Artistic Aerobatics

[Ron Van Putte]

On Jan 24, 2004, at 12:09 PM, george kennie wrote:

> Bill,
> I seem to have the same feeling about all of this that you have.By my 
> recollection, the survey that asked, "should the Master's schedule be 
> changed every 3 years?", also asked the same question relative to 
> 401,402,403 and the answer was in the affirmative in all cases, and 
> yet the only one that was acted on was Master's.
> I, for one, think that a pretty viable case could be made to have in 
> place a fixed set of schedules for 401- 403, however, it does not 
> appear to me that the wishes of the masses were honored in all areas, 
> unless I'm missing something that's glaringly unapparent somewhere.
> BTW, Have you tried flying the current 403 schedule? That's got to be 
> the most unimaginative sequence that has ever been assembled, with the 
> Immelman, Double I, outside I, all in series. Man, you talk about 
> going around and around. I know that I'm probably ruffling someone's 
> feathers here, but that couldn't have been a colaborative effort or 
> somebody would have said "wait a minute, this is no good".
> It's not that hard to devise new refreshing, flowing schedules, with 
> substance. Like an Advanced schedule with a 3-leaf Clover(not hard), 
> and a Horizontal Hourglass, you know, something a little diffreent 
> from the same-ole, same-ole.I think that it was an error to have 
> dropped that wonderful 6-sided outside and would like to see that 
> reinstated. And Intermediate could have 17-19 maneuvers, instead of 
> gettin' 'em down so the big boys can go up.
> I think that it's pretty easy to compose schedules that are 
> interesting, as well as challenging and specific to the skill levels 
> of each class under consideration.
> Piece o' Cake.

Hey guys, it looks like we found ourselves the committee chairman for 
maneuver schedules for the next rule change cycle.  He even says that 
it's easy.  Thanks for volunteering Georgie.

Ron Van Putte

> Bill Glaze wrote:
> 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 OfBill 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 8686 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20040124/09d48409/attachment.bin