[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Chad Northeast
chad at f3acanada.org
Mon Oct 19 17:25:31 AKDT 2009
"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?"
LOL!
Chad
Dave wrote:
>
> 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 <mailto:frackowiak at sbcglobal.net>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto: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>
> [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 <mailto:burtona at atmc.net>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:56:40 -0400
> CC: tom_babs at bellsouth.net <mailto: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>
> [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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
--
Chad
www.chadnortheast.ca
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list