[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Scott Smith
js.smith at verizon.net
Tue Oct 20 02:27:20 AKDT 2009
I believe I must take credit for that Tony, thanks for your opinion! (Where
were you five years ago when it was being discussed? We sure could have
used your expertise then!)
I looked for the original email thread to pinpoint exactly where that
sequence of maneuvers came from but came up empty (I'm pretty sure it was
me.) Regardless, it was discussed/approved by the committee (I think there
were four of us + chair TN working on 402) and then voted on by the
membership so really all ACTIVE members had a part in it.
Now you know.
Scott Smith
District 1
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
Frackowiak
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 9:03 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Is it not true that changes to the sequences are part of the new rules
proposals that are supposed to be submitted now? If so, then they should be
posted ASAP so that everyone can see them and provide input to their contest
board member. And at this time of the year many will not be able to test fly
them to see what they think!
BTW, who put in Intermediate the upwind stall turn with a downwind top hat?
Worst sequence of maneuvers I've ever seen.
Tony
On Oct 19, 2009, at 5:36 PM, Joe Lachowski wrote:
Derek asked for volunteers quite some time ago. There were not a lot of
volunteers. The sequences will be published in the K-factor and elsewhere.
When, I do not know. As soon as we are sure the Aresti diagrams that Tom
Miller is putting together are correct for both directions, the sequences
will be forwarded to Derek. Dave Lockhart, Richard Lewis, Verne Koester,
Bill Glaze and myself have been the primary people involved. We have test
flown them and had some others try them out for input, as well. I'm sure
everyone won't be totally happy with some of the stuff. So what else is
new.<g>
A short and long Masters sequence was also put together because it was not
known which way we were heading. Personally, I like the longer sequence we
put together. We rearranged the existing Sportsman sequence to flow better,
gave the Intermediate guys something new, and hopefully addressed the
gripes( ie inverted exits and entrys) the Advanced guys have about their
sequence that we had heard over the last year or so. I'm sure Derek will
chime in on what has transpired. Just be patient guys.
_____
From: frackowiak at sbcglobal.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:10:15 -0700
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Same here. I have heard nothing and seen nothing about changes to any of the
AMA sequences. BTW, who is on the "Sequence Committee"?
Thanks!
Tony Frackowiak
On Oct 19, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Joe Dunnaway wrote
How about letting the rest of us know what the sequences are. I would like
to see them.
Joe Dunnaway
Bill Glaze wrote:
Dave:
I posted and announced the presence of all the sequences at the contests in
Winston, (April and Oct.) and they were widely looked at. I told the folks
that Joe had included both a long and short Masters, and that he, personally
preferred the long, but that the Sequence Committee was looking for input.
So, they haven't been a secret inD2, anyway.
Bill Glaze
Member, Sequence Committee.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Burton <mailto:burtona at atmc.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Where are all the new sequences for 2011 published for us to review? I
haven't seen them. Don't they have to be submitted as rules proposals for
the Contest Board? I hope the Masters sequence adopted is shorter than the
one we are flying now. Also eliminating judging takeoff and landing would
give judges a little more of a break between flyers. Spending most of my
time at a contest judging a large contingent of Masters flyers is not my
idea of fun anymore.
Dave Burton
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Joe Lachowski
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 3:24 PM
To: NSRCA Discussion List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
If we go this route, I for one will definitely quit.
We already have new sequences designed for 2011 for all the classes. And we
have been adopting a maneuver here and there from the FAI sequences. They
will be presented in the K-factor sometime in the future. There are even two
different sequences put together for Masters. One is the traditional length
and the other is the same length as FAI.
The new FAI sequence for next year is a real good example not to flat out
adopt a P sequence as it is.
_____
From: burtona at atmc.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:56:40 -0400
CC: tom_babs at bellsouth.net
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
It seems to me that adopting the FAI "P" schedule for the Masters class with
"changes" is not the way to go. A better alternative IMO is to fly FAI P
schedule under FAI rules as a separate class. Those of us with some age
remember when this was done years ago as "D" expert and "D" Novice classes.
