[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - Mythoughts - Long

[Curt Oberg]

I for one am confused as to how keeping the current sequences in place will
give newcomers to a class a break.  In fact, keeping the current sequences
in place is a huge break to the class sandbaggers with a newcomer to a class
competing against someone who has been flying the same sequence for years.  

Curt Oberg

-----Original Message-----
From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Frackowiak Tony via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 12:36 AM
To: John Gayer; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences -
Mythoughts - Long

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