Pattern Schedules & Box Rules

[Ed Miller]

I favor maneuvers that have several elements in them so it takes more time to present them. This approach, I believe lightens the judges workload instead of judging a maneuver in the sub-second time it takes to perform it. Precision aerobatics shouldn't be about who can properly time jamming the sticks to the corners and releasing at the precise moment every time. This also means the more time you spend on a maneuver, the more likely you are to screw up and the greater opportunity the judges have to ding you in various places in the maneuver. Gee, that just might improve judging. In FAI it seems they have used the snap, triple toe variations to try and separate the god like from the almost god like. The rest of us that have our feet planted on the ground don't need the level of complexity to sort us out. Certainly someone from the outside looking in doesn't need that level of "competitiveness" from the start. 
Ed M.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: ronlock at comcast.net 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 8:59 AM
  Subject: Re: Pattern Schedules & Box Rules


  Reference John's comment on the rules cycle when   "...we chose to make the sequences tougher..."
  That cycle included an NSRCA  survey and vote between proposed new sequences for all classes.   "The" membership (guess that means a lot of us) voted for the tougher ones, and the AMA Board likewise voted them in.  

  There is some re-thinking going on now, that maybe we got them too hard.
  I'd suggest we may want to lighten up a bit on Sportsman, and maybe Intermediate.   I'm not in favor of a wholesale significant shift to easier patterns.
  (not in favor of enlarging box either)

  Ron Lockhart

    -------------- Original message -------------- 

    > Paul, don't get the idea I am hostile, I am just picking on the troops with 
    > this one! 
    > 
    > I feel guilty of at least helping us down this road of dwindling membership 
    > since I was chair of the rules survey committee when we chose to make the 
    > sequences tougher. 
    > 
    > There is no assurance that less demanding sequences at the lower levels will 
    > fix the problem but what can it hurt? 
    > 
    > John Ferrell 
    > http://DixieNC.US 
    > 
    > ----- Original Message ----- 
    > From: "Paul Horan" 
    > To: 
    > Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:28 PM 
    > Subject: Re: Pattern Box Rules (discussion) 
    > 
    > 
    > > As a new competitor, just out of Sportsman, I actually like the box. 
    > >! ; It sure beats blasting back and forth like we used to back in the 70s and 
    > > 80s. 
    > > Also the box instills a dicipline that I find challanging but enjoyable. 
    > > I think 
    > > we would be losing something important if we eliminated the box. 
    > > Thanks, 
    > > Paul 
    > 
    > 
    > ================================================= 
    > 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/20050303/c7fbd7bb/attachment.html