<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<STYLE>P {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1593" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Joe et al, regarding the humpty "pinch point" in the
current Masters schedule. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I'm baffled as to what is wrong with the humpty prior to
the figure-M. This is a piece of cake to get in the box "IF" you plan ahead and
don't draw out the reverse 4-point to long. Did it bite me the first few times
through the sequence? Sure, but all you have to do is plan ahead, this is part
of the challenge. Does it still bite me sometimes, yes, rarely, but when it does
I know I'm not thinking ahead or I've gotten out of position. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Guys this is Masters, if it's not challenging with some
things that will bite you why call it Masters?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>For the record, I think the 2007 pattern is an awesome
flowing pattern, Troy and the sequence committee did a great job. My only
constructive comment is that contests would run smoother if it were about a
minute or so shorter. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Keith</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=jlachow@hotmail.com href="mailto:jlachow@hotmail.com">Joe
Lachowski</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, July 27, 2007 7:03 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] CB member
RFC on Proposed MastersSequence for 2009/2010</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Lance,<BR> <BR>Regarding Masters sequences trending
easier. I think if we stay within the guidelines that were established, this
will never be an issue. (IE certain total K-Factor range and making sure there
are at least a few maneuvers which some of us call separators are used among
other things). The overall difficulty will always fluctuate. Eliminating pinch
points is perhaps one of the most difficult things to get right in this
process. We also don't want a sequence that is heavy on a certain skill
(IE 4 snaps instead of the traditional 2) It was also voted on in
surveys past that we don't want a Masters sequence quite on par with the
FAI sequence which is why two of the criteria that we felt should only be
left to FAI are rollers and geometric shapes with integrated rolling elements.
If you want to fly these type maneuvers you move up to FAI and take your
lumps<g><BR> <BR>Speaking of pinch points, anyone want to submit an
emergency type proposal to fix the humpty before the Figure-M in the current
sequence before next year?<g><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
<HR id=stopSpelling>
<BR>> From: patterndude@tx.rr.com<BR>> To:
nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:41:56
-0500<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] CB member RFC on Proposed
Masters Sequence for 2009/2010<BR>> <BR>> I'm on the contest board and
there are more active pattern pilots on it now <BR>> than ever before. The
recent change to 2 year cycles also happened with a <BR>> breakup of
contest boards. Our board is exclusively to approve pattern. <BR>> Can't
get much more focused than that. The process is cumbersome and I <BR>>
can't say I endorse it, but I'm going to work with it so the board support
<BR>> pattern and the collective wishes of the NSRCA.<BR>> <BR>> The
timeline is in the AMA CB Procedures doc, which I have in front of me <BR>>
right now. There are many steps but the critical ones are simple:<BR>>
Basic (initial) Proposals submitted by Sept 30<BR>> Dec 15, prelim votes by
CB cast (1st cut to see which proposals are properly <BR>> formed and
should continue)<BR>> Mar 1, Cross proposal deadline (alternate proposals
accepted to achieve an <BR>> approved initial proposal)<BR>> May 15,
Final ballots sent to CB and final vote is completed<BR>> Jan 1, new rules
take effect.<BR>> <BR>> >From this you can see that the process takes
about 1 year and 3 months. <BR>> Proposals in this Sept (07) take effect
Jan 09.<BR>> <BR>> This is the "normal" cycle, but there are off cycle
proposals of type <BR>> safety, emergency, urgent or interpretation. I
don't know about the board, <BR>> but I'm totally open to any and all
proposals as the workload to read, take <BR>> the pulse of my district and
vote/comment is far less than keeping up with <BR>> this list!<BR>>
<BR>> Comment on sequences:<BR>> *All sequences have squeezes and rough
spots. The more we worry about them <BR>> the harder it is to change
sequences when we want to. Fly them as best you <BR>> can and try to do
better than the next guy.<BR>> <BR>> *Masters should never conciously
trend to easier sequences. Sure one may be <BR>> easier than the last, but
this shouldn't trend. It should be held at a <BR>> constant difficulty at
least, and other classes are stepping stones to it. <BR>> The jump from
Advanced to Masters last time was not enough as we beat that <BR>> to death
on the list. Now we've swung the other way. Shouldn't we balance <BR>> the
steps, not change the target difficulty level?. Now let me take this a
<BR>> bit farther (maybe too far) The Masters sequence we flew a few years
ago <BR>> with YS120SCs were the same difficulty as the current sequences
we now fly <BR>> with 1.60 2 strokes and improved supercharged 4 strokes.
