Pattern Box Rules (discussion)
George Kennie
geobet at gis.net
Thu Mar 3 12:29:24 AKST 2005
Is it possible that that list could be restated :
Sportsman
Intermediate
Advanced
IMAC ?????????????????
Bob Pastorello wrote:
> So...Sportsman - No boxIntermediate - Big BoxAdvanced - Smaller
> BoxMasters - Endless Box Sounds good to ME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Bob Pastorello
> NSRCA 199 AMA 46373
> rcaerobob at cox.net
> www.rcaerobats.net
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Grow Pattern
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 6:32 PM
> Subject: Re: Pattern Box Rules (discussion)
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050303/c4bcb18e/attachment.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list