[NSRCA-discussion] Power points

Sat Oct 14 04:54:32 AKDT 2017

John,
That’s a great point and brings up a wonderful topic near and dear to my heart. Judging! 

(Steps on through the open door upon the soapbox)...

For far too long, judge training has been left to people’s own interest. From time to time, there are judges seminars and workshops, which are great!  But what is more common is masters will judge FAI, FAI will judge masters, and whoever is left judges the other classes. 

We are all reading the same book. All that are certified have passed the same test. There is no difference between a line, 1/4 loop, or roll components in any class. We have the E-Scribe, a friend to help call and scribe, and doing our homework before a contest, as tools to help us all prepare to judge all classes. Being able to identify and evaluate a maneuver based on its elements makes us all better judges and ultimately better pilots. 

The myth that one has to be able to fly a maneuver to be able to judge it is pretty silly when you think about it. There’s no reason we can’t have a sportsman pilot or even a non pilot who knows the rules judge fai or unknowns. 

Let’s go train up all our folks so we can all get better as a group!

(Steps down from the soapbox)

Joe

On Oct 14, 2017, at 12:28 AM, John Pavlick via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

And don’t forget who usually ends up Judging Masters at a local contest – hint it’s probably not going to be someone who’s flying FAI. 😊

John Pavlick
Cell: 203-417-4971

<image001.png>
Integrated Development Services

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Joe Lachowski via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 2:47 PM
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Power points

I know that.  And will not continue with that subject. Just stating that the sequence could be tweaked to be much better.

As for the Master Sequence, one could say it is more difficult than P19. And P19 has some issues that could have made it better in at least one spot.

If those involved just followed the guidelines a little more closely we would not have had such a controversy. Too many new maneuvers were  introduced at one time in any given sequence and the catalog of maneuvers.

One issue  I have with Masters is that there is too much stressing of knife edge flight in the sequence. Two knife edges would have been adequate. Right now even with the elimination of the knife edge in the goofball, there are still 3. When I was involved in sequence development we always tried for a balance of element types in the overall sequence.  Dave Lockhart contrived a great spreadsheet that helped give you the best picture of element count. P19 is a great example of imbalance (too many Cuban and 1/2 Cubans).  Too many knife edges gives the pilot who has the best skills in trimming an advantage not the pilots flying skills. It also penalizes deficient designs, or crooked planes from a manufacture, and older designs out there that would otherwise fly the sequence adequately. Oh I forgot, judgeablility of an up high knife edge. There was a little controversy about an up high knife edge several sequences back when I was involved, but at least the location of that knife edge was no where near as bad as the one in the Double-I will be.

And the last is the back to back snaps. Frankly, the way it is setup it disturbs the overall flow of the sequence and having a snap on a turnaround degrades judgeability. Also, the 1-12 snap will be up very high in the air after a half square on corner which is notoriously a tall maneuver. Again, harder to judge.

People  seem to forget, the judging perspective. We are already on overload when it comes to judging. Just my opinion and I will not get into any further arguments on this particular Masters sequence which I may or may not fly next season.

From: S. McNickle <nelson_jett at comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 11:09 AM
To: Joe Lachowski; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Power points

The maneuver after the cobra is a shark's tooth, not a reverse shark's tooth....it starts the same as any vertical turnaround maneuver. Just as much room as if it were a half square.

Scott

On October 13, 2017 at 1:58 PM Joe Lachowski via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

The cobra roll takes up most of the box creating somewhat of a pinch point at the turnaround and that is complicated by the snap on the back side of the cobra. A vertical maneuver would have been more appropriate.

From: John Gayer <jgg215a at comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 10:49 AM
To: Joe Lachowski; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Power points

What's wrong with the Shark's tooth?

On 10/13/2017 9:46 AM, Joe Lachowski via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
And haven't had a chance to fly it and provide constructive feedback. I say we give everyone at least two weeks to evaluate it one more time.

By the way the Advanced sequence isn't exactly perfect either. Something other than a Sharks tooth would have been  more appropriate after the cobra roll.

