[SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: Annex proposal -
development
Mark Hunt
flyintexan at houston.rr.com
Wed Jan 5 17:47:56 AKST 2005
Terry,
The snap was done very well by several of the pilots. Nobody over-rotated to the point that they became inverted or in a bad situation. Because it was an unknown, it was a first (snap) for several of the pilots whose aircraft were not really setup to snap hard, but they managed it very well.
There were several 0's handed out on the unknown, but many of them were due to poor calling!!! LOL. Calling an unknown sequence (seen only an hour in advance) was almost as hard as flying it!
-mark
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Brox
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 8:39 PM
Subject: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: Annex proposal - development
Hi Mark,
How was the snap handled? I dont fly that class, but was very disappointed when the snap was voted out of Intermediate again. I pesonally don't believe it is as difficult as 3 rolls in the old intermediate schedule. Terry
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Hunt
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 8:14 PM
Subject: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: Annex proposal - development
Sorry to go back a bit on the discussion of changing sequences.....
When we held our little 402 grudge match, we decided to spice up the last round by having an unknown. We left the design of the sequence up to our good friend Mr. Don Ramsey and of course, we were all very nervous (yet excited) about what he might throw at us. I believe the sequence was posted some time ago, but here it is again:
Takeoff
Stall Turn w/ 1/4 up and down, exit upright (C)
Immelman w/ 2/4, exit upright (T)
Reverse Triangle Loop, exit upright (C)
Bunt, no rolls, exit inverted (T)
Square loop w/ 1/2 roll on top, exit upright (C)
Humpty Bump, 1/4 up and down, exit upright (T)
Top Hat w/ 1/2 rolls in verticals, exit upright (C)
Figure 9, 1/2 roll up, pull over top, exit upright (T)
2/4 point roll, exit inverted (C)
Figure 9 (mid start), push over top, 1/2 roll down, exit inverted (T)
Double immelman, 12 roll on top, no roll out, exit upright (C)
Half square with 1/2 roll up, exit upright (T)
45 deg. downline, one positive snap, exit upright (C)
Landing
We all thought we were going to die when looking at it on paper...inverted exits???? However, after seeing it flown and actually flying it, it flowed quite nicely. By the time that round was over, many of us chose to try flying it a second and third time for fun....because....it was fun. The elements that need to be learned in whatever class can be applied to any sequence constuction, as long as the sequence itself is still in the abilities of that class of flyer.
I would prefer to see sequence changes occasionally, whether I ever make to FAI or not.
-Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Glaze
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 7:10 PM
Subject: [SPAM] Re: Annex proposal - development
gentlemen:
I believe you are really on to something here; a complete organization that can, by action proof, handle it's own affairs will require much less "supervision" than if it is perceived as being inconsistent. I don't feel that the organization has been ill-served by it's leadership; quite the opposite, in fact. I believe we've been very fortunate to have those folks whose names have been at the top of the letterhead.
But, I believe it's time to take a look at what's been mentioned here in a new context; one of proving our ability to handle all things "in-house" Good thinking.
Bill Glaze
rcaerobob at cox.net wrote:
I have to agree.... my thoughts have been along similar lines since the last Annex effort was made. My belief- based only on understanding organizations - is that the AMA leaders may be more easily persuaded if they can CLEARLY see that WE (the Pattern Community - NSRCA and NON-NSRCA alike) have a structured, consistent process to ferret out sequence changes, etc.
Consistent, repeatable processes are key to keeping everyone on the same page, also.
I REALLY believe a LOT could be done by us defining and organizing our processes a bit; providing known structure builds trust and confidence in the process.
Bob Pastorello
From: "Grow Pattern" <pattern4u at comcast.net>
Date: 2005/01/05 Wed AM 11:16:06 EST
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Subject: Annex proposal - development
If we could ever get away from the lost cause of trying to wrest control
away from the AMA, we could perhaps get to the real need to have a schedule
development system with an annex of maneuvers, a hand picked team of
schedule designers, a test process, a review process and an NSRCA members
poll.
