[NSRCA-discussion] AMA Sequences
J N Hiller
jnhiller at earthlink.net
Fri Jul 27 10:49:05 AKDT 2007
Tim, I believe there was the Advanced class at the same time there was an
Expert class.
Novice, Sportsman, Advanced, Masters, Expert, FAI. Expert was dropped when
all classes went turnaround.
Bob R.
Dave Lockhart <davel322 at comcast.net> wrote:
Tim,
I was on a couple of the sequence committees back in the late 80s early
90s.
When F3A went turnaround, many of the top
Hi All.
I didn’t remember how Expert Turnaround came about so I dug out my old
rulebooks last night.
As stated in a previous e-Mail the schedules were Novice, Sportsman,
Advanced, Masters (12-M K=42 Ka=3.5), and Expert Turnaround (17-M K=36
Ka=2.12). I found this class structure in the 1990 / 91 rulebook. In an
effort to better understand the evolution of this I checked adjacent
rulebooks.
The 1988 / 89 schedules were Novice, Sportsman, Advanced, Expert (M-13 K=42
Ka=3.23) and Masters. This appears to have been the last year Masters fliers
built their own schedule. 12 airborne maneuvers (takeoff & landing were not
judged), from a list of 37 available, that gave a minimum of 450 points
(M-12 K=45 minimum Ka=3.75).
The 1992 / 93 (first full turnaround year) schedules were
Novice (M-9 K=15 Ka=1.67), Sportsman (M-11 K=21 Ka=1.91), Advanced (M-15
K=31 Ka=2.07) and Masters (M-23 K=66 Ka=2.87).
Sportsman and Advanced both exited the box for reorientation during the
sequence and all classes had scored takeoff and landing.
At first glance it appears that the 90/91 Masters with a somewhat higher
average K-factor was comparable to the previous Expert and the Expert
turnaround was to test the ‘Turnaround’ waters and the following rule cycle
dropped Expert initiating the 4-class venue we now fly.
2007
Sportsman (M-17 K=26 Ka=1.53), Intermediate (M-19 K=41 Ka=2.16), Advanced
(M-19 K=48 Ka=2.53) and Masters (M-23 K=67 Ka=2.91)
Things of interest:
I included the average K-Factor as a general reference because the higher
total K-Factor resulting from added maneuvers in the lower classes. As
pointed out in other posts the total or average K-Factor may be a poor
indicator of overall difficulty. I guess if you can fly your schedule
inverted, schedules with several inverted maneuvers would be less
challenging. K-Factors don’t appear to include inverted flight difficulty. I
hope I got all those numbers right. I am accustomed to computers generating
numbers for me.
Thanks for the trip back guys. It has been a fun trip, both ways.
I hope you find something of interest in this.
Jim Hiller
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bob Richards
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 3:12 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] AMA Sequences
US flyers flew F3A, leaving AMA Masters a bit thin. It was very common to
have the Expert and Masters classes combined (and flying the Expert
schedule). The combination of reduced overflight and reduced noise with F3A
turnaround was very forward thinking and did much to save flying fields.
Many liked the idea of turnaround, but starting at the top class was a tall
order. Ergo, the introduction of AMA Expert Turnaround – but it was never
intended to be a permanent class, just a transitional class.
Regards,
Dave Lcokhart
DaveL322 at comcast.net <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>
_____
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of twtaylor
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 5:51 PM
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] AMA Sequences
“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 Koopowitz <mailto:derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
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
<mailto: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
_______________________________________________
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/20070727/61933714/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list