<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Derek,<br>
<br>
I thought we already selected a pattern through the survey. Is the
survey now meaningless because it chose the wrong length pattern?<br>
<br>
I'm not quite sure I understand the logic behind raising the
complexity of the short pattern at this late date, either. The
sequence committee has worked on these patterns for two years or so
and now it appears that because of a few comments at the Nats or
whatever that all that work and the surveys are to be thrown out or
at least revisited.<br>
I offered comments on the patterns 6 months ago and and said at that
time that the Masters pattern was too easy in some areas. Didn't see
anyone jumping to and making changes then. <br>
Comments about airplane killer maneuvers are also uncalled for. Any
Masters pilot should be able to perform integrated roll/loop
maneuvers without endangering the airplane. Making them good enough
to score 8s and 9s, well that's a different matter. If you are
making changes to the Masters pattern and keeping its role as a
destination class, I firmly believe it should contain <u>state of
the art</u> pattern maneuvers.<br>
<br>
John Gayer<br>
District 6 Advanced pilot<br>
<br>
<br>
On 9/22/2010 4:10 PM, Derek Koopowitz wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTinMLtiGdSSVjaTyVoYn_2v0ayun+6gA_S0Ru8z3@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Dave,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You are correct in that everyone is impacted on a short vs
long schedule - my apologies for the definition of who is
impacted. Regardless, please voice your opinion to your
District VP.</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>-Derek<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Dave
Burton <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:burtona@atmc.net">burtona@atmc.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Derek,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">This is an issue that
should not be decided by only “Masters”
flyers.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Dave Burton</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<div style="border-right: medium none; border-width: 1pt
medium medium; border-style: solid none none;
border-color: rgb(181, 196, 223) -moz-use-text-color
-moz-use-text-color; padding: 3pt 0in 0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10pt;">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>
[mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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></p>
<div class="im"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA
sequences for 2011 and beyond</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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:</p>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://nsrca.us/proposedsequences/2011sequences.html"
target="_blank">http://nsrca.us/proposedsequences/2011sequences.html</a></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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).</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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!</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span style="font-size: 10pt;">No virus
found in this incoming message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>