[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Bill Glaze
billglaze at bellsouth.net
Mon Oct 19 13:02:53 AKDT 2009
Joe is the boss of the committee. He's the one to ask about posting.The only reason I posted them (after asking Joe's permission) was for comments. I had from few to none. I several times asked for input, and only had one comment, and that comment was on the Advanced, and was of a general nature.
I don't know for sure, but POSSIBLY in this case, Joe might figure that silence means assent. If my experience is commonplace, he certainly has reason to believe so. However, be advised that I'm not, and will not, be speaking for Joe. He is his own person.
Bill Glaze
----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Dunnaway
To: General pattern discussion
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
How about letting the rest of us know what the sequences are. I would like to see them.
Joe Dunnaway
Bill Glaze wrote:
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
To: 'General pattern discussion'
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 now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20091019/0f062bac/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list