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

Wed Jun 21 05:46:46 AKDT 2017

The mailbox list is heard loud and clear!  LOL - I'm setting that up ASAP.
The physical meeting at Nats happened last year, but it had been missing for a few years before that.  We lost about 70% of the pilots from the meeting as soon as it switched to the Board meeting.  And I thought it was a fun meeting!  Everyone else interpreted it as a "Bored" meeting though...  My intent is to ALWAYS have a public, in person meeting at the Nats.  As you said, just talking face to face makes things so much easier.
Joe Walker 

    On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 6:35 PM, John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net> wrote:

  Joe,
 Thanks for the reply.
 One suggestion I have is to reinstitute the physical board meeting at the Nats or perhaps a meeting with beer and whatever. It's a great opportunity to meet your fellow board members and discuss the future of pattern. Just keep it informal and fun. The idea is more to form connections then to discuss normal board business.

 Concerning the list, set up a local folder for the list and use a filter to dump into it. Then you have no additional inbox clutter and its easy to tell when there is a hot topic.

 John

 On 6/20/2017 2:43 PM, Joe Walker wrote:

  Good afternoon John, I'm not certain that the entirety of the board subscribes to the list, but I'm here now and it is a voluntary discussion list.  It's also not the only way to communicate, so if there is a hot topic you would like to see immediate action on, please send an email to the  person you are desiring to connect with.  Or better yet, a phone call.  I can tell you now from experience that it sure does fill up your inbox in a hurry!  My preference would be to change to a platform that is a bit more in line with the rest of the world, but I'm certain that will stir up another thread, thus contributing more to the inbox influx, so I'll save that for another time ;-). I can also say definitively that engaging every post is an enormous time commitment.  People like to type! 
  I think there have been many great suggestions on a variety of topics.  I'm certainly on board with several great ideas and have been, and will continue to be an advocate for reasonable discussion with suggestions to make what we do more fun for everyone. 

  Best, Joe Walker 

      On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 4:09 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.o rg
 > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman /listinfo/nsrca-discussion

 ______________________________ _________________
 NSRCA-discussion mailing list
 NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o rg
 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/20170621/bd82b222/attachment.html>