Artistic Aerobatics

[Bill Glaze]

Eric:
Somewhere in your lucid explanation there must be a reason that the 
other classes did not commence with the composition of new schedules 
when the Masters schedule was composed.
Obviously, these other classes then could have been  installed when the 
Masters was.  People are available that would have been more than eager 
to work on the other classes parallel to the classe(s) which were 
changed.  Was there no opportunity for that to happen?  To someone on 
the outside looking in, it just seems as if part of the organization 
moved ahead, while part was left to stagnate.  Or so I see it.  
Illuminate me.
In the event, it would seem to me that now is the time to compose the 
committees, which in turn can formulate the schedules for all of us, all 
classes.  Perhaps this is ongoing, and I just haven't been aware of it.  
I hope.
Respectfully,
Bill Glaze

Henderson,Eric wrote:

> Bill,
>         It's not fair to say the vote was ignored.The vote occurred 
> just before the change-cycle for the AMA closed. there was absolutely 
> no way to propose complete schedule and ascending schedule changes in 
> the time available.
>  
> The lead time to make new schedules took over a year the last time we 
> did them. A sub-committee, split into two teams, and did approx.. four 
> schedules for each class. They were tested and tested, and then voted 
> on at sub-committee level. the winners were narrowed down and voted on 
> at the NSRCA board level and finally sent out in the NSRCA survey as 
> structured groups of schedule options for the NSRCA membership to vote 
> on. ( We all got the same stipend for all of the work!)
>  
> The next window when the voted-on-change-all-schedules-change can be 
> proposed to the AMA is in two years time. The Annex proposal, if it 
> passes, should help us a lot in this process. But if we want to design 
> what we fly, it almost behooves us to start designing now. Tony 
> understand this stuff. He had the vision and was the one that 
> commissioned the original sub-committees long before I got the job of 
> finishing them.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Eric.
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org 
> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bill Glaze
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 1:25 PM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: Artistic Aerobatics
>
> Interesting, that this subject should come up.
> I feel that a big factor,  would be the very thing that is under our 
> noses.  (admittedly, some few will object to the idea)
> Change the flight sequences at least every 3 years, as the 
> questionnaire said.  Said questionnaire was ignored in this 
> particular, in the last rules cycle for all but (significantly) 
> Masters.  And, of course, FAI.
> It would help in the boredom category.  IMHO, it would help much more 
> than looking at pattern airplanes flop all over the sky.  But then, 
> who am I?  I haven't even done a great job of what we're flying now.<G>
> In any event, Eric, I sure appreciate that you're so active in the 
> idea dept.
>
> Bill Glaze
> NSRCA 2388
> AMA 2221
> IMAC 1624
> N7WWS
>
> Henderson,Eric wrote:
>
>> As some of you may know I ran an FAI-FG1 event a couple of years ago 
>> at the Nat's after the finals. Quique, Troy and Chad Northeast put on 
>> a really great show for us while we waited for the Masters and FAI 
>> results.
>>  
>> I have not heard much about this event type since then. I was 
>> wondering if the FAI adopted it or not.
>>  
>> Flying a pattern type plane to music is very attractive. It is one of 
>> the few times where the plane does not drown-out the music! More 
>> correctly said, the planes have to comply with size weight and sound 
>> FAI regulations. They do not actually have to be what we fly in a 
>> pattern contest. Some guys use the same planes and swap-in 3-D wings 
>> and stabs. They often change their props.
>>  
>> It is, of course, the rest-of-the-world's version of IMAC freestyle.
>>  
>> I have written, not without a shot or two across my bows, that the 
>> delineator between precision aerobatics and scale aerobatics is that 
>> pattern is based on practicing the routine, a lot!
>> I see IMAC pilots practicing tailslides and Harriers and torque 
>> rolls, but rarely the routines they fly. In particular, wannabe IMAC 
>> pilots fly the hover stuff for most of their flights. Once in a while 
>> I "push my luck" and I ask them why they practice most, the thing 
>> that they will do least, in a contest. (Maybe once in a freestyle 
>> routine at the end of an event).
>>  
>> The answer always is, "Because I want to get better at it and it is 
>> fun".  Are they having more fun than us? I know that watching a loud 
>> plane hover over the runway is fun for a while but it gets old pretty 
>> quick and even becomes annoying. A bit like when we played our 45's 
>> on repeat. We coul listen to the same song, that we had just 
>> purchased, but our allegedly tone-deaf fathers were soon motivated to 
>> become "discus" throwers!!!!
>>  
>> The question is still out there however, "Are we boring?" and "Do we, 
>> (pattern pilots), need be more watchable"???
>>  
>> Regards, it is still winter - Eric.
>>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20040123/01be281e/attachment.html