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

[Scott McHarg]

Hi John,

I certainly didn't say anything about negative comments.  In fact, I
believe I said that there were some great ideas.  That's why I wanted to
make sure our leadership heard the voices.

Scott

*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 3:34 PM, Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> I know that Anthony and Joe, at least, are on it.
>
> Jon
>
> On Jun 20, 2017 3:09 PM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> Scott,
>
> I can only ask why the board is not subscribed to this list?
> That is how you keep a finger on the pulse of the membership (or at least
> the vocal parts of it). Not the only way, of course.
>
> There is no requirement to respond or take action on anything the board or
> committee members read here but the threads exist to be pursued and ideas
> presented that may strike a chord.
>
> Not everything here has been negative. Many positive suggestions have been
> made.
>
> I'm sure the board could issue a waiver to the two year rule for Masters
> if they want to.  Or just change one maneuver, or two. I have candidates.
> :=)  Probably need to do that for Sportsman as well.
>
> John
>
> On 6/20/2017 7:51 AM, Scott McHarg wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170620/01074f10/attachment.html>