[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

Atwood, Mark atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
Mon Oct 19 17:18:13 AKDT 2009 

Ding ding ding!  Round 1 goes to Lockhart. 


--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld


----- Original Message -----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon Oct 19 21:12:57 2009
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

No doubt the prior sequence members appreciate the input.  It has been fixed.

 

So far as an upwind stall turn prior to a downwind top hat being the worst sequence of maneuvers ever……have you looked at the P11?  Or F11?

 

Regards,


Dave

 

________________________________

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Frackowiak
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 9:03 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

 

Is it not true that changes to the sequences are part of the new rules proposals that are supposed to be submitted now? If so, then they should be posted ASAP so that everyone can see them and provide input to their contest board member. And at this time of the year many will not be able to test fly them to see what they think!

 

BTW, who put in Intermediate the upwind stall turn with a downwind top hat? Worst sequence of maneuvers I've ever seen.

 

Tony

 

On Oct 19, 2009, at 5:36 PM, Joe Lachowski wrote:





Derek asked for volunteers quite some time ago. There were not a lot of volunteers. The sequences will be published in the K-factor and elsewhere. When, I do not know. As soon as we are sure the Aresti diagrams that Tom Miller is putting together are correct for both directions, the sequences will be forwarded to Derek. Dave Lockhart, Richard Lewis, Verne Koester, Bill Glaze and myself have been the primary people involved. We have test flown them and had some others try them out for input, as well. I'm sure everyone won't be totally happy with some of the stuff. So what else is new.<g>
 
 A short and long Masters sequence was also put together because it was not known which way we were heading.  Personally, I like the longer sequence we put together. We rearranged the existing Sportsman sequence to flow better, gave the Intermediate guys something new, and  hopefully addressed the gripes( ie inverted exits and entrys) the Advanced guys have about their sequence that we had heard over the last year or so. I'm sure Derek will chime in on what has transpired. Just be patient guys.

________________________________


From: frackowiak at sbcglobal.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:10:15 -0700
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

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 <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> <mailto:patterndude at tx.rr.com> 
		To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> <mailto: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

	
	
	
________________________________



		_______________________________________________
	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

 

________________________________

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

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list