Masters 2005 Options
Tomanek, Wojtek
tomanekw at saic-abingdon.com
Thu Oct 24 13:59:34 AKDT 2002
Verne
"The difficult part of schedule building is getting the
right mix that includes a good balance of maneuver types, difficulty level,
challenge considerations, wind direction and flow from one maneuver through
the next." I thought that I covered that by Item 3. <G>. By saying "into
a > well flowing schedule" the intent was to select the sequence form the
voted maneuvers. The voting would be for center, turnaround, and turnaround
wind correcting maneuvers. I assumed that the committee would NOT just
throw cards with maneuver names in the air and just pick randomly. It would
be up to the committee to assemble (read select the sequence) and test the
fly by appropriate pilots to make sure it flows well and there is a correct
sequence.
It is kinda obvious that you do not want to have a five
looping type maneuvers in a row (say Split S, Loop, or Avalanche, Single or
Double Immelman, followed by a bunt, or a roll and half loop) that is
boorrriiiinnnnngggggg, or that you have enough space for a space eater such
as a four point roll or knife edge to knife edge should be preceded and
followed by turnarounds that do not take a lot of space such as ½ square
loop, stall turn etc. This sequencing would be developed by a selected
committee and test flown by pilots at appropriate level (intermediate pilots
testing intermediate schedule etc.,). BTW, it seems obvious that after a
stalled maneuvers a wind correcting maneuver is needed.
All I am saying that this MAY be an improvement in how we
come up with a new schedule. Not everything can be done by a popular
consensus because one cannot be achieved - ever. This is a compromise.
Again just something to think about. Using the list for trashing may not be
productive or representative of the pattern community desires. The process
has to have some kind of a formalized format to work.
Wojtek
-----Original Message-----
From: Verne Koester [SMTP:verne at twmi.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 6:29 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Masters 2005 Options
Wojtek,
Sounds great on paper but doesn't work in reality. The key element
missing in this approach is flow. There's lots of neat maneuvers out there
to choose from. The difficult part of schedule building is getting the right
mix that includes a good balance of maneuver types, difficulty level,
challenge considerations, wind direction and flow from one maneuver through
the next. Try assembling a whole schedule and you'll see what I mean. If
you REALLY want a thrashing, post it out here or somewhere for public
scrutiny. You'll need the hide of a rhino to take the abuse <g>.
Verne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tomanek, Wojtek" <tomanekw at saic-abingdon.com
<mailto:tomanekw at saic-abingdon.com> >
To: <discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org> >
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 3:45 PM
Subject: RE: Masters 2005 Options
> Maybe in the future we can use a three step-process in
selecting a new
> schedule for all AMA classes. It would be very simple.
>
> 1) First lets the publish a list of all center and
turnaround
> maneuvers. The list should contain all currently flown
maneuvers and
> maneuvers that have been flown in the past. The pattern
community would
be
> asked to propose additional realistic but innovative
maneuvers, for
instance
> an avalanche from the top with a snap at the bottom, or a
loop with a roll
> at the top - the possibilities are endless
>
> 2) Once a complete list is assembled for a given selection
cycle, it
> would be submitted for another membership vote to select
the preferred
> maneuvers for each class (401, 402, 403, and 404).
>
> 3) Finally, a committee would assemble these sets of
maneuvers into a
> well "flowing" schedules for each class. (I would expect
that the
selection
> process would include field testing by pilots in an
appropriate class.
>
> In my opinion, the result will be set of schedules (401,
402, 403, and
404)
> that majority of the pattern community will like because
it will contain
the
> most popular maneuvers, although the sequence may be
drastically different
> form what we are used to.
>
> I believe that developing a single schedules with
appropriate difficulty
and
> interesting maneuvers for everyone is almost impossible
because of
enormous
> possibilities of variations that a schedule can be
developed, hence there
> will always be more than one opinion of what is better.
As an AMA SIG,
the
> NSRCA would obviously conduct the polling/voting and final
schedule
> selection.
>
> Just a proposal,
>
> Wojtek
> NSRCA 1856
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: glenn hatfield [SMTP:randy10926 at comcast.net]
<mailto:[SMTP:randy10926 at comcast.net]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 3:45 PM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: Masters 2005 Options
>
> I second the motion.
