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

[Frackowiak Tony]

Since for the most part new sequences mean a usual rise in difficulty, leaving them alone might make it easier for say a current Intermediate class pilot to move to Advanced. Maybe that Intermediate pilot has been trying some of the Advanced maneuvers they have been seeing for two years. Changing the schedule means that goes away.

It's a small thing.

Tony Frackowiak

On Jun 20, 2017, at 10:40 AM, Curt Oberg wrote:

> 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
>