[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Dave Burton
burtona at atmc.net
Mon Oct 19 12:23:17 AKDT 2009
Thanks Bill, I saw the list you had at Winston/Salem. I didn't realize those
had been decided and assumed they were merely drafts being considered.
Shouldn't they be posted on the NSRCA web site for everyone to see and
comment on? At least someone post them on the e-mail list along with the
names of the committee(s) members so people can provide some input.
Dave Burton
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill Glaze
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 4:08 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Dave:
I posted and announced the presence of all the sequences at the contests in
Winston, (April and Oct.) and they were widely looked at. I told the folks
that Joe had included both a long and short Masters, and that he, personally
preferred the long, but that the Sequence Committee was looking for input.
So, they haven't been a secret inD2, anyway.
Bill Glaze
Member, Sequence Committee.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Burton <mailto:burtona at atmc.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Where are all the new sequences for 2011 published for us to review? I
haven't seen them. Don't they have to be submitted as rules proposals for
the Contest Board? I hope the Masters sequence adopted is shorter than the
one we are flying now. Also eliminating judging takeoff and landing would
give judges a little more of a break between flyers. Spending most of my
time at a contest judging a large contingent of Masters flyers is not my
idea of fun anymore.
Dave Burton
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Joe Lachowski
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 3:24 PM
To: NSRCA Discussion List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
If we go this route, I for one will definitely quit.
We already have new sequences designed for 2011 for all the classes. And we
have been adopting a maneuver here and there from the FAI sequences. They
will be presented in the K-factor sometime in the future. There are even two
different sequences put together for Masters. One is the traditional length
and the other is the same length as FAI.
The new FAI sequence for next year is a real good example not to flat out
adopt a P sequence as it is.
_____
From: burtona at atmc.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:56:40 -0400
CC: tom_babs at bellsouth.net
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
It seems to me that adopting the FAI "P" schedule for the Masters class with
"changes" is not the way to go. A better alternative IMO is to fly FAI P
schedule under FAI rules as a separate class. Those of us with some age
remember when this was done years ago as "D" expert and "D" Novice classes.
As I remember AMA class "D" was the FAI event back then. This would have
the advantages of two classes flying under the same rules and the benefits
of more flyers/judges familiar with the same rules and maneuvers. It would
also eliminate the work involved in coming up with a new Masters sequence
every three or so years as a new schedule would be automatically be invoked
FAI changed. I'd like to see a proposal for this change submitted to the
Contest Board.
Dave Burton
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Vicente
"Vince" Bortone
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:29 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Hi Lance,
Just to clarify. I am not the only one making this proposal. Don Ramsey
and Charlie Rock helped me to put it together. I am going to try to respond
to your questions below. Please read below in bold. Thanks for bringing
this discussion to the list.
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lance Van Nostrand" <patterndude at tx.rr.com>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 11:51:30 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
I know official discussion hasn't started but this list is one of the good
vetting forums. Vince proposed Masters flying FAI P, which is clear (this
is for sure the most important statement), but if the logic behind the
proposal as written causes confusion it may make a less convincing case.
Good point. We assumed that was easy for someone that is very familiar to
pattern to digest the intent of the proposal. Your conclusions are correct.
We are assuming that the current procedures we use to design the Master
schedule are not changed. We adopt the current FAI P schedule with the
appropriate changes to suit the Master class. This is the reason why we
didn't try to discuss other details. For example, it says "there is an
evident pile up f pilots in the Masters class" but never clearly states how
flying the same sequence would change that. He may be implying that people
will more freely move between classes to balance the lines because they are
flying a similar sequence but the sequences may not be identical and the
judging rules are not identical. Correct. You actually saw what happened
in Tulsa this year. There were 10 pilots in Masters and you decided to
divide the group in two and five flew Masters and five flew FAI. This also
happened already in other local contest around KC. It happens at Fort Scott
contest also. Pilots will be more willing to do this we fly the same
schedule. At another point it says "This will make judging of both classes
very accurate" but doesn't address the obvious differences in judging
criteria between AMA and FAI, which is the current burden that Masters and
FAI pilots currently bear when the fly one class and judge the other. I am
sure that we will agree that it will be a lot easier to deal with these
differences if we fly the same schedules. The proposal intent is not to
address the differences in judging criteria between AMA and FAI. I believe
that it will become natural as we start to fly the same schedule and the
differences will go away with time. Finally, there is no exact wording
proposed on the form where it is expected, but later in the logic it refers
to the idea of replacing some FAI maneuvers where appropriate. We are
assuming that the current procedure to design the schedules is still in
place. The committee will check the current FAI P schedule and proposed a
final one with the changes to make it suitable for Masters. For example,
P11 the only portion I will change is the integrated half loop on the figure
M. I will suggest something like 2 of 4 or 1/2 roll on bottom to replace
the integrated 1/2 roll. I believe that all other maneuvers are suitable
for Masters. Without exact wording, its not clear how this is done, or if
the maneuver descriptions will be re-written in the AMA rules, or referenced
to the FAI descriptions like the sequence. The committee will decide
whatever is appropriate. If they feel that the FAI descriptions are
appropiate we could use it as is. Oh, and how does AMA deal with the fact
that FAI changes schedules in odd years? We will need to follow FAI
schedule. I think that this is very possible and should not be a problem.
My intent is simply to point out aspects that detract from it's
thoroughness. I do not yet have a stance on the issue. We put this together
just taking at the 2008 Nats. I remember that I have to judge FAI and I
never had the chance to judge FAI before the Nats. I was trying to study
the FAI schedule at the same time that I was trying to fly my own contest.
This is clearly an additional pressure on the contestant. If this proposal
pass it will make our life easier at the local contest and when we judging
at the Nats or any other contest. Also, clearly will make the judging level
very high because Masters and FAI pilots will be very familiar with the
schedules we fly and the details requires to judge each of the maneuvers.
Finally, the balance in local contest will be easier to fix since we will
more willing to fly FAI when required.
--Lance
_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing
list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_____
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/> now.
_____
_______________________________________________
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/20091019/5b96b294/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list