AMA rules-what are we doing?

[ronlock]

History, you want that dusty stuff?  Well, it's a rainy day here, so....

Back in the dark ages, AMA pattern judged center maneuvers only.
There was no box.  Turnarounds were not judged.  Speed was a good
thing - Typical turnaround was a spit S to gain speed, let the piped 
.60 unload to 13,000 to arrive at center around 120mph plus.

In the late 1980's, it was seen that "Turnaround" was coming!   It was 
time to get America on board with the rest of the world.  It was time to
deal with the bad reputation pattern was getting at some fields
concerning speed, noise, and the large amount of airspace used.  
A revolutionary concept for most - a "Box" and a noise rule. The engine
rule "max .61 displacement" got an addition, "or a 1.20 displacement
4 stroke" in an effort to encourage use of quiet 4 strokes.   All that 
"revolution" in rules makes the stuff we talk about now seem like
minor adjustments.

Even without the internet to egg each other on,  the cry went up - 
this will ruin pattern, it won't work, it will obsolete my equipment, 
engines will burn up with mufflers and big props, etc, etc.   
Many did quit.

A transition concept for AMA rules evolved:  Leave the existing 
non- turnaround schedules in place.  Add  F3A, and a new
AMA class, "Expert Turnaround".   It was similiar to todays
Intermediate in difficulty.  Transition to flying in the box 
required revised pilot skills, and considerable modifcation to
pattern birds.   That was an interesting era, as seriously new 
designs and flying styles were tried. To encourage pilots to try
the new turnaround concept, there was no forced advancement
into Expert Turnaround, or into F3A.  And for those that flew 
them, they could return to a regular AMA class.

Over the years, the center maneuver AMA classes evolved to 
Turnaround style, but with a few box exits for a pilot breather, 
and free re-position for the next series of maneuvers in the box.
Expert Turnaround melted into the regular AMA class structure.
F3A remained as an international class, and without 
mandatory advancement from AMA Masters.

Ron Lockhart
----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jeff Hughes 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 12:53 AM
  Subject: Re: AMA rules-what are we doing?


  I guess I'm just missing the point. To some, schedule and practice in intermediate is difficult, but it is not a destination class. If we fly fai at the nats as the top class, logic says that should be the only destination class, not masters. Must be some history here i'm missing.

  It really doesn't matter to me, cause I'm a long way from there, just curious is all.
  Jeff

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Del Rykert 
    To: discussion at nsrca.org 
    Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 7:56 PM
    Subject: Re: AMA rules-what are we doing?


    For one because of the schedule and practice requirements. I have never seen stats on how many sponsored pilots fly in which classes. My guess is none in Sportsman or intermediate and maybe a couple in advanced. Rest hang out in Masters/FAI...  Not all are born with a silver spoon in their pocket or have the type of job that allows the large chunk of time to practice and hone the skills for FAI.  This assumes you are trying to be competitive and not just hanging out.

         Del K. Rykert
         AMA - 8928 
         NSRCA - 473
         Kb2joi - General 
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Jeff Hughes 
      To: discussion at nsrca.org 
      Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 7:19 PM
      Subject: Re: AMA rules-what are we doing?


      FAI, why woudn't our top class be flying the international pattern?
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Rcmaster199 at aol.com 
        To: discussion at nsrca.org 
        Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 4:10 PM
        Subject: Re: AMA rules-what are we doing? 


        In a message dated 11/14/2002 12:31:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, jhughes at hsonline.net writes:


          Subj: Re: AMA rules-what are we doing?  
          Date: 11/14/2002 12:31:46 PM Eastern Standard Time
          From: jhughes at hsonline.net
          Reply-to: discussion at nsrca.org
          To: discussion at nsrca.org
          Sent from the Internet 



          This brings up a good point. Why is Master's considered a destination 
          class? Why shouldn't we point out of Masters just like you do on the 
          way up? 




        Jeff

        and go where?? What would be the point?

        MattK 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20021117/4691d4b2/attachment.html