Airplane design <BR>> has improved and so have the computer radios. We used
to have coreless <BR>> servos, now digital. Consider that maybe we should
have harder sequences if <BR>> we want to compare ourselves to our
predecessors.<BR>> <BR>> *I think the current feeling is that Sports,
Int, Adv should change less <BR>> frequently than Masters since designing
building blocks is much harder than <BR>> single sequences and many pilots
move up after a few years. What I've heard <BR>> as the goal is to change
the stepping classes no faster than every 4 years, <BR>> but change Masters
every 2.<BR>> <BR>> *Let's not reorient the sequences to accommodate a
new technology.<BR>> <BR>> I do not want to form my opinion in a vacuum
so feel free to comment.<BR>> --Lance<BR>> <BR>> ----- Original
Message ----- <BR>> From: "Mark Atwood"
<atwoodm@paragon-inc.com><BR>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List"
<nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007
12:20 PM<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for
2009/2010<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > Ron (RVP), Can you lay out for all of
us the chronology of what has to<BR>> > happen to get a new sequence
in?<BR>> ><BR>> > I think this would be enlightening to most as to
what a PITA it is <BR>> > calendar<BR>> > time wise.<BR>>
><BR>> > I.e. To put the process in place that Ed is suggesting, I
think would put <BR>> > a<BR>> > new sequence out at least 4 years
from the "start" of creating it.<BR>> ><BR>> > So I'd be curious
to see the timeline..<BR>> ><BR>> > "We need a new sequence..." -
Day 1<BR>> ><BR>> > Form a committee - x weeks or months<BR>>
><BR>> > Create sequence - X Months<BR>> ><BR>> > Review
by NSRCA Board/put out for survey - X Months<BR>> ><BR>> > Blah
blah blah...<BR>> ><BR>> > AND THEN...work backwards for the AMA
process...<BR>> ><BR>> > Submission to the AMA for the 20XX year
rules has to occur years before it<BR>> > goes into effect (prelim vote,
changes, final vote, publication, etc etc)<BR>> ><BR>> > I think
Ron has a feel for the required process, but I'd love to hear what<BR>>
> the beginning to "in effect" time lag is for a new sequence under the
AMA<BR>> > rules process.<BR>> ><BR>> > -M<BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>> > On 7/26/07 11:59 AM, "Ed Alt"
<ed_alt@hotmail.com> wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> >> Doug:<BR>>
>> I agree that we should not have a panel of non-enthusiasts in charge
of <BR>> >> the<BR>> >> actual sequence design. I don't
think I stated my point too well. The <BR>> >> SIG<BR>> >>
does contain the best source of knowledge to construct sequences. Given
<BR>> >> the<BR>> >> right structure to how the committee is
formed and how their work <BR>> >> overseen<BR>> >> is what
is criitical. I don't think NSRCA has this process quite right <BR>>
>> yet.<BR>> >> This isn't meant to criticize anyone, but I
think that more thought has <BR>> >> to<BR>> >> be put into
how we manage the process in the future.<BR>> >><BR>> >> It
seems to me that the Sequence Committee work should first pass muster<BR>>
>> with the NSRCA board, who should review it to make sure that it
certain<BR>> >> criteria are met, not whether personally like it or
not. What is that<BR>> >> criteria? That needs to be better defined.
It appears to take the form <BR>> >> of<BR>> >> tribal
knowledge. One attempt to put some structure to evaluating a <BR>> >>
sequence<BR>> >> is via a tool that Dave Lockhart developed , which I
think is very <BR>> >> useful.<BR>> >> However, is this
developed to the point it needs to be? Whatever method <BR>> >>
we<BR>> >> use to create and evaluate should be well understood and
applied<BR>> >> consistently.<BR>> >><BR>> >>
Beyond how we establish consistency within our SIG, it seems that the
EC<BR>> >> role ought to be to review that their flock of SIGS
followed AMA <BR>> >> guidelines<BR>> >> for producing their
work, not to define exactly how they produce the work<BR>> >> product
(the sequences in this case). So, the EC should demand that the <BR>>
>> SIG<BR>> >> has a defined procedure and that the SIG
leadership has assured <BR>> >> compliance<BR>> >> through
their oversight and ultimately, their signatures on the product.<BR>>
>><BR>> >> Ed<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>>
>>> From: Doug Cronkhite <seefo@san.rr.com><BR>>
>>> Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List
<nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> >>> To: NSRCA
Mailing List <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> >>>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for
2009/2010<BR>> >>> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:04:26 -0700<BR>>
>>><BR>> >>> Just because you CAN change them every year
doesn't mean you have to or<BR>> >>> should. I agree with you that
the lower classes should have some<BR>> >>> stability so newer
pilots have a chance to build the foundation the<BR>> >>> higher
classes require.<BR>> >>><BR>> >>> I think the SIG
should absolutely have control of the schedules, as the<BR>> >>>
people leading the SIG are generally actively involved in the sport.<BR>>
>>> Other than Tony Stillman, are any of the EC active in pattern?
Because<BR>> >>> if they're not, then I don't think they can make
an accurate assessment<BR>> >>> of the needs of the SIG. Tony may
be the only one on the EC who even<BR>> >>> flies anything on a
regular basis now.<BR>> >>><BR>> >>> -Doug<BR>>
>>><BR>> >>>> I like variety in schedules too, but I
think there is a balance to<BR>> >>>> strike with the lower
classes. It's a lot of effort each year to<BR>> >>>> learn a
new sequence. Once you have enough experience flying<BR>> >>>>
aerobatics, you can focus on new sequences without detracting from the<BR>>
>>>> other improvements you want to make.<BR>>
>>>><BR>> >>>> Re. giving the SIG all the control,
I would not want to see that<BR>> >>>> happen. In the case of
IMAC, the SIG leadership became very IAC<BR>> >>>> centric and
made changes that work against being able to learn<BR>> >>>>
fundamentals before moving up, in favor a being a carbon copy<BR>>
>>>> miniature of IAC. Just look at what the IMAC lower class
sequences<BR>> >>>> now contain and consider what problems they
represent for learning<BR>> >>>> fundamentals. I think you need
an effective counterbalance to help<BR>> >>>> keep sanity to
the sequence design.<BR>> >>>><BR>> >>>>
Ed<BR>> >>>><BR>> >>><BR>> >>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> >>>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> >>>
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >>>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>>
>><BR>> >>
_________________________________________________________________<BR>>
>> http://newlivehotmail.com<BR>> >><BR>> >>
_______________________________________________<BR>> >>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> >>
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> ><BR>>
> _______________________________________________<BR>> >
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> >
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <BR>> <BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR><BR><BR>
<HR>
See what you’re getting into…before you go there. <A
href="http://newlivehotmail.com" target=_new>Check it out!</A>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>