> Randy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lee Davis <lee at piedmontmodels.com
> <mailto:lee at piedmontmodels.com
<mailto:lee at piedmontmodels.com> > >
> Date: Thursday, October 24, 2002 3:33 pm
> Subject: Re: Masters 2005 Options
>
> > I think it is *very* important for NSRCA to
provide input
> to AMA > for rules > and flight routines. It is the one
and only voice
for
> Pattern > pilots as a > group.
> >
> > There was an announcement and time given months
ago for
> anyone to > submit routines for Masters on this very list.
A number of
them
> > were discussed > right here.
> >
> > If someone wants to submit something else now,
have at it,
> it's > your right, > but no one was excluded from the
process of the
current
> submission > from NSRCA.
> >
> Ron, perhaps if you bothered to join NSRCA you would see
the
> vast > improvements made over the last several years to
reach out and >
> promote to > the R/C modeling public at large. I have the
nothing but
> praise > for the > recent administration and staff. I'm
trying to say
> something that > doesn'tcome of as rude or petty, but
Monday morning
> quarterbacks > comes to mind.
>
> > It's easy to criticize from the sidelines.
> >
> > Lee Davis
> > Piedmont Models
> > http://www.piedmontmodels.com/
<http://www.piedmontmodels.com/>
> <http://www.piedmontmodels.com/
<http://www.piedmontmodels.com/> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Williams, Ron"
<rwilliams at wilkinson-mfg.com
> <mailto:rwilliams at wilkinson-mfg.com
<mailto:rwilliams at wilkinson-mfg.com> > >
> > To: <discussion at nsrca.org
<mailto:discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org> >
> >
> > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 2:37 PM
> > Subject: RE: Masters 2005 Options
> >
> >
> > > I try to stay out of this type of
discussion and
> just fly
> > pattern. That
> > is why you most likely have never seen my name
post here.
> I have
> > followedthis list for several years and could
not keep
> quit any
> > longer. I want to
> > thank Troy for saying publicly what I feel
several people
> are saying
> > privately. I am one of the people who are no
longer a
> current
> > member of the
> > NSRCA but do fly pattern, attend several
contests a year
> and
> > belong to the
> > AMA. Troy is correct. The goal of the NSRCA is
to
> promote the
> > future of RC
> > Aerobatics. This is not what I feel has been
the focus
> the last
> > few years.
> > The last time the patterns were changed a back
room deal
> was made
> > by the
> > leadership of the NSRCA to change the
membership-approved
> > patterns. The
> > explanation was that it had to be done or it
would not
> have
> > passed. To me
> > this was an insult to anyone flying in that
class that our
>
> > leadership agreed
> > with. There are several times on that comments
are made
> on this list
> > stating that people like myself who do not
belong to the
> NSRCA
> > should have
> > no say in the future direction. No wonder
people think we
> feel we are
> > better than everyone else.
> > >
> > > I agree with Troy, anyone who belongs
to the AMA
> should be able
> > to present
> > a set of maneuvers to the AMA for approval.
The current
> > president of the
> > NSRCA going on a public list chastising this
individual
> for doing
> > this is
> > wrong. We need to promote the hobby to new
people not
> promote
> > personalagendas. Our local area is also growing
like Troy
>
> > mentions his is. I can
> > also tell you that most of them have no idea who
the NSRCA
> is or
> > care. They
> > are AMA members who want to fly aerobatics.
Hopefully the
> NSRCA
> > will soon
> > return to better times and we can begin to
promote the
> hobby not
> > try to take
> > it over. I agree, our future is bright and all
the new
> equipment
> > keepsmaking it better.
> > >
> > > This message is not intended to upset
anyone or
> is it intended
> > to be a
> > personal attack on anyone. I hope it does not
come across
> as
> > such. It is
> > just my opinion.
> > >
> > > Ron Williams
> >
> >
> > ====================================
> > # To be removed from this list, send a message
to
> > # discussion-request at nsrca.org
<mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org>
> <mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org
<mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org> >
> > # and put leave discussion on the first line of
the body.
> > #
> >
> >
>
> ====================================
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to #
> discussion-request at nsrca.org
<mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org> <mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org
<mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org> > # and
> put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #
> ====================================
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> # discussion-request at nsrca.org
<mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org>
> # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #
>
>
====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to #
discussion-request at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org> # and
put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#
==================# To be removed from this list, send a message to
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list