[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

Tue Oct 20 00:00:57 AKDT 2009

You are spot on John!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you for your reply!

Chris 

________________________________
From: John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tue, October 20, 2009 12:13:59 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

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/d8d83fcf/attachment.html>