[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Ron Van Putte
vanputte at cox.net
Tue Oct 20 09:48:47 AKDT 2009
I hope we have more success in removing the sequences from the rule
book (and give the NSRCA more flexibility) than we did when I
proposed the same thing several years ago. Then, the AMA Executive
Council refused to allow the R/C Aerobatics Contest Board to even see
the rule change proposal.
Ron
On Oct 20, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Derek Koopowitz wrote:
> Sorry about not jumping into this discussion earlier - I've been
> out of town celebrating my anniversary.
>
> The rules survey will be mailed out to all members for voting with
> the district vice president ballots. One of the questions in the
> survey is to remove the schedules and maneuver descriptions from
> the rulebook and thus the need to post new sequences to be
> reviewed. Removing the schedules from the rulebook gives us much
> more time to draft/test/select them and the current sequence
> committee has been hard at work doing this for the past 4 or 5
> months. I'm sure that Joe has outlined what they've accomplished
> and I applaud them all for their work - they've done a great job of
> coming up with replacement schedules and fixing the one's that
> needed fixing. We will make this sequences available for comment
> shortly - probably by year-end or early next year. Since we have
> until 3/31/2010 to submit rules proposals this will give us enough
> time to write up the proposals and to submit them.
>
> Removing the sequences from the rulebook gives the NSRCA a lot more
> flexibility in being able to modify them quickly to fix potential
> problems. The sequence committee believes, and so do I, that the
> Sportsman sequence should hardly ever be changed and the
> Intermediate and Advanced sequences can be tweaked as needed with
> the potential to have the Masters sequence changed every other year.
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Dave Burton <burtona at atmc.net>
> wrote:
> 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" <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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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