<html>
<body>
<font size=3>I think I'll pass on that
one...</font><font size=1><u>lol<br><br>
</u></font><font size=3>At 22:49 2010/09/23, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">What is a "Loop with Jon
Lowe"? <VBG><br><br>
Ron<br><br>
On Sep 23, 2010, at 9:46 PM, Jon Lowe wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">My two cents:<br>
A loop with<br><br>
Jon Lowe<br><br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Dave <DaveL322@comcast.net><br>
To: 'General pattern discussion'
<nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><br>
Sent: Thu, Sep 23, 2010 9:41 pm<br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011
<br>
and beyond<br><br>
<br>
As Arch stated, the current doctrine does not allow integrated loop/ roll
maneuvers, and that is based on majority feedback to date.<br><br>
My personal opinion is that something like a loop with a roll on
<br>
top would be a good maneuver for Masters….it is not hard to do, but
<br>
it is very hard to do well. If the majority of those with a
direct <br>
stake in Masters want the loop with roll on top, we’d likely see it
<br>
added to both the Masters sequence and the Seq Guidance Doc would
<br>
be updated.<br><br>
And just to be clear, my use of “direct stake” means pilots <br>
currently in Masters, those in Advanced moving up to Masters, and
<br>
FAI pilots changing to Masters.<br><br>
Regards,<br><br>
Dave Lockhart<br><br>
<br>
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[<a href="mailto:nsrca" eudora="autourl">mailto:nsrca</a>-
discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Gayer<br>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:07 PM<br>
To: General pattern discussion<br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011
<br>
and beyond<br><br>
Didn't the sequence committee write the doctrine? It should be a
<br>
living document with a clear and easy path to modify it and keep it
<br>
current.<br>
That is the problem with many process documents. Once written they
<br>
become law and immutable.<br><br>
John<br><br>
On 9/23/2010 4:53 PM, Archie Stafford wrote:<br>
The 4pt is exactly the type of maneuver Dave is referring to. I
<br>
know becausehe and I have both pushed for that. I dont think we
<br>
need some of the really crazy stuff, but we need to start adding
<br>
some. I dont think we need them at the bottom of loops, but the
<br>
current doctrine the sequence committee has to follow will notallow
<br>
a loop with a 4pt at the top.<br><br>
Arch<br><br>
Sent from my iPhone<br><br>
On Sep 23, 2010, at 6:46 PM, "Dave Harmon"
<k6xyz@sbcglobal.net> <br>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">An avalanche or 4 pt roll in a
loop is not an ‘FAI or IMAC style’ <br>
integrated maneuver.<br><br>
Dave Harmon<br>
NSRCA 586<br>
K6XYZ[at]sbcglobal[dot]net<br>
Sperry, Ok.<br><br>
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[<a href="mailto:nsrca-%20discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:nsrca- discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] On Behalf Of Archie
Stafford<br>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 5:31 PM<br>
To: General pattern discussion<br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011
<br>
and beyond<br><br>
Why not? An avalanche is an integrated maneuver. A 4pt roll
at <br>
the top of a loop is certainly in the skill set of a masters
pilot.<br><br>
Arch<br><br>
Sent from my iPhone<br><br>
On Sep 23, 2010, at 3:38 PM, "Dave Harmon"
<k6xyz@sbcglobal.net> <br>
wrote:<br>
I agree with Dave l but otherwise I disagree totally…..FAI
and <br>
IMAC style integrated maneuvers don’t belong in Masters.<br><br>
Dave Harmon<br>
NSRCA 586<br>
K6XYZ[at]sbcglobal[dot]net<br>
Sperry, Ok.<br><br>
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[<a href="mailto:nsrca-%20discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:nsrca- discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] On Behalf Of Dr
Mike<br>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:58 AM<br>
To: 'General pattern discussion'<br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011
<br>
and beyond<br><br>
I totally agree with you, Dave, however, I would encourage the
<br>
Masters sequence to begin including some integrated, safe stuff,
<br>
such as a loop with roll at top or some such thing. It
just <br>
simply makes the event so much more fun and exciting.<br>
Thanks<br>
Mike<br><br>
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[<a href="mailto:nsrca-%20discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:nsrca- discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] On Behalf Of
Dave<br>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:13 AM<br>
To: 'General pattern discussion'<br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011
<br>
and beyond<br><br>
John,<br><br>
The only bit of your discussion I differ on is regarding the <br>
difficulty level for the “destination” class Masters. It is
only <br>
a destination for some, and regardless of whether or not it is a
<br>
destination class (in practice, name, or design), the difficulty
<br>
level should be set based on the wishes of the majority not the
<br>
difficulty level of FAI. We (AMA pattern pilots) can always
