[NSRCA-discussion] LONG conversation with Joe Walker on NATs, sequence proposals, and other NSRCA issues.

Tue Jun 20 10:21:01 AKDT 2017

OK, hears another "years ago" story. Years ago when you pulled out a pattern plane at the local club field, it was the center of attention. It was exciting to see and to watch fly. But over those years we have slowly legislated pattern in to organized boredom. Our planes to us are marvels of technology but to the average guy they are dull. We have to be so quiet and our box requirements make us fly too far away. Like watching paint dry if you're not in to it. Heck, at a pattern contest just look and see how many are watching the flights. It pretty much comes down to just the judges.

In IMAC the planes are exciting. Somewhat scale, and everybody likes that. Really big, so take it to the local field and you get attention. They are flown closer for the most part so that's cool. And they make some noise! Again, cool! I fly some times at Bear Mountain and they hold one of the biggest IMAC meets in this area. The majority of the flying on a weekend is large, IMAC type models. But you rarely see anyone practicing IMAC. They are all out flying their IMAC models 3D. Very little actual pattern practice. They do that the weekend before a contest. So large, loud, scale 3D flying is exciting to the club members. If they are thinking about doing any kind of competition that is where 90% will go, to IMAC.

There also was a time that pattern was a lot more blue collar then it is now. The planes were not that much more expensive then a good sport model. Those days are long gone, and so are the majority of the blue collars. With the expense of the equipment plus the expense of attending weekend contests, it is out of their reach. And if you're a white collar guy who can afford it, IMAC looks like a lot more satisfying then pattern. Plus at the local club field you can get a lot more attention. Very ego satisfying.

Just my opinion.

Tony Frackowiak 

On Jun 20, 2017, at 10:21 AM, Joe Walker via NSRCA-discussion wrote:

> Thanks Rick,
> In my opinion, you've hit the nail on the head.  I would agree that it is not the difficulty level that affects participation for most people, nor is it cost.  It's really the return on investment.  If you are enjoying the experience, you are willing to make choices that take away time and money from other activities to dedicate to this activity.  Proof in the putting is IMAC, for me locally.  They regularly have contests that are 30+ people, more of them, all in the southeast, their planes cost 2-3x (not to mention the rigs to haul them around) AND their sequences are much more challenging at the lower class levels.  IE, they have rollers in intermediate.  I realize that IMAC isn't popular in other parts of the country, but might that be because those other parts of the country don't have the concentration of pilots to make it fun? 
> 
> Fodder for thought and consumption.  
> 
> Joe Walker
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 11:05 AM, rixsweeney--- via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> My first NATS experience was when all events occurred, glad I got to experience it. My next NATS experience was when it was just a Pattern NATS. Seemed a bit dull in comparison. I really missed it.   
>  
> Rick
>  
> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>  
> From: John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 11:48 PM
> To: Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] LONG conversation with Joe Walker on NATs,sequence proposals, and other NSRCA issues
>  
> I expect it goes back to when all the events were happening at once, in one town or base, at multiple sites. Then you would need a CD to have overall authority to resolve conflicts over all the events and their EDs. Those were the days when you could feel the  dynajets firing up over at the controlline speed circles and you might lose electrical power because a combat flyaway trailed its lines over a power line. There was no time for practice, too much to see. All of modelings best, in one place, at one time. 
> 
> John
> On 6/18/2017 10:09 PM, Ronald Van Putte via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
> I don’t know when ED was first used by AMA to designate an event director, but I was the R/C Aerobatics event director for the 1996 and 1997 Nats in Muncie, so it originated before 1996.
>  
> Ron Van Putte
>  
> On Jun 18, 2017, at 4:52 PM, Larry Diamond via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>  
> Please help me understand where the term ED comes from. Since I can’t find it on the AMA website, I assume that it must be an NSRCA term documented in our Procedures, By-Laws, or something.
