[NSRCA-discussion] 2007 Advanced Schedule

[jivey61 at bellsouth.net]

 Careful Matt you will scare them all away. We do the reverse outside in SPA all the time.

Jim Ivey
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Rcmaster199 at aol.com 
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 11:36 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2007 Advanced Schedule


  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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/20060511/f2f74530/attachment.html