[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
J N Hiller
jnhiller at earthlink.net
Tue Oct 20 08:54:24 AKDT 2009
Vern you are absolutely correct. When we began flying in the box we had already become proficient flying most of the maneuvers and I had flown more than enough full throttle half reverse cuban eights nearly out of sight. It is much more difficult to learn it all at once but it needs to be done. One of the problems is not spending enough time in sportsman to acquire the necessary skills. Premature advancement can be a problem and is detrimental to ones enjoyment.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of verne at twmi.rr.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 9:36 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
John,
I agree with your concept on the Sportsman class but never have been able to generate any interest in it. I've thought for years that Sportsman should be non-turnaround with inside and outside loops, cuban eights, three rolls, double stall turns, square loops, straight inverted flight and the like similar to what the old non-turnaround AMA Sportsman was. Intermediate should the be exactly the same center maneuvers with turnarounds connecting it all together. The idea being that first you learn the center maneuvers, then you learn to fly them in the box. For those of us that have been around long enough, that's pretty much the way we learned and it served us well.
Verne
---- John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net> wrote:
> 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" <patterndude at tx.rr.com>
> > To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <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/>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list