>  
> AMA Sanction Application: Document 302, Revision 2.14.2017
>  
> AMA Definitions:
>  
> CD – Contest Director: For all rule book sanction events. Must be identified on the AMA Sanction Application. Cannot be changed by anyone other than by the AMA or through resignation.
>  
> Event Manager: For all Non-Rule Book Sanctioned events.
>  
> The AMA does not seem to identify an “Event Director” in the Sanction Application or on the AMA website. So where does it come from?
>  
> The AMA clearly states if you have an AMA rule-book event, you must have a CD, end of story. Nowhere on the Sanction Application is it stipulated for an ED. There are 15 times Director is in the form, all of which is the CD.  In reviewing the Sanction Application, there are no previsions for a Co-Contest Director.
>  
> Who completed and signed the Sanction Application? If it is Al Glenn, then he is legally bound to the Sanction and our AMA insurance coverage depends on it. If it somebody else, then they are. If the NSRCA wishes to appoint an Event Director, it is my opinion that it becomes a supporting role to the CD. The CD is overall responsible for the contest to the AMA exclusively and to adhere to all AMA regulations and rules. I believe if there is a conflict between the NSRCA and the AMA, the AMA documentation prevails.
>  
> Any attempt to circumvent the AMA sanction by appointing somebody over a registered CD, becomes a disaster. I’m not an attorney and somebody who is should help clarify, as there becomes a risk of liability in the event of property damage or personal injury. Even a new out of school attorney wouldn’t have much of a problem with that case. At the top of the liability ring would be the NSRCA, and the AMA for allowing such a disaster to occur.
>  
> On another note, the NSCRA BoD either individually or collectively has disenfranchised at least two NSRCA members for doing the right thing. Both have served the NSRCA with Honor and dignity. To them, I personally apologize for the way the NSRCA has treated you this past few weeks. I thank you for your courage, humility, and dedication.
>  
> Joe Walker, this is on you. You are our President and the leader of the BoD. From my point of view, taking a path of ignorance does show the reason for this fiasco, but more importantly it does not show ownership of the situation at hand. You accepted the role, you own it. Please take immediate control.
>  
> For me, the website chatter is noise. Has no relevance to the situation other than to deflect responsibility of the NSRCA Leadership. Doesn’t sit well with me. Most likely because of my Military background.
>  
> Personally, I believe in you as well as the others on the BoD. I believe you will right this ship (sorry, retired Navy guy here). You have zero time to get it done.
>  
> Regarding the NATs, The registered CD is in charge and we [NSRCA] must let the CD take control. It may be better to use the same contest format as last year as we are out of time to implement changes without disenfranchising members who either will or are planning to attend.
>  
> Sorry for the rant, but it is my .02
>  
> Best Regards,
>  
> Larry Diamond
>  
> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Joe Walker via NSRCA-discussion
> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2017 2:08 PM
> To: Frackowiak Tony <frackowiak at sbcglobal.net>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Cc: John Gayer <west.engineering at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] LONG conversation with Joe Walker on NATs, sequence proposals, and other NSRCA issues.
>  
> Good afternoon all,
> I appreciate the points being brought up and will certainly work hard to ensure that all guidelines and requirements are met.  I must admit, it’s been difficult searching for information myself, let alone folks who are seeking guidance that are not directly involved in making decisions that affect all of us.  This fact alone has been a core driver in my decision to become involved in the organization in more direct way.
>  
> Now, that said, we need to find a path forward that works for the organization as a whole, and of course the entirety of the membership.  There are innumerable points that we can all get mired in, debate and get irritated about, but my primary interest is gathering all legacy information, previous comments, new input, etc., and match the task of clearly documenting and organizing that information into a useful, and user friendly format.  This serves not only my personal needs to know where to look, but also serves the membership by having all information and resources at our fingertips.
