[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

Mon Oct 19 12:30:44 AKDT 2009

I think Joe likes Humptys because they remind him of big... oops maybe that's too much information! LOL

John Pavlick

--- On Mon, 10/19/09, Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net> wrote:

From: Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, October 19, 2009, 4:26 PM

And who on the Masters committee had a humpty fetish?

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 3:54 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

I just want to know who on the FAI sequence committee has the Cuban 8 fetish??   In addition to all the turn around Cuban variants, now we have one and a half full reverse Cubans in the center followed by…hmmmm…lets do an inverted half Cuban just to keep the flow going…

Mark Atwood
Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124 
Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com  |  www.paragon-inc.com

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J Shu
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 3:59 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

Great. Ok, continue on with the fixes to Masters... ;)

Regards,
Jason
www.shulmanaviation.com
www.composite-arf.com

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

From: Joe Lachowski 

To: NSRCA Discussion List 

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 3:56 PM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

Jason, we rearranged things to fix the flow issue.

From: jshulman at cfl.rr.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:46:25 -0400
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

Can Sportsman also be changed into something that resembles a sequence and not a cool graphic (if looked at as an aresti). It's harder than Intermediate cause it doesn't flow. Hmmm... reminds me of some of the stuff in P/F-11

Regards,
Jason
www.shulmanaviation.com
www.composite-arf.com

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

From: Joe Lachowski 

To: NSRCA Discussion List 

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 3:36 PM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

I think one of the biggest problems we face right now is the void in Advanced. The Advanced sequence this time around was made just a tad more difficult and some of us in the sequence committee are all for changing Advanced every two years along with Masters. In my opinion, some are moving up to Masters too quick. Changing Advanced more frequently along with changing the advancement requirements might just be the ticket for keeping guys in Advanced a little longer. Hopefully, we can build up this class to where it should be which should increase the judging pool at local contests. I am also for allowing guys to move back to Advanced when the new sequences come into use.

From: jnhiller at earthlink.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:57:15 -0700
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

You know there was some resistance to splitting masters into two groups "A" & "B" so they could judge each other when a contest was overloaded with masters fliers. I don't see two FAI classes as being much different. Adding an 'Expert" class also addresses the judging overload. There may also be some concern that the ever increasing difficulty in FAI may encourage some people to fly masters, adding to the judge imbalance.
I'm a new guy in masters and will fly or stumble through whatever is decided on. I just want to point out that there are other ways to deal with contest judge imbalances. 
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 9:07 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

I for one have gotten VERY poor feedback from our masters flyers on this.  It makes sense to me, and in a vacuum I would certainly vote for it, but alas, I’m not.  Given the current sentiment on this in D3(AMA D3 that is, not NSRCA) it would be a resounding no vote without removing the integrated rolling maneuvers at a minimum.

Those maneuvers alone keep many from moving up to FAI, in addition to having to learn 2 sequences.  I don’t know what the response would be to a Masters “FAI LITE” sequence where you simply removed the integrated roll from the Figure M and maybe replaced the Loop w/8pt with an avalanche or such.    But I know I’ll get an ear full of “Nays” if there’s a proposal for straight FAI in masters.

Mark Atwood
Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124 
Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102
mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com  |  www.paragon-inc.com

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Burton
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:57 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Cc: Tom Miller
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: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. 

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now. 

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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/e28c5498/attachment.html>