[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
RON HANSEN
rcpilot at wowway.com
Tue Oct 20 13:04:41 AKDT 2009
I don't have any kids but I understand that in the lower levels they don't keep score and everyone gets a trophy.
Everyone gets 10's coom-by-ya!!
Maybe it is time we implement such a policy in pattern. It is the only way I'm gonna win the NATS:)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Pavlick" <jpavlick at idseng.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 4:36:29 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Jim,
I'd like to work at a company that subscribes to your method of handling an Engineering Project. Is there such a thing? So far I've not been able to find anything like what you've described, except maybe in a textbook. I think my management team actually reads Dilbert - but only to find new ways to screw things up! LOL
"This should not be done behind closed doors, set in concrete, and then tossed over the transom to the folks that have to create it. The requirements should be developed with an iterative process that includes analysis, prototyping and testing."
- That pretty much describes our complete design cycle if you invert the logic. LOL
John Pavlick
--- On Tue, 10/20/09, Joe Lachowski <jlachow at hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Joe Lachowski <jlachow at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
To: "NSRCA Discussion List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 4:02 PM
Jim,
Based on the activity here, I have already started to put together an article for the K-factor. It will probably get spread over several issues. It is already getting very long <g>. It will hopefully give everyone a feel for what it takes along with the ciriteria for everyone to see.
From: joddino at socal.rr.com
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:12:40 -0700
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Joe, it sounds like you might be on the right track. The first step in any engineering project is to establish the requirements for the end product whether it be a paper proposal or a new weapon system (or a health insurance program). This should not be done behind closed doors, set in concrete, and then tossed over the transom to the folks that have to create it. The requirements should be developed with an iterative process that includes analysis, prototyping and testing.
It sounds like you have done some of that by establishing the skill sets for each class. Perhaps you should publish your requirements/objectives and if most agreed with them, I believe the sequences would be relatively easy to come up with.
I for one don't think the lower classes should be made more difficult each year. Is there any other sport that changes the rules every few years to make it more difficult? That is probably the single most significant reason pattern is not growing in numbers. It would be interesting to see what affect turnaround had on the number of folks flying pattern.
Jim
On Oct 20, 2009, at 5:22 AM, Joe Lachowski wrote:
One must keep in mind that certain skill sets are to be learned at each level. If we deviate from the guidelines, everything will become a blur. If we add what you proposed to Advanced, you are flying a Masters sequence for all practical purposes. Advanced and Masters both have spins and snaps. How is that a difference? You will see the new Advanced sequence is a little harder. In it we addressed the inverted exit and entry concern.
Food for thought. What stops any pilot from practicing on there own things that are at the next level to help prepare them for that next level in the future when they feel they are ready.
I had the opportunity to judge Advanced at the Nats this year for the first time. I requested it for the purpose of seeing where we stood on the Advanced sequences difficulty, since there are very few Advanced pilots in my district that I could gauge it on. I was not totally blown away by anyone who was flying Advanced which suggests that the current sequence was not too far from where it really should be.
From: http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=rcpilot@wowway.com
To: http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:52:01 -0400
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
I’m in intermediate and I think both the advanced and intermediate sequences could be a little harder (especially advanced). IMO advanced needs more inverted stuff (half rolls reversed inverted to inverted) and maybe knife edge to knife edge reversed half rolls to better prepare pilots for Masters. Currently the only significant difference between advanced and masters is the snaps and spins. There is a significant difference between advanced and masters. This gap should be closed. I don’t think making intermediate more difficult or even making masters more difficult will change the number of masters pilots we have. I think a large percentage of pilots want to make it to masters just to say they made it to the top even if they really don’t have the skills to fly at that level.
-----Original Message-----
From: http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Brian
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:17 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
I like this train of thought.
From: krishlan fitzsimmons < http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=homeremodeling2003@yahoo.com >
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 9:58 PM
To: General pattern discussion < http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org >
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Ed.
Very well stated IMO.
I don't understand why people are trying to make masters turn into FAI. I don't want to fly the current FAI sequence in masters, or I would have just fly FAI.
