[NSRCA-discussion] 2007 Advanced Schedule

Wed May 10 11:30:52 AKDT 2006

Have been reading all the posts here and one theme has been completey and totally left out.

  A Semi-quote from Don Szcur (sorry spelling) 2 years ago.

  "GEOMETRY wins contests"

  Having judged Advanced in several contests recently, it has become very very clear to me, many many pilots can do a very excellent snap, many many pilots can exit either inverted or upright.

  However, the skills, as being discussed, of flying the maneuvers geometrically correct, same radii, a square not a rectangle, a true triangle, a true cuban 8 (extremely difficult maneuver that simply never goes away, regardless of pattern or IMAC) appear to be lacking.  Even a simple understanding of where the Triangle should start and end is often times not understood, or if understood performed poorly.  However, we are asking for more inverted stuff, but many cannot perform the simple geometry!!

  I'm not knocking anyone here, but have seen a complete decline in a realization that pattern is in large percentage what I am talking about.

  The first maneuver this year is the reverse cuban 8.  Very very few people fly this maneuver correctly, don't make the entrance radii the same as the exit radii, don't center their rolls, don't hit a 45 up line, don't make round radii, don't center their cross, don't make the 2nd loop the same size as the first, don't end the manuever where it started, don't keep wings level, don't keep the same track.  And we're arguing over inverted exits.

  Ladies and gentleman, I believe we are arguing about the wrong thing here.  Perfect the Cuban 8, perfect the bunt with a full roll, perfect the geometry of the double imellman, perfet the square, perfect the triangle because look at the current and proposed schedules, all of these never go away, including the 4 pt, snap, slow rolls.

  After judging these maneuvers, and believe me I'm not perfect but am striving for that, many many pilots need to work on basics and the above, they don't need to work on whether they push or pull to exit a manuever.  I contend if you can do a slow roll or 4 pt from upright, with only a little practice, you already have the skills to do one from inverted.  So you go 3rd point first, it is a little scary the first 2 times then sit back and say, what was I worried about.

  Again, to listen to one of our FAI recent NATS winners.

  GEOMETRY wins contests.

  Ed

DaveL322 at comcast.net wrote:
    Jon,

  Not at all picking on your input, because all of the discussion is good (even for those of us that have seen this discussion repeated every 2-3 years for the last 10 years).  Your points regarding the apathy in the survey response and the survey being preliminary are valid and understood.  However, it is the best we have, it is the greatest sampling we have, and while more responses would be good, our percentage of responses is not unlike similar surveys in other demographics.

  Correct me if wrong, but your are suggesting (or stating) that the direction of the Advanced class (for example) should not be influenced by those flying Masters or F3A.  Why not?  It is a democracy, we all get 1 vote.  If anything, I would advocate a Masters or F3A flyers opinion just might be more noteworthy than a Sportsman solely on the base of experience, and being able to recall Advanced on both sides (moving up, and moving out).

  One of the recurring themes with this topic is always that each class should choose their own direction and make their own schedules.  In the context of surveys, the idea is always put forth by some that questions about a particular class should only be answered by those in the class.  It won't work - ok - it won't work as well.  Key to the very core of pattern is the idea that the classes are linked progressively, and it is a fact that many of the piloting techniques and trimming techniques are best (but not exclusively) understood by the folks that have been around longer (which is generally Masters and F3A) or have risen to the top of the discipline.  Segmenting the rules/schedules/etc by class groups will result in segmentation between the classes, and the gaps in difficulty will be worse than they are now.

  A second recurring theme regarding this topic usually goes something like the Masters and F3A guys are elitist, out of touch, and have no idea what Sportman and Intermediate pilots need.  No doubt there are instances that provide basis for that idea.  However, I think the majority of the time, that elitist idea is pure rubbish - consider the Grand Strain event recently in April - literally centuries worth of National level knowledge on designing, building, trimming, competing, flight techniques, judging, and coaching were available equally to all.  Hands down an unqualified success and the best example I can think of in my time in pattern as a way share information, solve problems, and advance our pattern skills (Again, thanks to Rusty, Dave, and the Myrtle Beach crew for hosting).

  If a given pattern we have now is not perfect, it isn't the first time and assuredly it won't be the last.  But if it does represent a good faith effort and is what the majority voted for, go with it.  And if something can be done better, take part it making it better on the next iteration - combatting the existing result does little to improve the system for the next iteration.

  BTW - precisionaero is Mike Cohen (says so in the "From" line), and I agree it is nice to know the author of a post.

  Regards,

Dave Lockhart
  DaveL322 at comcast.net

  -------------- Original message -------------- 
From: JonLowe at aol.com 
        In a message dated 5/9/2006 10:52:29 PM Central Daylight Time, precisionaero at comcast.net writes:
    Thanks for the detailed response Dave.  You also allow me to bring up a good point that needs to be made.  Before you "fight" and accuse, get your facts straight.  Maybe the world is not out to get you.  Maybe some thought did go into this proposal.  And since this is a democracy, you have the right not to like it, but this was voted on.  Dave, can you remind us of the voting results from NSRCA and AMA members please?

  The results are on the NSRCA website.  A total of 74 people voted on whether to change Advanced or not.  However the demographic shows that only 43 were flying Advanced or below.  You can't tell from the results what the demographic was that voted for the "harder" option or the "easier" option.  Only 60 people voted for one of the two options.  Taking out the 17 not flying advanced or below could sway the vote on the options either way.  I also remember that the NSRCA leadership was disappointed in the survey, because only a small number of members responded at all.  Whether or not this survey was representative of the membership at large would have to be looked at by an expert.

  I will also remind "precisionaero" (you might want to sign your posts), that the NSRCA survey was only a "preliminary" at best.  The "election", by the AMA contest board, who have the only votes that count, hasn't happened yet.  Yes, democracy is still at work, and I hope you aren't suggesting that an AMA member can't voice his opinion to his competition board member.  Surveys aren't the same as a vote, last I looked, otherwise the US would have had several different Presidents over the years.   I also asked, and didn't "accuse".  I framed everything I said as a question when I asked about the makeup of the committee.   I did my homework, got the facts that were available, then asked for the rest.  I'm impressed that the cross section on Troy's committee was pretty good.  Troy's group worked hard, and I respect that.  It doesn't mean that I or others have to agree.

  Jon Lowe

From: JonLowe at aol.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2007 Advanced Schedule
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 12:02:23 +0000

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060510/5544bbf4/attachment-0001.html 