>  
> This effort has started with an overhaul of the website.  Through no individual’s actions, the previous life of the website became a repository of bits and pieces of these resources, rather than a lean and clear source of information.  Many of these resources are quite useful and had been meticulously created by NSRCA members over the years.  Unfortunately, some of documents conflict each other and some are silent on issues that need direction or clarity.  Some procedural requirements are missing all together.  Derek Koopowitz has generously donated countless hours of his personal time and financial resources to develop and maintain the web presence.  His efforts should be commended!  Peter Vogel has spent just as much time developing and refining content for the website.  What we really need now is a few folks with an eye for detail and are tuned in to procedures and rules to assist in vetting the information that we have posted and help create a more comprehensive resource that has reliable information and links to other regulatory agencies that affect our procedures.  This is a giant task that would go to serve us all well in the end.
>  
> You may ask why I am talking about the website in relation to the sequences or the format of the Nats topics du jour.  Well, it’s all related at the core of the issues at hand, information.  Many of the points that have been brought up in these discussion forums are completely reasonable points.  We need to get to a place where we are able to distance the points that are being made from the distracting emotions.  For those that have read my articles in the K-Factor, this theme has been clear and consistent.  I’ve also directly reached out and asked for folks to email me personally (via the K-Factor articles) with any legacy information that they feel is missing from the site or the decisions they see that are being made.  We have an opportunity to make course corrections pretty easily in most cases to adjust the path of a project, task, or procedure, but this requires assistance from the entire membership.  It especially requires the long term members who have served in these previous capacities to contribute.
>  
> I am always seeking passionate volunteers to devote their skills and energy towards making the processes better. I commit to keeping the NSRCA on a forward trajectory by doing my best to ensure that decisions are followed through with and tasks are completed.  Clearly things will be missed, and I’m certainly not claiming perfection.  I am seeking assistance though.  Are you willing to contribute to a solution to help keep the NSRCA organized, accessible and responsive to the needs and desires of the membership?  If so, please reach out to me directly and I’m happy to work together to forge a plan that benefits all of us.  I appreciate the extra effort that Jon Lowe made to speak with me directly and help turn a situation he was unhappy about into a productive strategy to make it better.  I’m available (mostly…), and I invite folks to give me a ring.  Let’s talk it out and develop a solution together.  “The Board” is not a secret society of folks looking to destroy what we have, it’s a group of folks who have volunteered their personal time to help make our weekend fun with toy airplanes more enjoyable by alleviating the general membership of daunting task of organization.  Please reach out to your DVP’s and help them communicate concerns and ideas that can be formally presented to the Board for discussion and approval.
>  
> Best,
> Joe Walker,
> NSRCA President
>  
>  
> On Jun 18, 2017, at 12:47 PM, Frackowiak Tony via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>  
> +1. Thank you John. Just as a side note. I was on the Sequence Committee for the previous 2 cycles. I was not informed in any way that I would not still be on the Sequence Committee. I was also very surprised that the BOD appointed a Chairperson who had never participated in the process before. In the past, I believe, the Chair always came from the existing Committee.
>  
> Tony Frackowiak
>  
> On Jun 18, 2017, at 9:21 AM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Jon,
> 
> Relative to the scheduling of the new sequences, there is a document that addresses the timeline for the sequence committee. This document is not on the website, at least not in the logical place under sequence development. Here is the section about the schedule. This document was generated in 2012 to separate the functions of the committee from the sequence development guide which gets some updates every cycle.
> 
> 4 Suggested Sequence Submittal Process
> The following is the recommended timeline for the development and submission of new sequences. Sequence
> development should always start in two years prior to when the sequence is to be replaced. For example, if the
> Masters sequence (2 year lifecycle) is to be replaced in 2015 (X) then work on the development of a new
> sequence should start in 2013 (X – 2). What follows is a timeline showing the activity (task) and the month the
> activity should start:
> TASK TIMELINE
> Assign and approve Committee Chairperson October - year X – 2
> Committee Chairperson recruits Committee Membership October – year X - 2
> BoD approves Committee Membership November – year X - 2
> Establish development schedule December – year X - 2
> Review design criteria/receive BoD approval for changes December – year X - 2
> Develop preliminary changes/sequences and flight test January through March – year X - 1
> Publish for public comment on NSRCA website/K-Factor April through May – year X - 1
> Finalize changes/sequence selection based on comments June through August – year X - 1
> Submit proposed changes/sequences to BoD for approval October– year X - 1
> Publish approved sequences on NSRCA website/K-Factor November – year X -1
> New sequences in use January – year X
> 
> There is no question about the requirement for publishing the proposed sequences. It was supposed to happen the beginning of April. From your email it appears that neither you or Joe were aware of  the publication requirement or the dates involved. I know you addressed the lack of continuity between boards in your ppost but I believe the Committee had this document and should have shared it with the board. Certainly all past Committee members had a copy.
