<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>OK, Apology retracted!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I guess VPs and others will have to decide how they feel about
this and choose how they respond to various opinions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Here’s what I think is happening.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>The skids are being greased to slam in the long sequence no
matter how the majority feel about it – but I could be wrong (but I don’t
think so).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Dave<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Derek Koopowitz<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 22, 2010 6:30 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> General pattern discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and
beyond<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Dave,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>After writing my reply to you I got to thinking again and I
don't agree with your assessment. This is about selecting a sequence that
matter to the people that fly it not to the people that judge it or to the
people that may have to wait around to fly again because of a large Masters
turnout.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Flame away...<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>-Derek<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Dave Burton <<a
href="mailto:burtona@atmc.net">burtona@atmc.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Derek,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>I really object to your definition of
who has “Skin in the game” - <b>We all do if we pay our dues
and attend contest</b>.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>The “skin” is the impact of
a long vs. short sequence for every Masters flyer, Flyer who will be flying
Masters in the next two years, every flyer/non flyer who judges at a contest,
and every other flyer in all the other class who have to wait until the
typically large Masters class finishes whatever sequence they fly.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>So, whether I fly Masters in the next
two years or not, I intend to let my opinion be known to my district VP and I
expect him to give my view the same weight of any other opinion from
“Masters” flyers or others. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>This is an issue that should not be
decided by only “Masters” flyers.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Dave Burton</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt'> <a
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Derek
Koopowitz<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 22, 2010 5:31 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> General pattern discussion</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Over
10 months ago the NSRCA Sequence Committee completed its work on the new
sequences. These were posted on the NSRCA website for review and comment
- see below:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><a
href="http://nsrca.us/proposedsequences/2011sequences.html" target="_blank">http://nsrca.us/proposedsequences/2011sequences.html</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Included
in all this material was a draft document that outlined the process on how
sequences are developed, tested and approved and the makeup/content of the
sequences based on the class it is meant to serve. This document is
titled "NSRCA Procedures, Standards and Guidelines for AMA R/C Precision
Aerobatics Sequence Development". A mouthful, but it does outline a
lot of information. It details the charter for the Sequence Committee,
sequence development standards and guidelines for all classes, catalog of
maneuvers for all classes and the process that the NSRCA will follow in
designing, testing and approving changes to sequences, or for proposed
sequences. These sequence development standards and guidelines have been
in place for about 4 years now and have been used very successfully to build
the current set of sequences that everyone is flying today, in addition to the
prior Masters sequence (and the new one as well).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Overall
we received positive comments on the proposed sequences from Sportsman through
Masters. As you know, there were two sequences developed for Masters, a
long sequence using the standard 23 maneuver count and a short sequence using
19 maneuvers. In the time since we posted the sequences, some informal
surveys were also made on the NSRCA website as well as on RCU asking for a
preference of either the short or long Masters schedule. The overwhelming
majority of respondents chose the short sequence. However, these surveys
were a little flawed in that we didn't really know who was voting for them -
were they all judges/pilots who voted because they didn't want to judge a long
sequence, or were they really current and/or future Masters pilots that really
did want to fly a shorter sequence.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Since
the release of the proposed schedules, and some post Nats comments, the
sequence committee has been hard at work making some tweaks to the short
schedule with a view to increasing the difficulty level of the short Masters
sequence to bring it into line with the long Masters sequence and also to
ensure that we weren't lowering the bar in difficulty by introducing a shorter
sequence. Bear in mind that the short sequence is only 19 maneuvers (17
of them flyable) so raising the difficulty level is a challenge if one is to
avoid using some existing F3A type maneuvers, or "airplane killers",
and to only use maneuvers that match the philosophy that we've embraced for a
number of years. Since we've never developed a short Masters sequence, we
need to make sure we get it right and that it not only provides a challenge to
those that fly it but that it still provides a somewhat relatively higher jump
for those pilots that are moving up from Advanced. We realize that
creating a perfect schedule is not going to happen - we won't be able to please
every pilot that moves up from Advanced, nor will we be able to please some
former F3A pilots that think the schedule is too easy and isn't enough of a
challenge. There has to be a balance. The Sequence Committee came
up with some good positive changes and these are being vetted/tested as I write
this. They've received extremely positive feedback from everyone that has
either flown the newer short sequence on a simulator or using their pattern
plane at the field. By the end of this weekend we'll know for sure whether
it is a keeper or not.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>When
we do post the revised sequence I would like all of you that have "skin in
this game", meaning you are a current Masters pilot or will be moving to
Masters in the next year or two, to please contact your NSRCA District VP and
let them know what your preference is - short or long sequence. The
reason they need to know is that the NSRCA board will vote in the next couple
of weeks to approve all the proposed sequences and also to select which
sequence the Masters class will be flying in 2011/2012.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>The
Sequence Committee is comprised of Joe Lachowski, Dave Lockhart, Verne Koester,
Bill Glaze, Archie Stafford, and Richard Lewis. They've put in an
extraordinary amount of work on these sequences and documentation and deserve
huge kudos from everyone! Thanks guys - your work is very much
appreciated!<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>We've
also created a Sequence Committee section on the NSRCA website which will have
more information soon. It will contain the updated draft documentation
and all the proposed sequences in one location. You can get to the new
section from the main menu - just look for Sequence Committee - it is near the
bottom of the menu.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>No virus found in this incoming message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3152 - Release Date: 09/22/10
02:34:00</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>No virus
found in this incoming message.<br>
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<br>
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3152 - Release Date: 09/22/10
02:34:00</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>