As I remember AMA class "D" was the FAI event back then. This would have
the advantages of two classes flying under the same rules and the benefits
of more flyers/judges familiar with the same rules and maneuvers. It would
also eliminate the work involved in coming up with a new Masters sequence
every three or so years as a new schedule would be automatically be invoked
FAI changed. I'd like to see a proposal for this change submitted to the
Contest Board.
Dave Burton
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Vicente
"Vince" Bortone
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:29 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Hi Lance,
Just to clarify. I am not the only one making this proposal. Don Ramsey
and Charlie Rock helped me to put it together. I am going to try to respond
to your questions below. Please read below in bold. Thanks for bringing
this discussion to the list.
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lance Van Nostrand" <mailto:patterndude at tx.rr.com>
<patterndude at tx.rr.com>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 11:51:30 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
I know official discussion hasn't started but this list is one of the good
vetting forums. Vince proposed Masters flying FAI P, which is clear (this
is for sure the most important statement), but if the logic behind the
proposal as written causes confusion it may make a less convincing case.
Good point. We assumed that was easy for someone that is very familiar to
pattern to digest the intent of the proposal. Your conclusions are correct.
We are assuming that the current procedures we use to design the Master
schedule are not changed. We adopt the current FAI P schedule with the
appropriate changes to suit the Master class. This is the reason why we
didn't try to discuss other details. For example, it says "there is an
evident pile up f pilots in the Masters class" but never clearly states how
flying the same sequence would change that. He may be implying that people
will more freely move between classes to balance the lines because they are
flying a similar sequence but the sequences may not be identical and the
judging rules are not identical. Correct. You actually saw what happened
in Tulsa this year. There were 10 pilots in Masters and you decided to
divide the group in two and five flew Masters and five flew FAI. This also
happened already in other local contest around KC. It happens at Fort Scott
contest also. Pilots will be more willing to do this we fly the same
schedule. At another point it says "This will make judging of both classes
very accurate" but doesn't address the obvious differences in judging
criteria between AMA and FAI, which is the current burden that Masters and
FAI pilots currently bear when the fly one class and judge the other. I am
sure that we will agree that it will be a lot easier to deal with these
differences if we fly the same schedules. The proposal intent is not to
address the differences in judging criteria between AMA and FAI. I believe
that it will become natural as we start to fly the same schedule and the
differences will go away with time. Finally, there is no exact wording
proposed on the form where it is expected, but later in the logic it refers
to the idea of replacing some FAI maneuvers where appropriate. We are
assuming that the current procedure to design the schedules is still in
place. The committee will check the current FAI P schedule and proposed a
final one with the changes to make it suitable for Masters. For example,
P11 the only portion I will change is the integrated half loop on the figure
M. I will suggest something like 2 of 4 or 1/2 roll on bottom to replace
the integrated 1/2 roll. I believe that all other maneuvers are suitable
for Masters. Without exact wording, its not clear how this is done, or if
the maneuver descriptions will be re-written in the AMA rules, or referenced
to the FAI descriptions like the sequence. The committee will decide
whatever is appropriate. If they feel that the FAI descriptions are
appropiate we could use it as is. Oh, and how does AMA deal with the fact
that FAI changes schedules in odd years? We will need to follow FAI
schedule. I think that this is very possible and should not be a problem.
My intent is simply to point out aspects that detract from it's
thoroughness. I do not yet have a stance on the issue. We put this together
just taking at the 2008 Nats. I remember that I have to judge FAI and I
never had the chance to judge FAI before the Nats. I was trying to study
the FAI schedule at the same time that I was trying to fly my own contest.
This is clearly an additional pressure on the contestant. If this proposal
pass it will make our life easier at the local contest and when we judging
at the Nats or any other contest. Also, clearly will make the judging level
very high because Masters and FAI pilots will be very familiar with the
schedules we fly and the details requires to judge each of the maneuvers.
Finally, the balance in local contest will be easier to fix since we will
more willing to fly FAI when required.
--Lance
_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing
list NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_____
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/>
_____
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_____
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_____
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/> now.
_______________________________________________
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/20091020/0936e33a/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list