[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

Mon Oct 19 23:14:11 AKDT 2009

For the purposes of this thread, it would be good if the proposed 
schedules were posted very soon so we can see what the committee has in 
mind.
Increasing the difficulty of Intermediate, Advanced and Masters 
substantially might just get us back to where we used to be. The old 
equivalent to Intermediate(pre-turnaround) had three inside loops, three 
rolls and a reverse outside loop.  What is going on that no one can do 
three consecutive rolls anymore
And what possible reason can there be to keep a few simple integrated 
rolls from some of the looping maneuvers in Masters.........
Why couldn't Advanced have an M with 1/4 rolls and perhaps a square 
horizontal eight. Clearly needs more inverted flight and a sample of 
reversed rolls such as 2/4 opposite.
I feel that the sportsman pattern should have turnaround maneuvers 
removed completely allowing our entry level pilots to focus on 
presenting the center maneuvers both centered and parallel to the runway
John Gayer

krishlan fitzsimmons wrote:
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20091020/3f9e5102/attachment.html>