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

Tue Jun 20 15:20:01 AKDT 2017

Wait....what???  I'm right???  :)

On Jun 20, 2017 5:40 PM, "John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion" <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> 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> 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
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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/a7c7a5f2/attachment.html>