[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

Mon Oct 19 22:12:22 AKDT 2009

I agree with you Ron! I'm glad you posted your perspective from Intermediate! Your perspective is very important to the growth, and health of pattern. 

Although, IMO coming up through the ranks somewhat now, if we make Intermediate and Advanced a little more challenging, we will have more advanced pilots in Masters, which will in turn lead to these pilots being advanced enough to move to FAI easily. Which will in turn balance the classes better. I could be wrong, and probably am as I haven't been doing this that long. Just a thought, and just what I could see in my district. 

Chris 

________________________________
From: Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon, October 19, 2009 8:52:01 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

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/20091020/31d3f837/attachment.html>