[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Anthony Frackowiak
frackowiak at sbcglobal.net
Mon Oct 19 14:10:19 AKDT 2009
Same here. I have heard nothing and seen nothing about changes to any
of the AMA sequences. BTW, who is on the "Sequence Committee"?
Thanks!
Tony Frackowiak
On Oct 19, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Joe Dunnaway wrote
> 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/ee5e608c/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list