[NSRCA-discussion] AMA Sequences

Thu Jul 26 13:50:46 AKDT 2007

"Expert Turn Around"during that time was the only AMA class that flew turn
around and inside the box. The current advance is about the same as it was.
So for some odd reason they decided to delete Expert TA and change all
classes to turn around and Expert got renamed Advanced. Expert TA schedule
was almost identical to the first version of FAI. A lot of contests then
didn't fly FAI as it wasn't an AMA class. Most fliers back then were dead
set against flying Turn Around. The powers to be didn't listen and went with
it anyway. Probably the best decision but back then it sure caused a lot of
fights.Go figure

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Verne Koester
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 5:37 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] AMA Sequences

We used to have that in a class called Expert, but too many CD's were eating
trophy's for lack of contestants. I've developed schedules before and know
exactly what you were dealing with. My personal opinion is that you did it
as well as it can be done within the parameters. I'm not a big fan of
changing the schedules below masters if they're teaching the lessons to be
learned. The schedules below masters aren't and shouldn't be designed for
someone to camp there. The goal is to learn what you need on your way to
masters or fai with the realization that there will still be plenty more to
learn once you get there. I like Jon Lowe's idea of flying the schedule
upside down if you're bored. You'll quickly find that the only part of that
that gets tricky, and sometimes dicey, are the rolling maneuvers.

Verne

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

From: Bill Pritchett <mailto:phelps15 at comcast.net>  

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

Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 5:14 PM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] AMA Sequences

Verne-

Thanks!  So ...... is it possible to keep that Sportsman schedule and change
Intermediate on a pretty regular basis and still address the process of
preparation???  I think it is....  I'm of the opinion that there is nothing
wrong with someone flying Intermediate year after year if that addresses
their interest, preparation, and skill level.  Ideally, all sequences would
prepare for the next level.  The difficulty in addressing this in the
Advanced/Masters situation is that Advanced needs to be the step up from
Intermediate and Masters needs to be challenging enough to address the many
flyers that don't go on to FAI and yet, prepare Masters pilots for FAI!
It's really a very complicated domino effect.  In looking at all the
schedules, it appears to me that we are missing a class between Advanced and
Masters.....used to be between Intermediate and Advanced.....  that's the
educator in me talking.  Using the four AMA classes, it's really difficult
to have the nice step we have now from Sportsman to Intermediate at all
levels....... it is, however, with exchanges like we're having now,
possible!

Pritch

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

From: Verne Koester <mailto:verne at twmi.rr.com>  

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

Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 4:39 PM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] AMA Sequences

Bill,

My personal opinion from the judges chair is that you guys created the best
Sportsman schedule we've ever had. It's the only one I've ever seen since we
went to all-turnaround that prepares a new pilot for the next step. Just my
opinion.

Verne

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

From: Bill Pritchett <mailto:phelps15 at comcast.net>  

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

Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 4:01 PM

Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] AMA Sequences

As a member of Troy's committee a couple years ago, allow me to share the
following thoughts:

-yes, we need to eliminate the 2 year rule and give ourselves the option of
changing AMA event schedules as we desire;

-yes, the jump is bigger now from Advanced to Masters.  At the time, the
overwhelming opinion was that the jump used to be too big to Advanced from
Intermediate;

-yes, the lower classes need to change as well as Masters.  I could possibly
be convinced that Sportsman stay the same, but if we want to include an
element of NSRCA retention into this thread, then the needs of the flyer
that doesn't practice much, have the "right" equipment, etc. should be able
to come to a few contests a year in Intermediate, have fun, and go on....
In order for that person to maintain interest, the schedule for Intermediate
would need to be changed as well.  For those "moving through" the lower
classes, this isn't an issue since it's new to them anyway, regardless of
the schedule.  

-yes, the place to start with this would be at the EC level of AMA

Pritch

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

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

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

Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:48 PM

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

Since the majority of the contest board are active pattern pilots, perhaps
we can petition the AMA EC (thru Steve Kaluf) to discuss these concerns so
that we can then put in a proposal to have the sequences removed.  I'm in
full agreement with what is being discussed with regard to the time frames -
it is not conducive to allowing the SIGs that modify/add rules/sequences to
do it within a time frame that benefits our members. 

On 7/26/07, Mark Atwood <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote: 

Hey Ed,

Not trying to argue a moot point, but you commented that "even if it does
take 2 years, it really doesn't have to"...  That's the part I think you're 
missing.

Even IF we could create, test,survey and decide on a new sequence in a
DAY...the AMA REQUIRES it 2 years in advance of it being flown.

So the solution we are offering is to remove the sequences as part of the 
"Rules"...that would allow us to use a process as you describe to
efficiently alter a sequence.  So basically...I agree with you 100%...we
need a good process.  But the best process is still stymied if we have to 
push it through an AMA rule change cycle.

As it stands now, a rule change submitted in October of this year...wouldn't
have a chance of being included in the rules until January of 2011.  I find
that to be absurd...but that's the guideline that the AMA has in place. 

  _____  

_______________________________________________
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

  _____  

_______________________________________________
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/20070726/80605c7d/attachment-0001.html 