[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA Leadership / New Sequences - My thoughts - Long
John Gayer
jgghome at comcast.net
Tue Jun 20 14:40:16 AKDT 2017
You're right. You didn't. I'm sorry.
I was trying to make a general comment. There have been negative
comments but also good suggestions promoting a ton of different viewpoints.
On 6/20/2017 2:56 PM, Scott McHarg via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> <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/d25bd6ca/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list