Dave,<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Flame away...</div><div><br></div><div>-Derek</div><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Dave Burton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:burtona@atmc.net">burtona@atmc.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Derek,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">This is an issue that should not be decided by only “Masters”
flyers.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Dave Burton</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </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">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></p><div class="im"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond</div><p></p>
</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></div><div class="h5">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a 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: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></p>
</div>
</div>
<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><br></blockquote></div><br></div>