Nats Judging Rebate-keep their best SCORE!

[Arch Stafford]

I think a lot of time people jump before they even fly the sequence.  I
remember in November people going nuts about the Reverse Avalanche in the
new masters sequence.  Yet, I don't remember seeing any wing failures last
week at the NATS.  All of it is new at some point, just a matter of taking
the time to learn the new maneuvers.  Practice them high at first, or on a
simulator.  

Arch


-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Joe Lachowski
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 9:30 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Nats Judging Rebate-keep their best SCORE!

First, there is no 1/4,1/2,1/4 roll  from inverted in the proposed  Masters 
sequences. There is a 2/4  pt reversed from inverted and a slow roll from 
inverted to inverted, however.

Don't forget there is a triangle loop in one proposed Advanced that has a 
full roll in it that is basically flying a full roll from inverted to 
inverted. Just practice it as a slow roll up at a higher up safe position. 
There may not be clear cut inverted exits and entries but there are some 
segments that involve working from the inverted position(ie - Bunt w/1/2 
roll, 2 outside loops, 6-sided outside loop, and Figure M w/1/4 rolls come 
to mind in the proposed  Adv. sequences)

I wouldn't worry about it. I think people are having a knee jerk reaction to

things without thoroughly analyzing what is there. Besides, I thought 
everyone new how to fly inverted<g>.

>From: "Wayne Galligan" <wgalligan at goodsonacura.com>
>Reply-To: discussion at nsrca.org
>To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
>Subject: Re: Nats Judging Rebate-keep their best SCORE!
>Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:55:44 -0500
>
>Terry,
>
>I have to completely agree with you an this one.   I was just having a 
>conversation with another adv. flyer and he voiced concern of the diamond 8

>that he would have to do a complete roll on the down line and push to the 
>back side of the figure 8.   As it is in adv. the 45 down neg snap prepares

>you for that very scenario.   Same being inverted going into the top hat.

>It gives you the feel of the push into the next maneuver.
>What is going to happen when the adv. flyers have to go to an inverted 
>1/4,/1/2,1/4  point roll?    Some of them have a hard enough time doing the

>inverted roll properly (yours truly included)at the bottom of the double 
>immelman.
>
>I say add more inverted exits or maneuvers.
>
>Wayne Galligan
>ADV  D6
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Terry Terrenoire
>   To: discussion at nsrca.org
>   Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 6:27 PM
>   Subject: Re: Nats Judging Rebate-keep their best SCORE!
>
>
>   This IS published in advance, and all pilots know it, so there is no 
>problem, at least there was not in the 7 years I was involved. We certainly

>do not need more rules!!!! Especially a national rule that pertains to just

>one, 4 day event a year!
>
>   While on the subject of rules changes. A while ago I commented on the 
>"dumbing down" of the Advance pattern, and had just one or two comments. 
>How many of you Advance fliers think that it is prudent to go from 4 
>inverted maneuvers to NONE. How is that possibly going to prepare you for 
>the difficulty of Masters??? Have any of you even looked at the proposal? 
>How many of you have flown the 2 proposed schedules?
>
>    Sure would like to hear some comments from other Advance and Masters 
>pilots, pro or con!!
>
>   Terry T.
>
>   On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:05:57 -0500 "Bob Pastorello" <rcaerobob at cox.net> 
>writes:
>     As a "non Nats" guy at the present - a thought - since a Rules cycle 
>submittal is pending, I think that ANY considerations about "penalties" for

>not judging had BETTER BE BUILT INTO AMA rules.
>     The AMA Sanctions a national event, and I would bet dollars to donuts 
>that a subsequent protest for zeroed rounds would WIN - due to the fact 
>that there is NO AMA provision in the rules to cover the situations you all

>are describing.
>
>     I'm not taking sides, nor pointing fingers/blame.
>
>     Simply suggesting that NOW is the time to try and get a rule change to

>support the propositions of "enforcement".  Could be important.
>
>     Bob Pastorello
>     www.rcaerobats.net
>     rcaerobob at cox.net
>       ----- Original Message -----
>       From: Ron Van Putte
>       To: discussion at nsrca.org
>       Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 10:14 AM
>       Subject: Re: Nats Judging Rebate-keep their best SCORE!
>
>
>
>       On Jul 27, 2005, at 9:48 AM, Gray E Fowler wrote:
>
>
>         Money does not matter, scores do. In the past, was it not work or 
>lose your best round? THAT keeps people on their toes.
>
>
>       That's done now.
>
>
>         I also heard that  some people coming to FAI and Masters did not 
>submit TWO frequencies, creating matrix hassles. Same here- assign the 
>matrix to make sense and if the person does not have his alternate 
>frequency as was requested on the NATS entry form then he simply does not 
>fly that round. The CD needs relief, and the contestants need the MOST fair

>matrix that can be had.
>
>
>       No argument here.
>
>       Ron Van Putte
>
>
>
>         Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net>
>
>         Sent by: discussion-request at nsrca.org
>
>
>         07/27/2005 09:33 AM
>
>         Please respond to
>
>         discussion at nsrca.org
>
>
>         To
>
>         discussion at nsrca.org
>
>         cc
>
>         Subject
>
>         Nats Judging Rebate
>
>
>
>
>
>
>         Last week at the Nats, I had a talk with Nats event director, Dave
>         Guerin about judging no-shows.  On the very first morning, Dave 
>had at
>         least three no-shows (F3A pilots who were supposed to judge the 
>Master
>         class).  You can imagine the frustration of trying to reschedule 
>pilots
>         to cover for them, not to mention the delay in getting the events
>         started.  This was not an isolated case.  It happened over and 
>over
>         during the week.  Some just forgot when they were supposed to 
>judge.
>         There were even some who were scheduled to judge on the third day,

>who
>         decided to leave after two days and didn't tell anyone.
>
>         We discussed having a "$50 judging rebate".  It would work like 
>this:
>         In addition to the normal entry fees, $50 would be collected.  If 
>a
>         pilot showed up to perform his scheduled judging session, he'd get

>a
>         $50 rebate.  If a pilot didn't show up to perform his scheduled 
>judging
>         session, the replacement judge would get the $50.  BTW, the normal
>         stipend for pilots who perform extra judging sessions is $30.
>         Comments?
>
>         Ron Van Putte
>
>         =================================================
>         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.
>
>         List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from 
>the list.
>
>
>


=================================================
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.

List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the list.

=================================================
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.

List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the list.