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

[Frackowiak Tony]

OK Joe, I apologize. But I sent emails on the 17th with questions that were never answered along with my Ph #. You have replied quickly on this list just as you did right now to others so I assumed that I was not getting the same courtesy. I hope you can see why I might think that.

Tony Frackowiak

On Jun 20, 2017, at 7:29 AM, J wrote:

> Slow down Tony. I'm not sitting in front of the computer all the time. If there is an expectation of an immediate reply, please let me know that in your email and I'll be happy to let you know if I'm able to reply that quickly. Casting shade when you have not had an immediate response is not helpful. You'll find that I am respectful of all, so please extend that courtesy to me in return. 
> 
> Rest assured that I will follow up with all that reach out. 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Joe Walker 
> 
> On Jun 20, 2017, at 10:13 AM, Frackowiak Tony via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
> You're right Scott. I have one emails sent to Joe that he has not bothered to reply. And of course last years fiasco where they wouldn't even talk to me. So not much point if the powers that be are just going to go their own way.
> 
> More important to me right now is what is going to occur at the Nats regarding the Masters Finals. The early entry deadline is this Friday.
> 
> Tony Frackowiak
>  
> On Jun 20, 2017, at 5:54 AM, Scott McHarg 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
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e189e92d/attachment.html>