I hate re-inventing the wheel when a clearly defined NSRCA process would
show the AMA we can do the job as the pattern society. The emphasis is on a
clearly defined process, not "This is what we did last time" etc. if it is
clearly defined then the pattern community can join in.
Annex processes include items such as adding and subtracting maneuvers,
rating them - K-factors. Standards, or better still just guidelines, for the
mix of maneuvers in a schedule. Total K-factors are a good start but we are
primitive at best in the way we set about this stuff. Especially when it is
core to the sport!
Regards,
Eric.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 10:14 AM
Subject: RE: Annex proposal
Ron,
I would argue that with all the deadlines imposed by the AMA's rule cycle,
that their 2 year cycle is effectively a 4 year one. It's almost to the
point that rules need to be submitted for the next cycle before this one's
even begun.
While I agree that changes more than once every two years is not really
needed...the annex would give us a lot more time and freedom to make changes
more rapidly. Also..it gives us much more certain control. As it sits
now...if a sequence is submitted...there is no gaurantee it will be
accepted...putting us out another 2 years before we can try again.
-Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 10:02 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Annex proposal
On Jan 5, 2005, at 8:37 AM, randy10926 at comcast.net wrote:
maybe it's time to dust it off and re-submit it. Maybe more contest
board members will attend and vote. It sounds like a good idea to try
and rework this before all the scedules are submitted.
My original plan for the annex proposal was for NSRCA to have control
over an annex containing the maneuver descriptions and maneuver
schedules, so that we could change maneuver schedules when we wanted to
and not be limited by AMAs three-year rule change cycle. AMA refused
to even accept that proposal and, consequently, did not allow the
contest board to vote on it. The second proposal gave AMA veto power
over the maneuvers and maneuver schedules. It failed because a contest
board member, who would have voted YES, forgot to vote in time.
Then AMA announced they were going to a two-year rules cycle, obviating
one of the reasons for the annex proposal. Since it's unlikely that
we'd want to change maneuver schedules every year, AMA's rule change
cycle change gave us a lot of what we wanted with the annex system
except control over them. Since AMA is unlikely to relinquish control
over the maneuver schedules, submission of a new annex proposal
wouldn't give us much we don't already have.
Ron Van Putte
-------------- Original message --------------
On Jan 5, 2005, at 6:45 AM, Joe Lachowski wrote:
>
It might have passed if it was written and ironed out before the
> > proposal was submitted. It probably would have had a much better
> > chance. The competition board would have at least had something to
work with in making their decision.
>
That's not true. The only way AMA would have accepted an annex
> proposal was if AMA had veto power over the maneuver schedules. The
> original proposal did not have that. The second proposal did give
AMA
> veto power, but didn't pass because one contest board member didn't
> vote.
>
Ron Van Putte
>
> >> From: "Del Rykert"
> >> Reply-To: discussion at nsrca.org
> >> To:
> >> Subject: Re: Annex proposal
> >> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 06:07:35 -0500
> >>
It was tried to implement but shot down Terry.
> >>
del
> >>
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Brox
> >> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> >> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 9:44 PM
> >> Subject: Annex proposal
> >>
What is the real or perceived problem with the Annex system. I am
> >> not an IMAC flier, but it looks like it works well for them.
> >> I don't want to start a war here, but I am not sure why one would
> >> have a problem with a system that could help alleviate the
problems
> >> associated with our current system. Lets hear both sides.
> >> Respectfully Terry Brox
> >
> >
> > =================================================
> > To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
> > To be removed from this list, go to
http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> > and follow the instructions.
> >
>
=================================================
> To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
> To be removed from this list, go to
http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> and follow the instructions.
>
================To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.
================To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.
=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.
Bob Pastorello, El Reno, OK, USA
rcaerobob at cox.net
www.rcaerobats.net
=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050106/f048ad03/attachment.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list