[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

[Dave]

To the best of my knowledge, Chidgey was the instigator of turnaround and
noise reduction, and this was a concern worldwide, not just in the US.  In
the Northeast US, we absolutely had problems with overflight areas
(regardless of the noise), but the majority of the problems were with the
noise footprint itself - the volume of noise made at the site and how far
away from the site noise carried, which was dramatically further with AMA
style vs turnaround style.  Most of the fields lost in the early 80s to
early 90s were from ballistic pattern planes.  From 1990 to today, 90+% of
the problems (noise and overflight) come from large gas burners (typically
IMAC style stuff, whether flown for IMAC, or huckin').  The remaining 10%
balance fits in the pylon category (loud).

 

At fields in the Northeast where pattern is making a comeback, it is only
because the needed overflight area is smaller, AND the noise is less.  The
average pattern sequence today requires less space and has a smaller noise
footprint than most casual sport flyers.

 

So far as AMA and FAI...ditto.

 

Dave

 

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Richards
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:35 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

 


Dave L mentioned the "noise footprint", but I am not sure that is a major
reason (maybe it was?) that we went to turnaround. I was not heavily
involved in pattern at that time. However, "noise footprint" can be divided
into two parts, "noise" and "footprint". The fact that, as Dave mentioned,
some sites in the NE are starting to fly pattern events again may be due
more to the noise level than the overall flight footprint. So, the
turnaround aspect may not be the saviour in this case as much as the noise
reduction itself. Either way, thanks can go to FAI because that is where the
noise reduction technology came from, and it filtered down to the AMA
flyers. IMHO.

 

All that aside, I have always felt, and expressed my opinion, that the AMA
rules and schedules should be geared towards what is best for the sport of
precision aerobatics IN THE USA. I don't think we should pick schedules for
any class, including Masters, with the major concern of helping prepare our
pilots for FAI. FAI is another class, and if you think about that, here in
the US it is almost two classes in itself: Those that fly at national/world
level, and those that don't. If someone is really aspiring to fly at a world
level, they will find the FAI class all by themselves. The fact that we do
fly the FAI class at all contests is, IMHO, all we need to do to help them
prepare for world level competitions. There is no need for us to put an FAI
flavor in the Masters sequence, unless it will benefit pattern flying in
general.

 

Again, this is JMHO.

 

Bob R.


--- On Tue, 10/20/09, 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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091020/73fede72/attachment.html>