[SPAM] Re: [SPAM] 2007 Advanced Patterns

Fri Jul 29 07:58:52 AKDT 2005

Troy and the groups involved have a great deal of experience and understanding of the skill transitions involved.  Maybe I continue to have too much of an emotional (left brain) attachment to the current Advanced schedule, that has caused some myopic thinking when I first flew the new schedules. 
In my case the learning process in Pattern has been slow. Six years from Basic to Advanced. Getting the basic wings level and rudder inputs to be automatic took a long time.
I started to have doubts if I would ever make it to Masters or FAI. Addopting a more serious practice routine, when I came to Advanced helped a lot and I felt things really started coming together for me. I have startied practicing the Masters schedule, which has been a challenging but not an intimidating transition. 

Rodney Tanner

Joe Lachowski <jlachow at hotmail.com> wrote:
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 
>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
> 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 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" 
>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 
>
>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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050729/db6fc37e/attachment-0001.html