<br>
choose to set the difficulty level of Masters slightly less than,
<br>
equal to, or slightly greater than FAI. But since we (AMA
pattern <br>
pilots) have pretty much zero input or influence on FAI, we should
<br>
never tie ourselves to the FAI schedule allowing it to dictate the
<br>
difficulty level of Masters. Masters and FAI do not share the
<br>
share goal, and never will.<br><br>
Advancement systems aside, someone will be moving up or down for
<br>
whatever reason(s), and I’m happy to partake in the celebrating or
<br>
commiserating J<br><br>
Regards,<br><br>
Dave Lockhart<br><br>
<br><br>
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[<a href="mailto:nsrca-%20discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:nsrca- discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] On Behalf Of John
Gayer<br>
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 11:29 PM<br>
To: General pattern discussion<br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011
<br>
and beyond<br><br>
Dave,<br><br>
Every time you move to a new class including sportsman there are
<br>
potential airplane killers lurking. Long ago and far away, I <br>
remember losing two airplanes learning to do three consecutive
<br>
rolls centered. If combined roll/loop maneuvers were
introduced <br>
to Masters, the Masters pilots would quickly sort out how to <br>
execute them. My only point in addressing the lack of these
<br>
maneuvers in Masters is the fact that it is the final AMA <br>
destination class and as such should deliver equivalent difficulty
<br>
to F3A. Otherwise it is a feeder class without Advancement <br>
requirements.<br><br>
In other countries where advancement to the next class has to be
<br>
earned (by scoring average and the national organization keeps
<br>
track), getting an advancement notice is cause for celebration and
<br>
usually involves lots of beer. In Australia everyone aspires to
<br>
gain admittance into the top level (which flies the F3A schedules
<br>
and from which their World team is selected). The flip side
is <br>
that if you start flying poorly or not at all, you find yourself
<br>
moving back a class or two.<br><br>
Such a system has a lot of merit. Keep flying well against your
<br>
peers, you move up. Fly poorly, you move down. The beer sounds
<br>
good too. Celebrate on the way up, commiserate on the way down,
<br>
drinks all around in either case.<br><br>
John<br><br>
On 9/22/2010 6:28 PM, Dave wrote:<br>
John,<br><br>
First, without picking a side on this particular debate, I’d offer
<br>
the following comments / perspectives <br><br>
- Historically, surveys and polls have answered that integrated
<br>
looping/rolling maneuvers should not be included in the Masters
<br>
pattern.<br>
- an “airplane killer” looks a lot differently to a skilled <br>
Masters pilot compared to a middle of the pack advanced pilot <br>
moving into Masters, and this concern has historically been <br>
expressed, and is a hot button for a substantial number.<br><br>
<br>
Second, my opinions -<br><br>
I fly FAI because I want to…I want the more challenging schedules
<br>
and higher level of competition. Arguably, the FAI P schedule
is <br>
not more difficult in some years, and I could easily argue it does
<br>
not contain state of the art maneuvers, but flying FAI is still
<br>
more difficult if for no other reason than a pilots time must be
<br>
split between flying P, F, and unknowns.<br><br>
Masters has a wide range of pilot abilities, and is “home” for
<br>
many for different reasons. As such, it will always be a
<br>
compromise class, unlike FAI F3A which is focused on picking the
<br>
best F3A Team in the world and the best individual pilot in the
<br>
world. So long as the majority of Masters do not want state
of <br>
the art maneuvers, Masters should not have state of the art <br>
maneuvers.<br><br>
I do believe it might be a little easier to establish and maintain
<br>
the difficulty level of each class and the steps between the <br>
classes IF a system were established that required a pilot advance
<br>
to the next higher class based on achieving a given proficiency,
<br>
and also demoted a pilot who did not achieve a minimum
standard. <br>
Several countries use this approach, and from what I have seen, it
<br>
appears to work as well or better than the point system used in
<br>
the US. Mandatory advancement to F3A is a separate, but
related <br>
topic.<br><br>
Regards,<br><br>
Dave Lockhart<br>
DaveL322@comcast.net<br><br>
<br><br>
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[<a href="mailto:nsrca-%20discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:nsrca- discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] On Behalf Of John
Gayer<br>
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 6:40 PM<br>
To: General pattern discussion; Mark Hunt<br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011
<br>
and beyond<br><br>
Derek,<br><br>
I thought we already selected a pattern through the survey. Is the
<br>
survey now meaningless because it chose the wrong length
pattern?<br><br>
I'm not quite sure I understand the logic behind raising the <br>
complexity of the short pattern at this late date, either.
