<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>Guys</div><div><br></div><div>Having flown the proposed changes the last 2 nights the biggest thing I can say about the changes is that it flows better. A couple of slight changes were made and Im sure will be available in the next day or two. The final descriptions and such have to be finalized. All changes were fairly minor as to not make it significantly more difficult. Essentially we were trying to get the K-factors of the short sequence close to that of the longer with a few less maneuvers. No major changes, but some slight ones such as changing the square loop with half rolls to a square on corner with half rolls. I really like the new sequence. </div><div><br></div><div>Arch</div><div><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On Sep 22, 2010, at 9:12 PM, "Dave Burton" <<a href="mailto:burtona@atmc.net">burtona@atmc.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<div class="Section1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D">Dave, I think the effort to limit VP input only to Master’s
flyers is a few NSRCA “Leaders” trying to get their way when they
are in the majority. My points is that others are affected too and should
not have their opinions discarded. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D">It doesn’t really bother me that there is an effort to
increase the difficulty of the shorter schedule. Masters should be difficult,
but not so much that only Nats finalist pilots can fly it. Revisiting the
sequences at this late date seems counter-productive, but maybe it can be done.
I seems to me that it would be better to do it next year in the development
process (but I could be wrong again).<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>
<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"">
<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Dave<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 22, 2010 8:38 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"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy">“</span><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).”</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Arial","sans-serif";color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy">Dave B – The input and feedback I’ve seen and received
would suggest you are wrong in this instance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy">The majority favor the shorter sequence and I can’t see that
changing. Subsequent to the 2010 NATs, I became aware of some interest in
increasing the difficulty of the short schedule. IF everyone providing
feedback had done so in a timely manner, this would not be an issue now.
IF the proposal to remove the schedules from the rulebook does not pass,
this is not an issue (there will simply not be a new sequence in 2011).
There are a lot of IFs. Bottom line is that there is an opportunity
to revisit the short Masters sequence, and that is being done at this time.
I have not seen any diabolical plot or secret conspiracy to subvert or
overthrow the work that has been done or the discard the opinions and votes
previously taken/received. As you stated, I could be wrong (but I
don’t think so).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy">Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy"><br>
Dave Lockhart<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy"><a href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net"><a href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</a></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:navy"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<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"">
<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Dave Burton<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 22, 2010 6:40 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'General pattern discussion'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and
beyond</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</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">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"">
<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>
[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"><a href="mailto:burtona@atmc.net">burtona@atmc.net</a></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"><a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a></a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank"><a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a></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"><a href="http://nsrca.us/proposedsequences/2011sequences.html">http://nsrca.us/proposedsequences/2011sequences.html</a></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"><a href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a></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"><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a></a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank"><a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></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 - <a href="http://www.avg.com"><a href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a></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>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">No virus
found in this incoming message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com"><a href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a></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></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>NSRCA-discussion mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></span></div></blockquote></body></html>