[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

Mon Oct 19 12:41:34 AKDT 2009

I don't plan to quit over this, but I DO believe that AMA should remain
independent of the FAI sequences. As Ron Lockhart ably pointed out, we can
adopt a given FAI sequence anytime we want (and as Joe L says, we've been
incorporating parts fo them since 2007)  -- without giving up the ability to
create our own sequences when desired.

Once again: FAI sequences lead to WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS... AMA sequences must
remain challenging and (somewhat) attainable for us Masters schlubs who'll
never be sponsored and never make the team, but still love to compete.

Exiting...
-Rick

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Joe Lachowski <jlachow at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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 now.<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e4665808/attachment.html>