[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

[Anthony Frackowiak]

I don't believe Ron was the one behind turnaround and noise, although  
he was the one who got us the current 2-meter, unlimited motor rules  
we endure today.

I disagree with it using less area then an average sport flier. The  
average sport flier is old enough to not be able to see that far!

Tony

On Oct 20, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Dave wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/d6b1157b/attachment.html>