<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:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s="uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z="#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:odc="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:odc" xmlns:oa="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:rtc="http://microsoft.com/officenet/conferencing" xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:Repl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/repl/" xmlns:mt="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/meetings/" xmlns:x2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ppda="http://www.passport.com/NameSpace.xsd" xmlns:ois="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sub="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/" xmlns:ec="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#" xmlns:sp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" xmlns:sps="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcs="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/soap" xmlns:udcxf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:udcp2p="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/parttopart" xmlns:wf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:dsss="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig-setup" xmlns:dssi="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig" xmlns:mdssi="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/digital-signature" xmlns:mver="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mrels="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships" xmlns:spwp="http://microsoft.com/sharepoint/webpartpages" xmlns:ex12t="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types" xmlns:ex12m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/messages" xmlns:pptsl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/SlideLibrary/" xmlns:spsl="http://microsoft.com/webservices/SharePointPortalServer/PublishedLinksService" xmlns:Z="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" xmlns:st="" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 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";}
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";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</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 lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>And I don’t even want to know if it’s over the top or on the
bottom…<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><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>Mark Atwood</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>Paragon Consulting, Inc.</span></b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'> </span><b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>|</span></b><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'> President</span><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:8.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite
130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124</span><span style='font-size:10.5pt;
font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'> </span><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:8.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>Phone: 440.684.3101 x102 </span><b><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>|</span></b><span
style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'> Fax:
440.684.3102</span><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:8.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:#1351F3'><a href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a>
</span><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>|</span></b><span style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:#1351F3'><a href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/">www.paragon-inc.com</a></span><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 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"'>
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Archie Stafford<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 24, 2010 8:40 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>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
As long as its not integrated, it shouldnt be too bad. <br>
<br>
<br>
<b>On Fri 09/24/10 8:29 AM , Phil Spelt chuenkan@comcast.net sent:</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>I think I'll pass on that one...<u><span style='font-size:
8.0pt'>lol<br>
<br>
</span></u>At 22:49 2010/09/23, you wrote:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>What is a "Loop with Jon Lowe"? <br>
<br>
Ron<br>
<br>
On Sep 23, 2010, at 9:46 PM, Jon Lowe wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>My two cents:<br>
A loop with<br>
<br>
Jon Lowe<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Dave <br>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <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, wed 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">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" <br>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>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"> 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" <br>
wrote:<br>
I agree with Dave l but otherwise I disagree totally
..FAI and <br>
IMAC style integrated maneuvers dont 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"> 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"> 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 Im 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"> 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, Id 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"> 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 <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"> 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" target="_blank">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/" target="_blank">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"
target="_blank">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"
target="_blank">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"
target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>
_______________________________________________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://" target="_blank">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"
target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<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>
<p><b><i>--></i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b><i><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:maroon'>There are
only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets.<br>
<br>
</span></i></b>Phil Spelt, Past President, Knox County Radio Control Society,
Inc.<br>
URL: <a href="http://www.kcrctn.com/"
target="_blank">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/" target="_blank">http://mywebpages.comcast.net/~chuenkan/<br>
</a> (865) 435-1476 v (865) 604-0541 c <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>