[NSRCA-discussion] 2007 Advanced Schedule

[Rcmaster199 at aol.com]

Geez this thread reminds me of the tons written about the present Masters 
schedule a couple years ago, only in reverse. The view some had at the time was 
that Masters pilots were going to break planes left, right and center because 
the schedule was crappy. The culprit was the reverse ava. Well, the pundits 
were half right.

It also reminded me of one of the koolest maneuvers in the book we flew as 
Sportsmen way back in antiquity, the "dreaded" Reverse Outside Loop. Talking 
crap your breeches and knock your knees scary (in whatever order you like). Took 
many gallons to perfect it. Was one of the better building blocks for all 
kinds of maneuvers later on.

Personally, I don't see much wrong with the present schedules in the lower 
classes. Next cycle, I would be in favor of the Reverse Outside on center. 

FWIW

Matt



In a message dated 5/10/2006 3:58:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
jonlowe at aol.com writes:
Dave,
I agree everyone gets one vote.  However the advanced pattern does not 
directly affect the Masters or FAI flyers, except they get to judge it. 
  I agree the proposed advance pattern would be a challenge; I would 
enjoy the challenge of the the 6 sided outside and the on center stall 
turn.  However, for me and apparently others,  the current pattern 
would be a greater challenge, outside snap, inverted exits, 
push-pull-pull humpty bump and all.  K factors alone for individual 
manuevers don't capture the overall challenge of a combined pattern.   
IMHO, people are taking this discussion WAY too personal.  Not being in 
favor of a new pattern is not attacking anyone's manhood!

My basic concern about the new pattern remains and hasn't been 
addressed amidst all of the rhetoric about votes and surveys:  what 
happened to the stepping stone of multiple inverted entrances and exits 
that added to the challenge of the current advanced sequence?    It 
went from 4 or 5 in the old to zip in the new, with the new masters 
schedule having 8.  No one has addressed that.  I got some talk about 
inverted segments being part of the advanced pattern, but that begs the 
question.

I had no intention of implying that FAI and Masters flyers are elitist; 
they aren't, at least not in my experience.  I appreciated very much 
all of the help I got at the Grand Stand/Green Sea event from you, 
Troy, Don, and everyone else, and I took time to say so on this list 
right after the event.  If any one got the impression I was calling 
them elitist, I publically apologize.

Finally, I am going to ask as many other interemdiate and advanced 
pilots in my district as I can what they prefer, and present that 
information to our contest board representative.  It is the right thing 
to do.

BTW, I made up one of your transmitter strap hook spacer thingies, and 
I like it a lot!!  Much better balance.

Jon Lowe

-----Original Message-----
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net
To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, 10 May 2006 18:39:23 +0000
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2007 Advanced Schedule

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060511/55d0e112/attachment.html