[SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: Annex proposal - development
Bill Glaze
billglaze at triad.rr.com
Thu Jan 6 06:53:56 AKST 2005
Mark:
I've always liked the idea of unknowns; this one looks as if it's a good
one. Possibly if unknowns were included at more contests, the concern
about changing the usual sequences more often would become a moot
point. Thoughts?
Bill Glaze
Mark Hunt wrote:
> 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 <mailto:billglaze at triad.rr.com>
> To: discussion at nsrca.org <mailto: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/bdb09be6/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list