<div dir='auto'>I know that Anthony and Joe, at least, are on it.<br><br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Jon</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Jun 20, 2017 3:09 PM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
    Scott,<br />
    <br />
    I can only ask why the board is not subscribed to this list?<br />
    That is how you keep a finger on the pulse of the membership (or at
    least the vocal parts of it). Not the only way, of course.<br />
    <br />
    There is no requirement to respond or take action on anything the
    board or committee members read here but the threads exist to be
    pursued and ideas presented that may strike a chord.<br />
    <br />
    Not everything here has been negative. Many positive suggestions
    have been made. <br />
    <br />
    I'm sure the board could issue a waiver to the two year rule for
    Masters if they want to.  Or just change one maneuver, or two. I
    have candidates. :=)  Probably need to do that for Sportsman as
    well.<br />
    <br />
    John<br />
    <br />
    <div>On 6/20/2017 7:51 AM, Scott McHarg
      wrote:<br />
    </div>
    <blockquote>
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div style="font-family:'georgia' , serif;color:#0000ff">Sorry, I would
          like to rephrase my last sentence.  I'd like to blame
          auto-correct but, I don't think that'll work in this case. 
          Sorry people.</div>
        <div style="font-family:'georgia' , serif;color:#0000ff"><br />
        </div>
        <div style="font-family:'georgia' , serif;color:#0000ff">"Truly, great
          comments all around but if it's not being recognized or seen
          by those that can change it, what's the point?"</div>
      </div>
      <div><br clear="all" />
        <div>
          <div data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
            <div dir="ltr">
              <div>
                <div dir="ltr">
                  <div>
                    <div dir="ltr"><b style="color:rgb( 51 , 51 , 255 )"><font style="font-family:'comic sans ms' , sans-serif" size="4">Scott A. McHarg</font></b><br />
                      <div>VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot</div>
                      <div>Texas A&M University</div>
                      <div>PPL - ASEL</div>
                      <div>Remote Pilot Certified Under FAA Part 107</div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
        <br />
        <div class="elided-text">On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Scott
          McHarg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:scmcharg@gmail.com">scmcharg@gmail.com</a>></span>
          wrote:<br />
          <blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
            <div dir="ltr">
              <div style="font-family:'georgia' , serif;color:#0000ff">It's one
                thing for us to debate a proposed sequence that hasn't
                even been approved by the board for public comment that
                got out by accident and quite another thing to break the
                AMA Rules stipulating that we do change Masters at least
                once every 2 years.  I'm all in favor of this discussion
                but wouldn't it make sense that we make sure our board
                was picking up what we're putting down?  Truly, great
                comments all around but if it's being ignored by those
                that can change it, what's the point?</div>
            </div>
            <div><br clear="all" />
              <div>
                <div data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
                  <div dir="ltr">
                    <div>
                      <div dir="ltr">
                        <div>
                          <div dir="ltr"><b style="color:rgb( 51 , 51 , 255 )"><font style="font-family:'comic sans ms' , sans-serif" size="4">Scott A. McHarg</font></b><br />
                            <div>VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot</div>
                            <div>Texas A&M University</div>
                            <div>PPL - ASEL</div>
                            <div>Remote Pilot Certified Under FAA Part
                              107</div>
                          </div>
                        </div>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </div>
              <div>
                <div>
                  <br />
                  <div class="elided-text">On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:35
                    AM, Frackowiak Tony via NSRCA-discussion <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.<wbr />org</a>></span>
                    wrote:<br />
                    <blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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?<br />
                      <br />
                      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.<br />
                      <br />
                      All in favor of eliminating the weight rule and
                      allowing 12S. But that really is another story.<br />
                      <br />
                      Tony Frackowiak<br />
                      <div>
                        <div><br />
                          On Jun 19, 2017, at 9:31 PM, John Gayer via
                          NSRCA-discussion wrote:<br />
                          <br />
                          ><br />
                          > 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,<br />
                          ><br />
                          > 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.<br />
                          ><br />
                          > 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.<br />
                          ><br />
                          > Keeping that in mind, I suggest we accept
                          P19 as the Masters schedule for next year only
                          on a trial basis.<br />
                          > 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.<br />
                          > 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.<br />
                          ><br />
                          > John<br />
                        </div>
                      </div>
                      > ______________________________<wbr />_________________<br />
                      > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br />
                      > <a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.o<wbr />rg</a><br />
                      > <a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman<wbr />/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br />
                      <br />
                      ______________________________<wbr />_________________<br />
                      NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br />
                      <a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.o<wbr />rg</a><br />
                      <a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman<wbr />/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br />
                    </blockquote>
                  </div>
                  <br />
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
        <br />
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br />
  </div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>