<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:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@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.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.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'>The short sequence is not about fair share of contestant time…it’s
about the torture FAI pilots must endure while judging local contests (FAI
pilots in my area judge twice as many rounds as other classes and spend
twice as long per round in the chair.)<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'>Some say 19 maneuvers versus 23 only shaves a minute of flight
time so what’s the point? I view it as 18% fewer maneuvers that
have to be judged and 18% less time in the chair. I think that’s
worth considering.<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'>I favor the short sequence out of consideration for those that
must judge it. Flying electric, I also like being able to repeat any
sequence of four maneuvers during practice without fear of damaging the
batteries.<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'>Scott<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>D1 Masters<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'><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>Matthew Frederick<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 23, 2010 1:25 AM<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><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>