From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on behalf of Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 5:44 PM
To: vellum2 at bellsouth.net; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Power points

How else does the membership approve the sequences? Until today, we haven't even seen Masters, much less approved it.

Jon

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 S. McNickle via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

Joe,

I don't see anything about a 'vote' in the posted rule.  If a vote were required there would need to be some requirements regarding how...e mail?  Mail in ballot?...and a requirement concerning time period and voter qualifications.  Seems clear that a vote by the general membership was never intended.

And, as Jon Carter wrote, we have never in recent history voted on sequences..

Scott

On October 12, 2017 at 6:24 PM J via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

This one?

The Radio Control Aerobatics sequences will be developed periodically by the National Society of Radio Control Aerobatics (NSRCA) Sequence Committee which is appointed by the NSRCA Board of Directors. 

This is done. 

The NSRCA Board of Directors will supervise the sequence development and will submit the proposed sequences to the membership for approval before they approve all sequences for use in RCA competition. 

This is done.  It’s the survey, with very specific commentary that has been reviewed, modifications made, and now approved by the BoD. It was submitted to over 3000 people actually.  I see no voting requirement here. I look at the process as going above and beyond this requirement by simplifying some of the maneuvers as a result of the survey.  

All current sequences can be found at the NSRCA website. The NSRCA will modify the sequences for classes 401, 402 and 403, Indoor R/C Aerobatics Sportsman and Indoor R/C Aerobatics Intermediate at least every four years and the sequence for class 404 will be modified at least Academy of Model Aeronautics Competition Regulations | Radio Control Aerobatics 17 every two years, but sequences may be updated more frequently as required. Sequences will be published no later than December for the following year. A description of each maneuver for all sequences can be found on the NSRCA website at: http://nsrca.us/index.php/sequences.

This appears to align exactly with the process we have now completed. In fact we will now be a month ahead of schedule if we get everything posted by the end of the week. 

What am I missing?

Joe

On Oct 12, 2017, at 5:55 PM, Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com> wrote:

No! It is an NSRCA responsibility. It specifically says the NSRCA BOD will submit it to the membership for a vote.. Paragraph 15 of the rule book.

Jon

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 Joe Walker <vellum2 at bellsouth.net> wrote:

That's an AMA vote Jon, not an NSRCA vote, so we have no control over that process.  Do we?

These are the official patterns being submitted as outlined for the NSRCA responsibilities. 

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 5:24 PM, Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com> wrote:

Sorry Joe, the AMA rule book trump's the charter. It REQUIRES the membership to vote on them.  I've sent you the appropriate language from the AMA rule book at least twice. Until we vote, they cannot be implemented by the board.

Jon

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 Joe Walker <vellum2 at bellsouth.net> wrote:

Good morning guys, the board reviewed everything last night and will publish the final sequences this week.  Just so we are all on the same page, the official approval process is listed below (Directly from the charter) and is on the website for everyone to review if you're so inclined.  

The Power Points are being produced right now by Jim Hiller (Thanks Jim!)

Thanks!

Joe Walker

Approval Process
Each new sequence, or change to a sequence, shall be submitted to the General Membership and public for their review. The BoD shall approve publication of sequences on the NSRCA website for membership/public review and comment. The committee shall update their proposed sequences/changes, if required, and submit it in final form to the BoD. The BoD shall designate the Committee to prepare any inputs necessary to support the sequence changes. Recommended changes to the maneuver descriptions and judging criteria shall be coordinated with the NSRCA Rules Committee (if necessary). Any changes to the Sequence Development Guide will be made by the Committee Chairperson and submitted to the BoD for approval. Once a final set of sequences is approved by the BoD it shall be published in the K-Factor and posted on the NSRCA website. 

On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 1:40 PM, Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

We haven't voted on the sequences yet. Until we do, assuming they pass, the board can't implement them. Anything now is unofficial. At this point, AFAIK, the sequences to vote on haven't been finalized.

Jon

On Oct 10, 2017 9:01 AM, Randy Forbus via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
Are the powerpoint for the new sequences coming out soon.

_______________________________________________
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

	Virus-free. www.avg.com
_______________________________________________
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/20171014/375c0afc/attachment.html>