[NSRCA-dist1] Masters proposal

[Dana Beaton]

Hi Dave, your statements make sense to me, unfortunately, that is not the sentiment of our current NSRCA leadership as I experience it.  From their point-of-view, the proposal is a good one, and they have advocates on their side to turn to. We will need a sharper tool than dialogue to make further impact.

Another theme is that AMA pattern is not challenging enough given the higher performance of the models we fly today, and that we do not attract/retain competitors due to this lack of challenge: Increasing the difficulty of each class adds back in the challenge that has been taken out by increased aircraft capability/performance.  This I have heard more than once in the setting of sequence design, and it is certainly out there in other parts of the country besides California / D7.  The corollary to this is that if guys are inclined to quit pattern, they will probably do so anyway, so why not focus on those who want more challenge?  The NSRCA also has a rules proposal in Contest Board now where competitors can move freely between classes, so why not?

That I explicate these attitudes here is not to say that I agree with them, however, this is the kind of atmosphere that our feedback goes into, so we need more than first impressions, opinions and stick flying of proposals.  We need data!  Bring me and Anthony flight reports.  Identify design defects under varying conditions over the coming weeks & months so we have something objective to report as a basis for your feedback. The Chair has already gone on record that changes will not be made based on preference, rather only to fix defects in the sequences themselves.  Of course, if enough members speak up, the BoD may ask for new proposal(s); HOWEVER, there is no guarantee that any new proposal will be an improvement (could be much worse as they put back in maneuvers we already asked them to take out); AND, there are also members outside of D1 who like the new schedules.  Who they are and how many of them I have no idea; we will need members in number, and data in the form of flight reports from different pilots under different conditions, to move the needle in the direction that our D1 membership requests.  We can only do so much without data.  Talk is cheap, get me numbers!

And thanks all for this discussion: I hope you get a sense of what it is like for Anthony and myself to represent D1 given the headwinds of change.  Dana


> On Jun 3, 2015, at 3:42 PM, DaveL322 <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> Is anyone not flying pattern or going to quit pattern because the Masters Class is too easy?  None that I know of.
> 
> Is anyone going to quit pattern because of the proposed new Masters sequence.  Yes, more than a few.
> 
> It would seem quite clear this is a bad proposal.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dave
> 
> Please pardon any spelling errors or brevity.....Sent on a Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note® 3
> 
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: JOE LACHOWSKI via NSRCA-dist1 <nsrca-dist1 at lists.nsrca.org> 
> Date: 06/03/2015 1:30 PM (GMT-05:00) 
> To: Dana Beaton <danamaenia at me.com> 
> Cc: District 1 NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-dist1 at lists.nsrca.org> 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-dist1] Masters proposal 
> 
> 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/20150604/420dfaa5/attachment-0001.html>