The <br>
sequence committee has worked on these patterns for two years or
<br>
so and now it appears that because of a few comments at the Nats
<br>
or whatever that all that work and the surveys are to be thrown
<br>
out or at least revisited.<br>
I offered comments on the patterns 6 months ago and and said at
<br>
that time that the Masters pattern was too easy in some areas.
<br>
Didn't see anyone jumping to and making changes then.<br>
Comments about airplane killer maneuvers are also uncalled for.
<br>
Any Masters pilot should be able to perform integrated roll/loop
<br>
maneuvers without endangering the airplane. Making them good <br>
enough to score 8s and 9s, well that's a different matter. If
you <br>
are making changes to the Masters pattern and keeping its role as
<br>
a destination class, I firmly believe it should contain state of
<br>
the art pattern maneuvers.<br><br>
John Gayer<br>
District 6 Advanced pilot<br><br>
<br>
On 9/22/2010 4:10 PM, Derek Koopowitz wrote:<br>
Dave,<br><br>
You are correct in that everyone is impacted on a short vs long
<br>
schedule - my apologies for the definition of who is
impacted. <br>
Regardless, please voice your opinion to your District VP.<br><br>
-Derek<br>
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Dave Burton
<burtona@atmc.net> <br>
wrote:<br>
Derek,<br>
I really object to your definition of who has “Skin in the game”
<br>
- We all do if we pay our dues and attend contest.<br>
The “skin” is the impact of a long vs. short sequence for every
<br>
Masters flyer, Flyer who will be flying Masters in the next two
<br>
years, every flyer/non flyer who judges at a contest, and every
<br>
other flyer in all the other class who have to wait until the <br>
typically large Masters class finishes whatever sequence they fly.<br>
So, whether I fly Masters in the next two years or not, I intend
<br>
to let my opinion be known to my district VP and I expect him to
<br>
give my view the same weight of any other opinion from “Masters”
<br>
flyers or others.<br>
This is an issue that should not be decided by only “Masters”
flyers.<br>
Dave Burton<br><br>
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[<a href="mailto:nsrca-%20discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:nsrca- discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] On Behalf Of Derek
Koopowitz<br>
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 5:31 PM<br>
To: General pattern discussion<br><br>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and
<br>
beyond<br><br>
Over 10 months ago the NSRCA Sequence Committee completed its work
<br>
on the new sequences. These were posted on the NSRCA website
for <br>
review and comment - see below:<br><br>
<a href="http://nsrca.us/proposedsequences/2011sequences.html" eudora="autourl">
http://nsrca.us/proposedsequences/2011sequences.html</a><br><br>
Included in all this material was a draft document that outlined
<br>
the process on how sequences are developed, tested and approved
<br>
and the makeup/content of the sequences based on the class it is
<br>
meant to serve. This document is titled "NSRCA
Procedures, <br>
Standards and Guidelines for AMA R/C Precision Aerobatics Sequence
<br>
Development". A mouthful, but it does outline a lot of
<br>
information. It details the charter for the Sequence
Committee, <br>
sequence development standards and guidelines for all classes,
<br>
catalog of maneuvers for all classes and the process that the <br>
NSRCA will follow in designing, testing and approving changes to
<br>
sequences, or for proposed sequences. These sequence
development <br>
standards and guidelines have been in place for about 4 years now
<br>
and have been used very successfully to build the current set of
<br>
sequences that everyone is flying today, in addition to the prior
<br>
Masters sequence (and the new one as well).<br><br>
Overall we received positive comments on the proposed sequences
<br>
from Sportsman through Masters. As you know, there were two
<br>
sequences developed for Masters, a long sequence using the <br>
standard 23 maneuver count and a short sequence using 19 <br>
maneuvers. In the time since we posted the sequences, some
<br>
informal surveys were also made on the NSRCA website as well as on
<br>
RCU asking for a preference of either the short or long Masters
<br>
schedule. The overwhelming majority of respondents chose the
<br>
short sequence. However, these surveys were a little flawed
in <br>
that we didn't really know who was voting for them - were they all
<br>
judges/pilots who voted because they didn't want to judge a long
<br>
sequence, or were they really current and/or future Masters pilots
<br>
that really did want to fly a shorter sequence.<br><br>
