[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Anthony Frackowiak
frackowiak at sbcglobal.net
Mon Oct 19 18:03:36 AKDT 2009
Haven't bothered to look at F3A. I decided some time ago that they had
lost their mind!
Tony
On Oct 19, 2009, at 6:12 PM, 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
> 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
> 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
>
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091020/f395df67/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list