[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

Tue Oct 20 06:34:19 AKDT 2009

As per Senior Pattern Association?  Not necessarily a bad idea; just pointing out that others are doing it this way now.
Bill Glaze
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: krishlan fitzsimmons 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 4:00 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

  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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  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/f6310ffa/attachment.html>