Sequence Poll Results

[Bob Pastorello]

John, I positively agree with EVERY one of your insightful comments.  Very well articulated!!

Bob Pastorello
NSRCA 199  AMA 46373
rcaerobob at cox.net
www.rcaerobats.net


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Ferrell 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 7:02 PM
  Subject: Re: Sequence Poll Results


  The AMA schedules should be designed for US Flying conditions. 
  The maneuvers should be flyable with the maneuvering area that is commonly available at US Sites. Note that Muncie has only one site that is really adequate for a roller. 

  Demands on judges should be a consideration. We have a good judges training program but the expectations of the judges are frequently unrealistic. Judges don't do classes: there is no such thing as a Master's judge. Design the sequence accordingly.

  In the US we fly contestants two up. The rest of the world does not. Don't design sequences with a very busy center.

  Do not design sequences that require the most powerful engines in the world. It has nothing to do with piloting skills. 

  If we cannot agree on the scoring details of a given maneuver the least we should do is assign it a low K-factor. 

  Don't even think about a condition where there is Preliminary sequence and a final sequence. Most of the AMA pilots have day jobs and this is a hobby. One sequence at a time is enough to practice. 

  Forget about the preliminary/finals approach to all classes at the Nats. You pay your entry fee, you get to compete as much as anyone else. "Not making the finals" is a tough blow to the ego that serves no purpose.


  John Ferrell    
  http://DixieNC.US

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Ron Van Putte 
    To: discussion at nsrca.org 
    Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 11:21 AM
    Subject: Re: Sequence Poll Results



    On Jan 2, 2005, at 9:58 AM, Ron Lockhart wrote:


      For the 41%  voting to Not have the progression of AMA classes be designed to prepare for F3A,
      what changes would you like to see in those classes?
       
      Feel free to respond on or off list.


    I'll bet that many of the people who voted NO on having the progression of AMA classes designed to prepare for F3A were saying, "I don't think the construction of the progression of maneuver schedules should be dictated by a maneuver schedule we have no control over." I, for one, feel that way. I feel that the Master class, the terminus of the AMA maneuver schedule sequence, should reflect what members of NSRCA want. We can't affect what FAI does to the F3A maneuver schedule. If we tailor the Master class maneuver schedule to what is in the F3A maneuver schedule, we will be tinkering with it continuously and changes to the Master class maneuver will often dictate changes to the maneuver schedules in the other classes. I believe we should decide what we want to do and do it. 

    Ron Van Putte

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050103/de07be9b/attachment.html