not being recognized or seen
by those that can change it, what's the point?"

*Scott A. McHarg*
VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
Texas A&M University
PPL - ASEL
Remote Pilot Certified Under FAA Part 107

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's one thing for us to debate a proposed sequence that hasn't even been
> approved by the board for public comment that got out by accident and quite
> another thing to break the AMA Rules stipulating that we do change Masters
> at least once every 2 years.  I'm all in favor of this discussion but
> wouldn't it make sense that we make sure our board was picking up what
> we're putting down?  Truly, great comments all around but if it's being
> ignored by those that can change it, what's the point?
>
> *Scott A. McHarg*
> VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
> Texas A&M University
> PPL - ASEL
> Remote Pilot Certified Under FAA Part 107
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Frackowiak Tony via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
>> The Sequence Committee and the entire Sequence Development Guide was
>> established for the NSRCA to create the schedules used in the AMA Pattern
>> event. I believe the establishment of that process was key in getting the
>> rules changed to where the NSRCA had control of the patterns, not the AMA
>> R/C Aerobatics Contest Board. Are we supposed to just forget all that
>> because the ball was dropped this cycle? I think the better option since we
>> can no longer follow the established schedule is to not change the patterns
>> for this cycle. What's the worst that could happen? Everyone gets better at
>> flying them and newcomers to a class get a break?
>>
>> I don't understand your idea of forming another committee. Don't we
>> already have a Sequence Committee and a Rules Committee? Seems like they
>> are there to do what you are talking about. Of course it also seems like
>> not much was done about submitting rules proposals from the NSRCA this
>> cycle. But maybe I am not aware of why that happened.
>>
>> All in favor of eliminating the weight rule and allowing 12S. But that
>> really is another story.
>>
>> Tony Frackowiak
>>
>> On Jun 19, 2017, at 9:31 PM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I find it interesting that when we discuss using sequences developed
>> and used internationally there is substantial resistance and a lot of not
>> invented here, loss of control, etc. We can certainly overcome the loss of
>> control by keeping a modification capability when we encounter something
>> undesirable in a  sequence we want to use. Not invented here can save us a
>> lot of work,
>> >
>> > On the other hand, when we talking about rewriting rules for using 12S
>> batteries or eliminating/reducing weight restrictions for AMA classes,
>> there is a hue and cry that we have to stay in lockstep with FAI or the sky
>> will fall.
>> >
>> > I don't understand either position. We should take advantage of work
>> done around the world but not be bound to it. If we can build a better
>> mousetrap for less money, that's great. If we can't, then take advantage of
>> published and available work wherever it comes from. P19 is not terribly
>> exciting but it is easier than either the current or the new Masters
>> sequence.
>> >
>> > Keeping that in mind, I suggest we accept P19 as the Masters schedule
>> for next year only on a trial basis.
>> > In the meantime, a committee should be formed to formulate a plan for
>> future sequences.  The three sequence rotation makes a lot of sense to me
>> for Sportsman and Intermediate. Advanced could go that way too but probably
>> should adapt to whatever longterm plan is adopted for Masters. I would
>> suggest having forms available at contest to survey contestants throughout
>> the year about their sequences.
>> > At the end of the year, the committee would publish recommendations for
>> how to generate sequences for all classes. A recommendation I could make
>> right now is that the board ensures the committee adheres to the guidelines
>> and charter. The committee could make changes to the documents but would
>> need board approval for those changes prior to implementation or ask for a
>> waiver.
>> >
>> > John
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170620/0f97bfc7/attachment.html>