[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

[Brian]

I like this train of thought.

-----Original Message-----
From: krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 9:58 PM
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

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

[The entire original message is not included]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091020/eb0d420c/attachment.html>