[NSRCA-discussion] basic judging question (warning 3 letterword)

[Keith Black]

As I stated, USA centric thinkers won't like the idea.

I’d like to challenge some of the replies.

>> The FAI folks have no interest in our problems or solutions, they have
troubles of their own.

Their problems ARE our problems. We’re talking about Snaps, not take-off and
landing, forced advancement, sequence design etc. What I’m reading in this
thread is that no-one to date in the history of competitive aviation has
successfully described a snap? Really? We can’t share a definition with
IMAC, IAC or even Pattern fliers in the rest of the world? Forgive me for
being a bit skeptical about this attitude. Even if the FAI definition isn’t
ideal, do we really need our own “different” definition?

>> We have a better game in the US than exists on an international level.

I'm a patriotic guy, but this type of statement is what makes the USA so
popular around the rest of the world.



>> I will also add that the vast majority of the pattern pilots on the US
(far greater than 200???) will never fly FAI.
 True, but the majority of pattern fliers will regularly judge FAI. And
might I add they will judge and fly snaps in alternating rounds with
different rules criteria. How is this beneficial?

 Furthermore, even if most pilots don’t advance to FAI, why not have a
system so those that DO move to FAI have a smooth transition?

Keith Black


On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Bob Richards <bob at toprudder.com> wrote:

>   Well said.
>
> I will also add that the vast majority of the pattern pilots on the US (far
> greater than 200???) will never fly FAI. Why be content to follow when we
> may be able to lead by example.
>
> Bob R.
>
>
> --- On *Mon, 10/12/09, John Ferrell <jferrell13 at triad.rr.com>* wrote:
>
>
>  The FAI folks have no interest in our problems or solutions, they have
> troubles of their own. Our representation to the FAI process is tiny. They
> are slow to react and even slower to admit there may be a problem. If you
> get the opportunity to watch a FAI conducted event, be very critical of the
> judging, the outcome as well as the elements. We have a better game in the
> US than exists on an international level.
>
> It is not necessary to ignore their rules but we need to take advantage of
> the opportunity to improve and adjust where practical.
>
> More consistent judging and fewer ambiguous rules are especially important
> goals.
>
> John Ferrell  W8CCW
>
> "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of
> justice is no virtue."
> -Barry Goldwater
> "You don't get harmony when everybody sings the same note."
> -Doug Floyd
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Keith Black<http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=tkeithblack@gmail.com>
> *To:* General pattern discussion<http://us.mc11.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 11, 2009 11:25 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] basic judging question (warning 3
> letterword)
>
> I know the USA centric thinkers won't like this, but I think we should stay
> consistent with the FAI descriptions of the maneuver. Like it or not RC
> Aerobatics is not that big of a pond. Why in the AMA (all one or two hundred
> of us active Pattern fliers) do we have to have our own definitions? Many
> countries ONLY fly FAI. It's cool that the AMA has it's own classes,
> sequences, even event rules, but why have our own maneuver descriptions?
>
> Seems to me that we just create confusion for judges and pilots alike when
> we have different maneuver descriptions from the rest of the world. If we
> feel a description is poorly defined why not appeal to the FAI?
>
> Keith Black
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20091012/09c35eb7/attachment.html>