<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 14 (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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 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";
color:black;}
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";
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></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 bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Who decided that there should be a fair “share” of contest time? That’s the most ridiculous argument I’ve ever heard. Masters takes longer not just because the number of maneuvers in the sequence but also because Masters pilots probably fly half the speed of any class below them. Who cares? Should we do a survey to see the average number of people in each class nationwide and make the sequences long enough that all classes have equal air time? Sportsman (or Novice as I call it) would end up with a 30 maneuver sequence. The amount of time to fly a sequence should have NOTHING to do with this. Neither should powerplant choices, average number of contestants, or anything else anyone wants to throw out there. Simply put, the Masters sequence needs to be sufficient in difficulty to keep it competitive year after year for those who have made it a destination, and also difficult enough (and appropriate) for those who want to be able to move up to F3A eventually.<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><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Matt<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><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";color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'> nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Gayer<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 22, 2010 5:54 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></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Derek,<br><br>When it comes to the pattern length we should all have a say. Why should the Masters pattern have more maneuvers and take longer than any other pattern? You cannot say there is no impact on other flyers and their judging duties when Masters is often the largest class and use more than their share of the contest time as well. You <i>could</i> say that the "content" of each class pattern should be up to those with "skin" in the game.<br><br>There was nothing in the survey that stated "Vote only for the patterns in the class you are flying or may fly next year". Nor do I believe that such a statement should be added.<br><br>John<br><br>On 9/22/2010 4:30 PM, Derek Koopowitz wrote: <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 windowtext 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;border-color:-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color'><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><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><o:p></o:p></pre></div></body></html>