[NSRCA-dist1] Masters proposal

Wed Jun 3 08:24:52 AKDT 2015

I'm with joe on this one I don't have a lot of time to practice so if
masters gets any harder I will go back to advanced or stop going to
contests all together.
On Jun 3, 2015 11:30 AM, "Ron Lockhart via NSRCA-dist1" <
nsrca-dist1 at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> Dana,
> Thanks for the discussion - having a better feeling of the environment is
> helpful as we work through the process.
> I don't know much about the "Silver" classes that I see in K-Factor -
> would you know more, and if they are a
> possible option or tool?
> Ron
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Dana Beaton via NSRCA-dist1" <nsrca-dist1 at lists.nsrca.org>
> *To: *"JOE LACHOWSKI" <jlachow at optonline.net>, "Anthony Romano" <
> anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
> *Cc: *"District" <nsrca-dist1 at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, June 3, 2015 11:18:29 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [NSRCA-dist1] Masters proposal
>
> Hi Joe, all, I hear you and I get your anger too.  We now need to use all
> channels of communication to get your points-of-view to the NSRCA leadership
> .
>
> The old saw “As California goes, so goes the Nation” does feel right to me
> for some time now. A few other recurring themes are cause for concern on my
> part, and I offer them here to expand this conversation within D1, to help
> us think it through with our DVP, and to focus ourselves on the winds of
> change:
>
>
>    - One theme is that competitors freely go back and forth between 404
>    and F3A.  There may be an unstated goal to bring these two schedules closer
>    together to make them easier to judge; and/or similar in challenge /
>    difficulty, as competitors freely choose one or the other at contests
>    depending on who shows up to fly, to even out the classes as a practical
>    matter.  Interesting hypothesis that plays havoc with Committee work!  The
>    unexamined ramification is that closing the 404-F3A gap opens up all the
>    other gaps between the lower classes, and this is problematic.
>
>
>
>    - Serving two masters: The Sequence Development Guide is already so
>    narrowly focused it is too difficult to work with to come up with something
>    creative that is also within the guidelines.  This will be difficult for
>    some to hear, but I find it to be overly prescriptive as guidelines go (and
>    I write guidelines for living).  Nonetheless, we as a Committee and the BoD
>    too have made a commitment to stick to the Guide, no matter how difficult
>    it is to work with.  The new design direction to incorporate things FAI
>    just adds to their frustration, as it is nearly impossible to come up with
>    a new schedule that is both FAI inspired and AMA compliant!  One cannot
>    really serve two masters and expect to succeed in life, or pattern, I
>    believe.
>
>
>
>    - Related to the above, it seems to some more important that that 404
>    and F3A look and feel similar to make judging easier for each other, since
>    one class is assumed to usually judge for the other class.  This of course
>    does not recognize the diversity of contests where Advanced may judge the
>    Masters class in other parts of the country, etc.  In that setting, it
>    makes sense for things AMA to stay AMA, and not adopt FAI conventions.
>
>
>
>    - Another theme is that sequences in recent years were felt to be
>    dumbed down by the majority of NSRCA members, and the overall challenge
>    level needs to come up for ALL classes.  I have vigorously resisted this
>    notion, and have been most successful keeping the Intermediate appropriate,
>    and urging a reasonable Advanced proposal.  The membership at-large needs
>    to speak up if the new proposals are too difficult, as this was as low as
>    they would could go and still make it out of Committee to the BoD and
>    K-Factor for the membership to comment on. Where I have not been successful
>    is the Masters class, to wit, the current proposal. This is the kind of
>    sequence our NSRCA President and Committee Chair want us to have, and we
>    almost had it’s sister for the Advanced proposal until the very last weeks
>    before the publication deadline (when CA #2 was tabled).
>
>
>
>    - A related theme is that the Masters class is generally
>    overpopulated, that there are Masters competitors who would step down if
>    the Advanced class were more challenging.  This is problematic for me as I
>    don’t think we should be managing pilot populations through sequence
>    design.  This theme is never explicitly stated, however it does loom in the
>    background of reasoning why this maneuver or that, if you will.  Food for
>    thought.
