[SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: Annex proposal - development

George Kennie geobet at gis.net
Thu Jan 6 10:38:56 AKST 2005


I too find Don Ramsey's sequence very stimulating.
Reminds me that I have always felt that the poor guys in Sportsman
sometimes appear to be getting the short end of the stick regarding
the schedule.Many contests that I have attended have them flying the
sequence twice because the routine is so very short. I would like to
see their schedule slightly modified to give them a little longer
sequence and a little additional stimulation.
I would propose something like the following.

1.T.O.
U
2.Free
Pass.
D
3.Straight Flight Out.
C                      U
4.Procedure Turn.                                   T
5.Straight Flight Back.
C                      D
6.1/2 Reverse Cuban Eight                       T
7.Immelman Turn.
C                      U
8.Split S.                                                  T
9.2 Loops.
C                      U
10.Exit The
Box.                                                               U

11.Enter The
Box.                                                             D
12.Non-Rolling Triangular Loop                C
U
13.Humpty Bump 1/2 roll up                      T
14.One 2-Point Roll
C                      D
15.1/2 Cuban Eight.                                   T
16.Non-Rolling Cobra.
C                     U
17.Stall Turn.                                             T
18.2 Rolls.
C                      D
19.Exit The Box.
20.Landing.
C                      U

C= Center,T=Turnaround, U= Upwind, D=Downwind.

My rationale is that this is the point that we need to encourage
this
class of fliers to work on their down elevator timing by introducing

2 rolls.This shouldn't be too much for them to handle as they are
currently doing a 2 point roll. Also the 2 loops will sharpen their
precision by making them work harder at presentation placement.
The Procedure Turn will teach them something that will be required,
and the Humpty should present no major problems as they are already
doing a 1/2 Reverse Cuban.They should be learning the Stall Turn and

the Triangular Loop will further strengthen their centering
skills.There are
seven maneuvers before taking a breather and seven more to complete
the sequence.
Now these fellows can fly ONE sequence like the rest of us and the
time required should be no longer than the time required to fly a
double
schedule.

Sportsman pilots out there, let me know what you think.
Georgie
P.S.I wonder if there are any Sportsman guys monitoring this list??

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: TakeoffStall 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/20050106/3c224754/attachment-0001.html


More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list