Since the release of the proposed schedules, and some post Nats
<br>
comments, the sequence committee has been hard at work making some
<br>
tweaks to the short schedule with a view to increasing the <br>
difficulty level of the short Masters sequence to bring it into
<br>
line with the long Masters sequence and also to ensure that we
<br>
weren't lowering the bar in difficulty by introducing a shorter
<br>
sequence. Bear in mind that the short sequence is only 19
<br>
maneuvers (17 of them flyable) so raising the difficulty level is
<br>
a challenge if one is to avoid using some existing F3A type <br>
maneuvers, or "airplane killers", and to only use maneuvers
that <br>
match the philosophy that we've embraced for a number of
years. <br>
Since we've never developed a short Masters sequence, we need to
<br>
make sure we get it right and that it not only provides a <br>
challenge to those that fly it but that it still provides a <br>
somewhat relatively higher jump for those pilots that are moving
<br>
up from Advanced. We realize that creating a perfect schedule
is <br>
not going to happen - we won't be able to please every pilot that
<br>
moves up from Advanced, nor will we be able to please some former
<br>
F3A pilots that think the schedule is too easy and isn't enough of
<br>
a challenge. There has to be a balance. The Sequence
Committee <br>
came up with some good positive changes and these are being vetted/
tested as I write this. They've received extremely positive
<br>
feedback from everyone that has either flown the newer short <br>
sequence on a simulator or using their pattern plane at the <br>
field. By the end of this weekend we'll know for sure whether
it <br>
is a keeper or not.<br><br>
When we do post the revised sequence I would like all of you that
<br>
have "skin in this game", meaning you are a current Masters
pilot <br>
or will be moving to Masters in the next year or two, to please
<br>
contact your NSRCA District VP and let them know what your <br>
preference is - short or long sequence. The reason they need
to <br>
know is that the NSRCA board will vote in the next couple of weeks
<br>
to approve all the proposed sequences and also to select which
<br>
sequence the Masters class will be flying in 2011/2012.<br><br>
The Sequence Committee is comprised of Joe Lachowski, Dave <br>
Lockhart, Verne Koester, Bill Glaze, Archie Stafford, and Richard
<br>
Lewis. They've put in an extraordinary amount of work on
these <br>
sequences and documentation and deserve huge kudos from
everyone! <br>
Thanks guys - your work is very much appreciated!<br><br>
We've also created a Sequence Committee section on the NSRCA <br>
website which will have more information soon. It will
contain <br>
the updated draft documentation and all the proposed sequences in
<br>
one location. You can get to the new section from the main menu
- <br>
just look for Sequence Committee - it is near the bottom of the
menu.<br>
No virus found in this incoming message.<br>
Checked by AVG -
<a href="http://www.avg.com/" eudora="autourl">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3152 - Release Date:
<br>
09/22/10 02:34:00<br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br><br>
_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion
<br>
mailing listNSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.orghttp://lists.nsrca.org/
mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <br>
_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion
<br>
mailing listNSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.orghttp://lists.nsrca.org/
mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></blockquote>
_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion
<br>
mailing listNSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.orghttp://lists.nsrca.org/
mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br>
_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion
<br>
mailing list NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
<a href="http:///" eudora="autourl">http://</a>
lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<b><i>--></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3 color="#800000">
There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.<br><br>
</i></b></font><font size=3>Phil Spelt, Past President, Knox County Radio
Control Society, Inc.<br>
URL:
<a href="http://www.kcrctn.com/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.kcrctn.com<br>
</a>AMA--1294, Scientific Leader Member SPA--177, Board
Member<br>
My URL:
<a href="http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/" eudora="autourl">
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/<br>
</a> (865) 435-1476 v (865) 604-0541
c </font></body>
</html>