AMA MASTER'S unknown?

Grow Pattern pattern4u at comcast.net
Thu Jan 6 07:27:03 AKST 2005 

How does this list feel about a Masters Nat's final that was different to 
the regular schedule. OR, even an unknown in the final to make it more than 
just three more of the same flown in the heats.

Regards,

Eric.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <flyintexan at houston.rr.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: Annex proposal - development


> Bill,
>
> I guess what I was trying to say was that I would welcome changes to a 
> known sequence once in a while.  Memorizing and getting the sequence to 
> flow perfectly is great, but I'm not flying pattern just to memorize stick 
> movements to unconsiously fly one set of manuevers.  Pattern flying should 
> be a way to learn how to fly all the elements precisely.  By changing the 
> sequence once in a while, the timing and flow may change, but the elements 
> (flying a straight line, nice radius, wind correction, etc.) still apply.
>
>
> -Mark
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bill Glaze <billglaze at triad.rr.com>
> Date: Thursday, January 6, 2005 9:53 am
> Subject: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: Annex proposal - development
>
>> 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 <billglaze at triad.rr.com>
>> >     To: discussion at nsrca.org <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
>> >>>[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.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>
> =================================================
> 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.

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list