[SPAM] 2007 Advanced Patterns

[Joe Lachowski]

The leap is not monumental. The fact is, there are  more manuevers(4) in 
Masters which make it look that way.

Terry, if the schedules are too easy for you, I challenge you to fly them in 
front of Dave Lockhart, Ed Alt and myself( alll on sequence committee) and 
score 8's or better on everything at Sayre.  You have a week to practice  
one or both if you choose.

The only thing that is going to get you to Masters is practice, practice, 
practice.

Joe Lachowski

>From: Terry Terrenoire <amad2terry at juno.com>
>Reply-To: discussion at nsrca.org
>To: discussion at nsrca.org
>Subject: Re: [SPAM] 2007 Advanced Patterns
>Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 05:52:26 -0400
>
>I could not agree more, Rodney. That is a monumental leap from Adv to
>Masters. I have not looked at the KF diff from Int to Adv, but would be
>willing to bet that it is not nearly a 19 point difference.
>
>Terry T.
>
>
>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:57:53 -0700 (PDT) Rodney Tanner
><rodney19821982 at yahoo.com> writes:
>Terry,
>I have flown both the 2007 Advanced patterns and prefer option A. but
>having no inverted sequences is a let down. IMHO neither is any where
>near as good/challenging as the current schedule. Troy has and his team
>have outlined the rational behind their selection: the new patterns are
>aimed at giving a smoother transition for Intermediate pilots moving up,
>rather than current Advanced pilots. So maybe we have to practice hard on
>the current schedule and then make the logical move to Masters in 2007.
>My concern is the huge distance that will now open up now between
>Advanced and Masters. Total KF of 48 versus 67. My $0.02 worth.
>
>Rodney T.
>
>Terry Terrenoire <amad2terry at juno.com> wrote:
>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.