> 
> There is another section in this document that addresses the makeup of the committee and the oversight function of the board.
> 
> 2.3 Membership
> There should be at least six Committee members excluding the Chairperson and should, if possible, contain at
> least one member who is currently competing in each of the AMA classes There should be representation from
> as many NSRCA districts as possible on the committee. Non pilots and non NSRCA members may be
> committee members, provided that their qualifications meet the approval of the Chairperson and the BoD. The
> Committee shall contain at least one current member of the BoD. All members of the Committee are voting
> members.
> 
> 2.5.1 Standard Committee Procedures
> • The NSRCA President shall be the primary point of contact for communications between the
> Committee Chairperson and the Board on all matters of directive nature, and for deliverables from
> the Committee.
> • The Chairperson will select members for his/her committee and propose a team to the BoD.
> • The BoD will review the Committee for national (District) balance and representation across
> Intermediate through Masters Classes and, if necessary, provide recommendations on the
> Committee members to the Chairperson. The BoD will then vote to accept or reject the proposed
> Committee members.
> • The Chairperson and Committee members agree to work as a team and reach a consensus on the
> Committee’s proposals. They agree to support the Committee’s proposal and not submit separate
> proposals on these sequences to the BoD.
> • The Committee shall perform their tasks within the schedule of milestones as defined by the BoD.
> • The Committee will produce proposed changes to sequences based on input from the membership
> and their experience. The sequences will be published in the K Factor and on the NSRCA website
> for review.
> • The Committee will coordinate with the Rules/Judging Committee Chairperson to produce the
> final proposals, with supporting rationale, to be approved by the BoD.
> • Sequences for Sportsman, Intermediate, Advanced and Masters Class will be developed for
> presentation to and review by the precision aerobatics community on the NSRCA website. New
> sequences may not necessarily be presented for all classes.
> 
> I have cherry-picked the pertinent sections from the document but have also attached the complete document.  It's pretty clear that the directives contained here were not followed. The current committee makeup does not conform to the document in terms of consensus,  geographical distribution, number of members or the requirement for a current board member.
> 
> On another subject, It is my understanding from when I was on the board that the NSRCA board proposes the ED to the AMA. Once that is done, the ED responsibility  is to the AMA not the NSRCA. At that point, the NSRCA no longer has any authority over the ED. If that is still the case, how is the board creating Co-EDs or changing the ED? And directing change to the finals from the originally published setup when this is solely up to the ED? It is very late to be running surveys and reevaluating procedures with the start barely a month away. Even the survey itself seems to be problematic. I've attended four of the last six Nats, year before last in Masters but didn't qualify for the survey? 
> 
> Also we are finding out that the F3A finals have been changed back to the normal format. We find this out because Jon had a long conversation with Joe and posted on the list? I can't find anything on the website about the Co-CD change, the survey, the change to the F3A final or what's going on with the sequence committee, committee members or committee members that have resigned and been replaced. The Masters finals sequence that was developed without establishing any sequence guidelines( at least not that were  published) or buyin from the board is a case in point of the lack of transparency of the current committee.
> 
> John Gayer
> On 6/18/2017 6:25 AM, Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
> Joe and I had a LONG conversation Saturday about the NATS, sequences, and NSRCA in general.  This email is what I heard based on that conversation and he knows I'm writing this. I've known Joe for a number of years, and we are good friends, so we had a very frank discussion. I don't think I swallowed any koolade, but you be the judge
> First though, I am as guilty as anyone in reacting to stuff on this discussion list, without picking up the phone or calling people directly. No excuse, but modern media at work. I should know, as a past president of NSRCA, how hard it can be to get to ground truth sometimes, and to make sure accurate info is distributed. For that, I apologize.
