[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010

[J N Hiller]

Ron, I believe the association / similarity IMAC had to IAC (full size
aerobatics), which changed their schedule annually influenced the decision.
Jim Hiller

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 7:38 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010

Some may remember that, several years ago, I proposed that NSRCA be allowed
to take the maneuver schedules out of the rule book and change them when we
wanted to, just like IMAC can.  The proposal was shot down by the AMA
Executive Council.  It was never accepted to be voted on by the contest
board.  I never got a satisfactory response on why they took that action.  I
have my suspicions that IMAC pulled a fast one on AMA in getting their
ability to change schedules when they wanted and didn't want NSRCA to have
the same privilege.  It would be interesting to see if the EC has changed
its mind.

Ron Van Putte

On Jul 26, 2007, at 7:45 AM, Mark Atwood wrote:



Hear hear.

I’m not generally a proponent of changing the lower classes all the time
(the intent is that they not be destination classes...I also know the
reality of that so please, no hate mail) But I’m a HUGE HUGE HUGE fan of
being ABLE to change them every year...i.e. Removing the patterns from the
AMA rulebook and allowing the Sig to post the schedules that will be in
effect in a given year.

I think you’ll find ALL of the contest board members would vote “Yea” for
that if they ever got the chance to...

The advantages are so many I can’t even begin to list them.

-M


On 7/26/07 8:37 AM, "John Ferrell" < johnferrell at earthlink.net
<mailto:johnferrell at earthlink.net> > wrote:



Are you certain that you really can change the schedule without waiting out
the rules cycle?

The lower classes had to endure 6 years of the same schedule because the
Contest Board refused to act on anything other than emergency proposals in
the interim. Many of the Advanced flyers elected just to stand down.

You have just pointed to advantage the IMAC discipline has over Pattern with
AMA...

I hope you can pull it off because the existing conditions are detrimental
to the game.

John Ferrell    W8CCW
"Life is easier if you learn to plow
       around the stumps"
http://DixieNC.US



----- Original Message -----

From:  Derek  Koopowitz <mailto:derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
<mailto:derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>

To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:26  PM

Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed  Masters Sequence for 2009/2010




Over the past couple of months we (the NSRCA board)  have received a number
of comments about the Masters sequence that was  selected in 2005.  We heard
that the sequence had too many snaps,  turnaround maneuvers did not allow
positioning of the plane (in or out) after  the 5th maneuver, and that the
difficulty level from Advanced to Masters was  further increased.  There was
also an error in the schedule in that one  would come out of the Double
Immelman (#10) inverted and head into the Humpty  Bump (pull-push-pull) and
head into the ground based on the description.   The Masters schedule was
published in the July 2005 issue of the K-Factor  (Option A on page 25) - in
lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

  _____

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto: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/20070726/712b01f9/attachment-0001.html