Pattern Box Rules (discussion)

[Grow Pattern]

I have always liked the idea that John puts forward below. Primarily because 
it lends itself to cultivating entry into pattern. The next class of 
advancement could have partial turnarounds and then the next one full 
turnaround.

A 401 class with more interesting center maneuvers and no turnarounds would 
invite, or convert, a lot of pattern-hesitant people that I know today.

On the other end of the spectrum, I have watched many of, how should I say 
it, our elder contestants get into trouble with the turnarounds in the 403 
and 404 classes. They can fly very well indeed but are a bit past having 
bionic vision capability for the turnarounds, or at least lining the plane 
up coming out of the scored turnarounds.

They could fly the same center maneuvers as a Masters pilot but opt for any 
type of turnaround. It could easily be a class with a class, like sports car 
racing?

I know it is a bit "out of the box", but when will I be able to convince the 
majority that we need to make it more attractive to not just join but also 
stay at the end? If we keep looking at a problem through the eyes of our 
young bucks and top end pilots we miss a big chance to have an awful lot of 
fun.

Regards,

Eric.

P.S. I think that the current box is fine as it is. The rules are clear. The 
judges just don't seem to know them very well. It may well be an education 
issue as opposed to a legislation one.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Ferrell" <johnferrell at earthlink.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: Pattern Box Rules (discussion)


> Great idea!
> Leave the box alone for the Masters class & get rid of the box for the 
> lower classes.
> No offense intended, but the Masters Class has ruled the lower Classes too 
> long, time to ratchet down the difficulty in hopes of finding a few entry 
> level pilots in District 2. Y'all are welcome to the challenge!
>
> While we are at it, we could forget about the 60 degrees and jus use a 
> 3-4-5 triangle to lay out the Masters & FAI box. Surely they would not 
> notice just a few degrees shorter.... :-)
>
> John Ferrell
> http://DixieNC.US
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Joe Lachowski" <jlachow at hotmail.com>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 5:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Pattern Box Rules (discussion)
>
>
>> The 75 degree box is just as bad as no box at all. I flew the 75 degree 
>> box in a couple of IMAC contests when they used it and thought that that 
>> big of a box was a joke and presented less of a challenge. Leave the box 
>> alone. Let's bury this obsurd idea right now!!
>>
>>>From: vicenterc at comcast.net
>>>Reply-To: discussion at nsrca.org
>>>To: discussion at nsrca.org, discussion at nsrca.org
>>>CC: BUDDYonRC at aol.com
>>>Subject: Re: Pattern Box Rules (discussion)
>>>Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 22:10:27 +0000
>>>
>>>IMAC changed to 90 degree box this year.
>>>
>>>Vince
>>>
>>>-------------- Original message --------------
>>>
>>>As a member of the rules change committee I am trying to determine if 
>>>there is interest in pursuing this matter and welcome a discussion and 
>>>suggestions regarding this issue
>>>I have outlined some of the issues and suggestions pertaining to this 
>>>below and welcome your opinions.
>>>
>>>The pattern box was added to the AMA rules when the turnaround method of
>>>Presentation and scoring was initiated. It defines the limited scoring 
>>>area where all maneuvers must be performed.
>>>The purpose of the box is to provide a uniform but somewhat flexible area 
>>>of presentation that allows the pilot the opportunity to tailor his 
>>>presentation to the requirements of the pattern being flown, and allow 
>>>judges to score his presentation on an equitable basis when compared to 
>>>the presentations of other pilots flying the sequence.
>>>The rules provide for specific score penalties for performing any 
>>>maneuver either out of the box or partially out of the box, making it all 
>>>important that all box violations are downgraded the same by all judges 
>>>to provide the correct score earned.
>>>Over the years the failure of judges to provide a uniform application of 
>>>box violations has resulted in an unfair advantage to some pilots and a 
>>>disadvantage to others.
>>>In many cases box line poles are not or cannot be provided to give the 
>>>pilot or judge the visual reference necessary which becomes the primary 
>>>reason among others that this condition continues to exist.
>>>In addition to the above the present box configuration increases the 
>>>possibility of a midair collision when two flight lines are used because 
>>>many pilots strive to utilize the same optimum distance out in their 
>>>presentation.
>>>By reconfiguring the box more area will be available for those who wish 
>>>to fly in closer with out fear of box violation downgrades, this will 
>>>also allow those who experience vision difficulties at greater distances 
>>>the possibly to be more competitive
>>>  In order to provide a method that will more nearly insure equity to all 
>>> participants and simplify the task of judges, while possibly reducing 
>>> the occurrences of midair collision, and also encourage those with 
>>> limited eyesight at the greater distances to participate, It has been 
>>> suggested that a rules change be requested to modify the pattern box 
>>> layout and redefine the box boundary infringement penalty.
>>>
>>>One suggestion was to revise the box size by changing the box line from 
>>>Sixty (60) degrees to Seventy-five (75) degrees. And adopt a uniform 
>>>system of accessing penalties similar to the FAI rule or to the method 
>>>used in IMAC
>>>
>>>Another suggestion which may offer solutions to more of the inherent 
>>>problems experienced with the present box layout and scoring methods 
>>>would be to adopt
>>>A box layout and penalty system as described in the AMA Scale Aerobatics 
>>>Rules Item 4.1 with modifications to suit pattern.
>>>
>>>Buddy Brammer
>>>
>>
>>
>> =================================================
>> 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.