[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

Mon Oct 19 18:58:50 AKDT 2009

Ed. 

Very well stated IMO. 

I don't understand why people are trying to make masters turn into FAI. I don't want to fly the current FAI sequence in masters, or I would have just fly FAI. 
For the current FAI sequence, I would not want to fly it in Masters as it is somewhat boring to me. There's a few cool things, don't get me wrong. For example, in FAI, I don't feel a 1/2 outside loop should ever be flown. What scores do I  generally hand out for this in my district? 9-10's. Why not exit the box and re-enter? (Just kidding here, but for FAI, it's a somewhat worthless maneuver IMO).. It should have something integrated, or a point roll in it. If you haven't learned a 1/2 outside loop by FAI, you should probably go back to intermediate, right? I understand the reason for placing it there, but come on. 

My thinking is this, for FAI, the new schedule coming up is suitable. The Masters schedule should be equally difficult as it's a destination class. We should be held back in Advanced because Masters is so hard, instead of held back in Masters because FAI is too hard. 

The current P sequence isn't too difficult for many, the F is. IMO, they should both be fairly challenging. That's why the big boy's fly it. But Masters should be equally difficult. You will find a smaller Masters class because of it. 

Now to move on down the field, and not to really compare us to IMAC, but look at their basic-sportsman- intermediate schedules. They are much more difficult than what we are flying for our sportsman-intermediate-advanced schedules. Why? Is it because our entry classes aren't as good of pilots (I don't think so) ? Are we just trying to gain new pilots by making our's a little easier? Or do their guys enjoy a good challenge? I'm not sure of the answer to this as I don't fly IMAC. 

Could we gain from in Masters (and FAI) from making the entry classes more difficult instead of changing masters into FAI?

My .02 cents

Chris 

________________________________
From: Ed Alt <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
To: NSRCA List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon, October 19, 2009 6:33:30 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

 Re. the notion of robotically accepting whatever FAI P sequence comes our way as our Masters sequence, let's keep it simple.  What problem, exactly, are we trying to solve?  And what exactly is it about giving up all autonomy with respect to creating our AMA Masters sequences in this country that leads us to believe that this represents a solution?

I think that you need to look no further than the P-11 and F-11 to fully understand why this should not be done.  On the one hand, you have a prelim sequence that was done either with complete lack of understanding of what the box boundaries are, or perhaps worse yet, contemplates that it is best to fly at 220m in order to stay within them while maintaining consistency with roll rates and maneuver size throughout the sequence.  And then you have snaposaurus F-11.  I quit IMAC in favor of Pattern after 2003 for some good reasons, and these two 2001 FAI sequences harken back to that time for me.  Let's not start introducing the mindless application of snap rolls and lack of thought for what the aerobatic box is there for, just to make it easier to flit between Masters and FAI during the season. 

Joe Lachowski and Dave Lockhart put a great deal of of thought and energy into creating sequence design criteria, which is a good tool to help design better sequences.  I think that we should continue to refine this approach and use it to our advantage to make the best sequences that we are capable of, rather than just adopt something that we have essentially no control of.
Ed

________________________________
 From: jlachow at hotmail.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:24:03 -0400
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. 
________________________________
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091020/dbf355e6/attachment.html>