[NSRCA-dist1] Masters proposal
JOE LACHOWSKI
jlachow at optonline.net
Wed Jun 3 09:31:43 AKDT 2015
I wrote the guide. It was written purposely to slow down the difficulty
creep. Obviously that didn't work.
Fuck Californai!
Joe Lachowski
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Dana Beaton wrote:
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
<mailto: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 <mailto:NSRCA-dist1 at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist1
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist1>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-dist1/attachments/20150603/6fb11169/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-dist1
mailing list