For the current FAI sequence, I would not want to fly it in Masters as it is somewhat boring to me. There's a few cool things, don't get me wrong. For example, in FAI, I don't feel a 1/2 outside loop should ever be flown. What scores do I generally hand out for this in my district? 9-10's. Why not exit the box and re-enter? (Just kidding here, but for FAI, it's a somewhat worthless maneuver IMO).. It should have something integrated, or a point roll in it. If you haven't learned a 1/2 outside loop by FAI, you should probably go back to intermediate, right? I understand the reason for placing it there, but come on.
My thinking is this, for FAI, the new schedule coming up is suitable. The Masters schedule should be equally difficult as it's a destination class. We should be held back in Advanced because Masters is so hard, instead of held back in Masters because FAI is too hard.
The current P sequence isn't too difficult for many, the F is. IMO, they should both be fairly challenging. That's why the big boy's fly it. But Masters should be equally difficult. You will find a smaller Masters class because of it.
Now to move on down the field, and not to really compare us to IMAC, but look at their basic-sportsman- intermediate schedules. They are much more difficult than what we are flying for our sportsman-intermediate-advanced schedules. Why? Is it because our entry classes aren't as good of pilots (I don't think so) ? Are we just trying to gain new pilots by making our's a little easier? Or do their guys enjoy a good challenge? I'm not sure of the answer to this as I don't fly IMAC.
Could we gain from in Masters (and FAI) from making the entry classes more difficult instead of changing masters into FAI?
My .02 cents
Chris
From: Ed Alt < http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ed_alt@hotmail.com >
To: NSRCA List < http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org >
Sent: Mon, October 19, 2009 6:33:30 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: http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jlachow@hotmail.com
To: http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:24:03
[The entire original message is not included]
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4524 (20091019) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com/
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. _______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
From: krishlan fitzsimmons < http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=homeremodeling2003@yahoo.com >
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 9:58 PM
To: General pattern discussion < http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org >
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Ed.
Very well stated IMO.
I don't understand why people are trying to make masters turn into FAI. I don't want to fly the current FAI sequence in masters, or I would have just fly FAI.
For the current FAI sequence, I would not want to fly it in Masters as it is somewhat boring to me. There's a few cool things, don't get me wrong. For example, in FAI, I don't feel a 1/2 outside loop should ever be flown. What scores do I generally hand out for this in my district? 9-10's. Why not exit the box and re-enter? (Just kidding here, but for FAI, it's a somewhat worthless maneuver IMO).. It should have something integrated, or a point roll in it. If you haven't learned a 1/2 outside loop by FAI, you should probably go back to intermediate, right? I understand the reason for placing it there, but come on.
My thinking is this, for FAI, the new schedule coming up is suitable. The Masters schedule should be equally difficult as it's a destination class. We should be held back in Advanced because Masters is so hard, instead of held back in Masters because FAI is too hard.
The current P sequence isn't too difficult for many, the F is. IMO, they should both be fairly challenging. That's why the big boy's fly it. But Masters should be equally difficult. You will find a smaller Masters class because of it.
Now to move on down the field, and not to really compare us to IMAC, but look at their basic-sportsman- intermediate schedules. They are much more difficult than what we are flying for our sportsman-intermediate-advanced schedules. Why? Is it because our entry classes aren't as good of pilots (I don't think so) ? Are we just trying to gain new pilots by making our's a little easier? Or do their guys enjoy a good challenge? I'm not sure of the answer to this as I don't fly IMAC.
Could we gain from in Masters (and FAI) from making the entry classes more difficult instead of changing masters into FAI?
My .02 cents
Chris
From: Ed Alt < http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ed_alt@hotmail.com >
To: NSRCA List < http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org >
Sent: Mon, October 19, 2009 6:33:30 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: http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jlachow@hotmail.com
To: http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:24:03
[The entire original message is not included]
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4524 (20091019) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com/
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. _______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
http://us.mc805.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@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/20091020/8eb5e1be/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list