[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Dave
DaveL322 at comcast.net
Tue Oct 20 08:39:26 AKDT 2009
The ONLY REASON?
Hmmm...pattern would have all but died in many parts of the country had it
not been for reduced overflight requirements of turnaround, the reduced
noise, and the reduced noise footprint. In the Northeast US, pattern was
dead in many areas because of noise and overflight problems, and 20 years
later, some clubs are just now starting to understand that pattern is no
longer a field killer. I was part of the group in the late 80s that penned
the transition to turnaround, and I was a diehard AMA flyer at the time.
Yes, some dropped pattern because they did not want to change to turnaround
style, but many of those would not have been able to continue flying non
turnaround because of the noise and overflight issues.
To suggest that the AMA community is fully rejecting FAI concepts is, I
think, a gross overstatement. FAI has always done some stupid things, and
like any large bureaucracy, it will likely do so in the future. On a
regular basis, there is advocacy to do what FAI does, and on a regular basis
there is opposition to ABSOLUTE congruency with FAI...AMA can always CHOOSE
to follow an FAI lead, but should never establish legislation REQUIRING it
to do so.
I'm not clear whether you want to increase or decrease the difficulty of
Sportsman? Eliminating turnarounds would make it easier. Adding back 3
roll and 3 loops would make it harder? And if Sportsman were made less
difficult, and Masters were made more difficult, then the difficulty between
classes would increase .another always hot topic. My opinion, I would like
to see the Sportsman class simpler, and I've been involved with the Sequence
Committee for 20+ years, and 90% of the time I've been called an elitist for
trying to take away the "fun" and "challenging" maneuvers from the
Sportsman. I'd like to see pattern competitors stay in a class until they
have mastered the elements in that class, not simply gotten to the point of
being able to consistently fly the sequence with no scores <5. I'd like to
see competitors realize that they can practice the next sequence BEFORE
getting there, and there is some personal responsibility in preparing for
the next class. Everyone needs to understand it is simply impossible to
have difficulty gaps between classes that everyone finds to be appropriate -
it is continually adjusted by the Sequence Committee based on feedback from
the pilots that voice their opinion during the design process.
For Masters, the biggest difference between it and FAI, aside from 2
schedules, is the integrated loop/roll (rolling loops, rolling circles)
element. Masters pilots have repeatedly in substantial majorities expressed
the desire to NOT HAVE integrated loop/roll elements in Masters. If you
want integrated loop/roll elements, there is a class for that - it is FAI.
The other element in FAI that is not in Masters is combination roll / snap
maneuvers - again, because Masters pilots have repeatedly expressed the
desire to NOT HAVE this in Masters.
I'm glad to see the prolific number of posts on this (and similar topics) in
the past month..I'm sure it means many people will volunteer AND contribute
to the next Sequence Committee. There is a very good system in place (that
is quite flexible and accommodating to reflect progress and evolving ideas)
for designing sequences, but it does not work without participation, and as
with many other endeavors, it does not do very well accommodating armchair
quarterbacking and occasional comments from sidelines base on limited or
incomplete data. The length of time it takes to draft, propose, review, and
implement rules is always a hot topic, and it certainly doesn't get any
shorter with late entries to the game or increasingly larger numbers of
people involved. I can assure you that the active core of the current
Sequence Committee is listening, and nothing is being done in a vacuum.
Regards,
Dave Lockhart
_____
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Gayer
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 11:39 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
As I recall, the ONLY reason AMA is now flying turnaround is because F3A
went to a turnaround format. The "powersthatwere" were concerned that our
team would not have the relevant experience to compete on the world stage.
This started a process of conversion to turnaround by including the FAI
pattern and then expert turnaround in AMA pattern contests.
The pendulum has now swung the other way where the AMA pattern community,
while overly committed to turnaround, rejects the patterns, rules and
concepts of the FAI.
While I no longer see a need to use the current(or past schedule as we have
already done) F3A pattern as the Masters pattern, I believe it is important
to address whatever is new and challenging in the upcoming F3A patterns and
consider introducing similar elements into the Masters pattern.
At the other end of the spectrum, I believe that the Sportsman class should
have the turnaround elements removed completely. Perhaps some of the center
maneuvers could be upgraded in difficulty at the same time. The sportsman
flyer needs more focus on learning the maneuvers and where to place them.
Making them fly the box simply insures that they aree not in position to do
a proper center maneuver. This is not intended as a first step in getting
rid of turnaround but rather creating a progression in the learning process.
John Gayer
Bill Glaze wrote:
Ed:
Why are we tied to FAI? Ed, certainly you must realize that we are tied to
FAI so that every 2 years we can send a handful of model flyers to some
foreign land to compete in a contest, the results of which will be of
interest to only a handful of people here, and, certainly, won't boost
interest in pattern for the general model flying community. That's why!
So there!
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Alt <mailto:ed_alt at hotmail.com>
To: NSRCA List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 9:33 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 -0400
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
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/> it now.
_____
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091020/b6cc574c/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list