> One thing I didn't realize, was that until yesterday, Joe was not on this discussion list. He's primarily used the NSRCA Facebook page. He's catching up now with all of the discussions here over the past couple of weeks.
> You've probably seen by now the letter on Mike Harrison and Al Glenn being co-EDs for the NATS. Joe realizes that decision and clarification had not been made either to them, the NSRCA BoD, or the membership, and it wasn't documented on the NSRCA website. Joe and the BoD are working on remedies to make sure oversights like that don't happen again. The BoD meeting was a couple of nights ago, and it was clarified then, and put out to the membership.
> The changes to the format of the NATS was also discussed. The final format is the EDs call, as long as it is by the rule book. But as I reminded Joe, the finals for Masters was eliminated a couple of years ago to great hue and cry when it was unnecessary to use the matrix system, and was reinstated the following year. So tread carefully. He pointed out that this year's NATS is trying something that hasn't been done in years, and that some changes happen as a result. This should have been better communicated to the membership. The survey that went out yesterday was to affected entrants to last year's and this year's NATS.  However, if the changes to the finals are affecting your decision on whether or not to enter the NATS, I urge you to contact Joe. His email and phone number are in the back of any KFactor. He did say that so far the survey is about 80% for the shortened Masters finals. I don't know though how many responses he's received. Incidentally, FAI has reverted to a 2-F, 2- unknown finals format, according to Joe.
> He realizes that NSRCA and the membership is in a time crunch for vetting and getting approval for the new AMA sequences for next year. The BoD first saw them a few hours before we did, and it became clear during the BoD meeting that they needed a separate meeting to discuss and vet them. Significant discussion centered around the proposal for a Master's class finals. That isn't contemplated in the Sequence guide, and there hasn't been any decision on putting that before the membership or not.  According to Joe, neither he, nor other  members of the BoD knew that a finals sequence would be proposed, total surprise. Obviously, to get feedback to make necessary changes, get approval from the membership, final approval by the BoD and to publish all of the new sequences by years end is going to be tough. Joe clearly understands that challenge.  In addition, he said he recalls no discussion one way or the other during the BoD meeting about distributing what they got from the sequence committee to the general membership. I told him I felt that the sooner they get feedback the better, and he agreed. Constructive feedback to Joe or your District VP is encouraged. I know there have been some personal issues that resulted from the distribution of the sequences, and Joe and others are working to correct those problems. I hope they can be resolved also. Those involved will know what I'm talking about.
> It still is not clear to me, and I think Joe, why the sequences we're developed in such secrecy.  This definitely didn't help the current controversy. I told Joe that drafts should have been out months ago for comment. He agreed that this needs to be the process going forward, and the procedure guide for developing the sequences may need clarification for timelines and transparency.
> One of the things I faced, and Joe is facing, is loss of corporate knowledge anytime there is new leadership in charge. This is especially true of volunteer organizations with no central office. I have some things I think can help, and I will make sure Joe gets them. If you have old files or other information you think might benefit him or the BoD, please contact him.
> I emphasized to Joe the need for fast communication on hot topics, even to say they're working on it, and will get back to us. He gets it, and I think being on this list he will get and can react to the hot issues of the moment.
> Do I agree with everything Joe said and the BoDs actions? Of course not; I'd be surprised if I did. Pattern fliers are, if nothing else, opinionated SOB's. Can they do better, especially with communication? Surely, and I think Joe gets that. And I'm going to try to improve my communication with Joe and my DVP, Larry Kauffman, before I express displeasure here.
> Jon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>  
> <NSRCA_Pattern_Sequence_Development_Committee_Charter_Rev1p1_10-01-12.pdf>_______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170620/1bd6e9d6/attachment.html>