[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

[Ron Hansen]

I'm in intermediate and I think both the advanced and intermediate sequences
could be a little harder (especially advanced).  IMO advanced needs more
inverted stuff (half rolls reversed inverted to inverted) and maybe knife
edge to knife edge reversed half rolls to better prepare pilots for Masters.
Currently the only significant difference between advanced and masters is
the snaps and spins.  There is a significant difference between advanced and
masters.  This gap should be closed.  I don't think making intermediate more
difficult or even making masters more difficult will change the number of
masters pilots we have.  I think a large percentage of pilots want to make
it to masters just to say they made it to the top even if they really don't
have the skills to fly at that level.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Brian
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:17 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

 

I like this train of thought.

  _____  

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]

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4524 (20091019) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091020/eec6a0e2/attachment.html>