>
>
>
>    - The Advanced class is something of a middle child, pulled in one
>    direction by the population of Masters who are thought would gladly step
>    down if the Advanced alternative were palatable; and pulled in the other
>    direction by folks like me who need a reasonable step-up from Intermediate,
>    where reasonable is defined as having a sequence where the 4 new maneuvers
>    are in a schedule that sets-up for success, rather than adding challenge
>    beyond the 4 new maneuvers, i.e., F3A-like styling, asymmetry as challenge,
>    and difficulty due to design intent.  There is also a theoretical third
>    wheel population of pilots who want more challenge than Advanced offered
>    historically, but choose to not move up due to the local pilot population:
>    They would like to have a “Masters sequence for the rest of us” (those who
>    will not or cannot practically move up in class).
>
>
>
>    - All good arguments perhaps for another class, or bringing back the
>    Expert class, but Nats related logistics quickly quashes that concept.
>    Then there is this interesting theme of the “California Nats” which seems
>    to be the test bed for lots of new things that the rest of NSRCA need to
>    digest.
>
>
> Right now, we are getting a good healthy dose of California sunshine on
> the pattern patch; time will tell if their new direction for us is viable
> and leads to the growth and health of the sport, or falls by the wayside as
> passing fad.  What my intent is here is to get us in D1 thinking about some
> of the themes that I perceive to be driving the winds of change.  These may
> or may not be accurate, just my observations, and you may think of others.
> Like it or not, we are being presented with new stuff to digest.  We can
> either discuss and dissent, or silently accept and just let things fall
> where they may.  Your call.
>
> Respectfully,
> Dana
>
>
>  On Jun 3, 2015, at 9:15 AM, JOE LACHOWSKI <jlachow at optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Fuck FAI on roll reversals. The sequence needs to be dumbed down in a few
> places. This pattern reflects the West Coast only. It is designed to favor
> those California morons who can fly all season. As designed people in the
> colder climates don't have a chance. Lacks creativity. It copies the
>  existing FAI sequences too much. So much that Masters may has well fly
> FAI.
>
> If I am able to compete in the future, it will be at the Advanced level
> which is getting closer and closer to what a Masters sequence should be
> take a few maneuvers here and there.
>
> If I am not 100% by next spring, I will be having a fire sale.
>
> Joe Lachowski
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 04:20 PM, Dana Beaton via NSRCA-dist1 wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi guys, the Sequence Committee Chair wrote a nice article in this month’s
> K-Factor.  The following from that article may be of interest to you:
>
> Roll Reversals: Until now, we have allowed a hesitation between roll
> reversals in all AMA classes. Starting with this 2016 Masters sequence, we
> are proposing that roll reversals shall be immediate, just as with F3A
> rules. This will only apply to Masters class.
> Please give Anthony, me, or the Sequence Committee directly (through the
> link on NSRCA site) your feedback about this and/or the proposals in the
> coming months.  You are also encouraged to speak-up for anything you do
> like in the proposals; I’ve noticed that most of the feedback we get is
> negative, what people don’t like.  The problem with that is that a few
> folks can actually get changes made to something you may want to fly next
> year! If we don’t also hear what people do like in the proposals, it is
> easy to just give in to the few who do speak-up and a maneuver that you
> find just fine may be gone!
>
> Seriously, there is a lot going on in these 2 proposals and they set the
> tone for the next few years, and perhaps for many more if the membership
> likes this new direction NSRCA is taking with respect to harmonizing AMA
> with FAI; just my observation, form your own opinion, and let NSRCA know
> about it!
>
> Good flying and see you at Pocono!
> Dana Beaton
> Sequence Committee, Intermediate
> Contest Board, AMA D2
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-dist1 mailing list
> NSRCA-dist1 at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist1
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-dist1 mailing list
> NSRCA-dist1 at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist1
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-dist1 mailing list
> NSRCA-dist1 at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist1
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-dist1/attachments/20150603/3b1315ca/attachment.html>