[NSRCA-discussion] AMA Sequences

Fri Jul 27 12:00:56 AKDT 2007

Yes, it was dropped when all classes went to turnaround, and every class was allowed to drop back, IIRC. Interestingly, I flew Advanced the last year before it went turnaround and would have pointed out, but I moved up to Masters anyway. I liked the schedule more.

  Bob R.

twtaylor <twtaylor at ftc-i.net> wrote:
        v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}  o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}  w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}  .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}        st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }                There was. When Expert was deleted those flying the class were allowed to drop back to Advance if they wanted to.

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

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 2:49 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] AMA Sequences

  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

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

  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 

    To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  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 

    To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  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 

    To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  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 

    To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  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

  _______________________________________________
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/a71cef4b/attachment-0001.html 