AMA MASTER'S unknown?

rcaerobob at cox.net rcaerobob at cox.net
Thu Jan 6 07:40:18 AKST 2005 

Before I'd answer whether I wanted one or not, I'd like to have an understanding of what, specifically, the unknown in Masters would "reveal".  If pattern is about precision piloting that could be a different thing than an ability to have a good caller....

Just my ignorant opinion.

Bob P.
> 
> From: "Grow Pattern" <pattern4u at comcast.net>
> Date: 2005/01/06 Thu AM 11:25:48 EST
> To: <flyintexan at houston.rr.com>, 
> 	<discussion at nsrca.org>
> Subject: AMA MASTER'S unknown?
> 
> 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.
> 
> 

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.

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list