<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#3333FF" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Tony,<br>
For a number of cycles now, Advanced has been changed every two
years which is an option, except for the switch to the FAI calendar
when the Masters and Advanced pattern were for one year. Sportsman
and Intermediate were not changed at that time, so I think it's been
three years for them. Since the rulebook says they need to be
changed every four years, Sportsman and Intermediate need to change
this year to get back on track. I have no idea why there is not a
new Sportsman sequence as per the rule.<br>
It is a rule that should change. Anyone that has worked with the
sportsman guidelines knows the most you can do is move things around
a bit and change one or two maneuvers so why change every four
years.<br>
<br>
I have no idea about the current version of the rules committee and
why no proposals were made. I would like to see why the class
advancement proposal previously generated by the committee and
supported by the board is now opposed. In the past, we published the
NSRCA proposals, held surveys and defended, both here and on RCU,
what we proposed.<br>
<br>
John<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/20/2017 8:18 AM, Frackowiak Tony
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:06C46331-E5FC-4C9C-B555-7DDAE0B4D2C1@sbcglobal.net">John,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I did look at Intermediate and Advanced. Not closely but the
bit I did they seem OK. Question. Are they even due to be
changed?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I thought the previous Rules Committee did very good work
with the proposals that were made. When was it decided that the
NSRCA would no longer make rules proposals? Seems very odd. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Tony Frackowiak</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Jun 20, 2017, at 5:51 AM, John Gayer wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div text="#3333FF" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> Tony,<br>
The rules committee and the sequence committee are
standing committees. The rules committee no longer
proposes rules but just recommends to the board which
proposals to support. The sequence committee as it stands
is not where I would send this task.<br>
<br>
Perhaps calling it a task team rather than a committee
would be better. It would analyze the problem, recommend
solutions and defend them and subsequently disband.<br>
<br>
I have no problem with just delaying masters a year while
the task team looks at the problem. I do see trying P19 as
providing additional input. I don't see any reason to
delay the implementation of the new Intermediate and
Advanced sequences. Perhaps you should take a look at
them. They seem fine to me.<br>
<br>
john<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/19/2017 11:35 PM,
Frackowiak Tony wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:15516695-463C-4964-A109-D230BF2F03BD@sbcglobal.net">
<pre wrap="">The Sequence Committee and the entire Sequence Development Guide was established for the NSRCA to create the schedules used in the AMA Pattern event. I believe the establishment of that process was key in getting the rules changed to where the NSRCA had control of the patterns, not the AMA R/C Aerobatics Contest Board. Are we supposed to just forget all that because the ball was dropped this cycle? I think the better option since we can no longer follow the established schedule is to not change the patterns for this cycle. What's the worst that could happen? Everyone gets better at flying them and newcomers to a class get a break?
I don't understand your idea of forming another committee. Don't we already have a Sequence Committee and a Rules Committee? Seems like they are there to do what you are talking about. Of course it also seems like not much was done about submitting rules proposals from the NSRCA this cycle. But maybe I am not aware of why that happened.
All in favor of eliminating the weight rule and allowing 12S. But that really is another story.
Tony Frackowiak
On Jun 19, 2017, at 9:31 PM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I find it interesting that when we discuss using sequences developed and used internationally there is substantial resistance and a lot of not invented here, loss of control, etc. We can certainly overcome the loss of control by keeping a modification capability when we encounter something undesirable in a sequence we want to use. Not invented here can save us a lot of work,
On the other hand, when we talking about rewriting rules for using 12S batteries or eliminating/reducing weight restrictions for AMA classes, there is a hue and cry that we have to stay in lockstep with FAI or the sky will fall.
I don't understand either position. We should take advantage of work done around the world but not be bound to it. If we can build a better mousetrap for less money, that's great. If we can't, then take advantage of published and available work wherever it comes from. P19 is not terribly exciting but it is easier than either the current or the new Masters sequence.
Keeping that in mind, I suggest we accept P19 as the Masters schedule for next year only on a trial basis.
In the meantime, a committee should be formed to formulate a plan for future sequences. The three sequence rotation makes a lot of sense to me for Sportsman and Intermediate. Advanced could go that way too but probably should adapt to whatever longterm plan is adopted for Masters. I would suggest having forms available at contest to survey contestants throughout the year about their sequences.
At the end of the year, the committee would publish recommendations for how to generate sequences for all classes. A recommendation I could make right now is that the board ensures the committee adheres to the guidelines and charter. The committee could make changes to the documents but would need board approval for those changes prior to implementation or ask for a waiver.
John
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" moz-do-not-send="true">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>