[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
John Gayer
jgghome at comcast.net
Tue Oct 20 13:25:41 AKDT 2009
Dave,
I do not believe the footprint is that much less than it used to be
pre-turnaround. We may have pulled in the ends somewhat but we have also
pushed out perpendicular to the flight line, particularly with F3A
rolling circles. I don't recall doing old-style turnarounds much further
out than a 175 meter turnaround that breaks the box a bit does. The
sport flyers at any field are pushing the limits of visibility and
flying further out as well.
The main issue was noise. That is an issue that could and should have
been addressed as a separate issue from a conversion to turnaround.
My original point was that we would not have considered turnaround
pattern in this country if the FAI had not shown us the way and we were
willing at that time to follow. I also believe that if the FAI were to
establish a new direction of that magnitude today, that the pattern
community/leadership would reject such a change out of hand.
It is arguable as to the cause for a drop in attendance but it does
appear to start about the same time as the conversion of pattern to
turnaround. There are a lot of ex-pattern flyers dating from that
period. Our latest contest here in Albuquerque had eight contestants.
The spring contest had 15. If I want to attend another contest, I have
to travel at least 450 miles. That would gain me1-3 contests next year.
Any more and I'm up to 700-1000 miles travel one way. This part of the
country(pre-turnaround) was very active in pattern. Colorado alone used
to have at least 5 contests and now they are struggling to bring back
just one of them. Utah, Montana and Nevada used to have contests- now
nothing.
For the entry level Sportsman class, I am advocating the establishment
of a skill progression relative to flying pattern schedules. This is
independent of the maneuver complexity. Clearly there should be more
maneuvers if only the center is judged.
For Masters, it has been argued that this is the destination AMA class.
If this is truly the case, then the maneuver difficulty should be
increased to support this class as an alternate goal to F3A . If it is a
feeder class for F3A, then it also should support some simple roll/loop
combinations. My opinion is that it is neither of these.
Your last paragraph about armchair quarterbacking and comments based on
incomplete data is somewhat insulting. I'm operating in the dark with my
comments because the leadership of the NSRCA has kept me there. Where
are the "sequence guidelines" published? And why can't the general
membership see the current state of development of the new patterns now.
If we don't see them until next year, all we are going to get is an up
or down vote.
John Gayer
Dave wrote:
>
> The ONLY REASON?
>
>
>
> Hmmm.....pattern would have all but died in many parts of the country
> had it not been for reduced overflight requirements of turnaround, the
> reduced noise, and the reduced noise footprint. In the Northeast US,
> pattern was dead in many areas because of noise and overflight
> problems, and 20 years later, some clubs are just now starting to
> understand that pattern is no longer a field killer. I was part of
> the group in the late 80s that penned the transition to turnaround,
> and I was a diehard AMA flyer at the time. Yes, some dropped pattern
> because they did not want to change to turnaround style, but many of
> those would not have been able to continue flying non turnaround
> because of the noise and overflight issues.
>
>
>
> To suggest that the AMA community is fully rejecting FAI concepts is,
> I think, a gross overstatement. FAI has always done some stupid
> things, and like any large bureaucracy, it will likely do so in the
> future. On a regular basis, there is advocacy to do what FAI does,
> and on a regular basis there is opposition to ABSOLUTE congruency with
> FAI.....AMA can always CHOOSE to follow an FAI lead, but should never
> establish legislation REQUIRING it to do so.
>
>
>
> I'm not clear whether you want to increase or decrease the difficulty
> of Sportsman? Eliminating turnarounds would make it easier. Adding
> back 3 roll and 3 loops would make it harder? And if Sportsman were
> made less difficult, and Masters were made more difficult, then the
> difficulty between classes would increase ...another always hot topic.
> My opinion, I would like to see the Sportsman class simpler, and I've
> been involved with the Sequence Committee for 20+ years, and 90% of
> the time I've been called an elitist for trying to take away the "fun"
> and "challenging" maneuvers from the Sportsman. I'd like to see
> pattern competitors stay in a class until they have mastered the
> elements in that class, not simply gotten to the point of being able
> to consistently fly the sequence with no scores <5. I'd like to see
> competitors realize that they can practice the next sequence BEFORE
> getting there, and there is some personal responsibility in preparing
> for the next class. Everyone needs to understand it is simply
> impossible to have difficulty gaps between classes that everyone finds
> to be appropriate -- it is continually adjusted by the Sequence
> Committee based on feedback from the pilots that voice their opinion
> during the design process.
>
>
>
> For Masters, the biggest difference between it and FAI, aside from 2
> schedules, is the integrated loop/roll (rolling loops, rolling
> circles) element. Masters pilots have repeatedly in substantial
> majorities expressed the desire to NOT HAVE integrated loop/roll
> elements in Masters. If you want integrated loop/roll elements, there
> is a class for that -- it is FAI. The other element in FAI that is
> not in Masters is combination roll / snap maneuvers -- again, because
> Masters pilots have repeatedly expressed the desire to NOT HAVE this
> in Masters.
>
>
>
> I'm glad to see the prolific number of posts on this (and similar
> topics) in the past month......I'm sure it means many people will
> volunteer AND contribute to the next Sequence Committee. There is a
> very good system in place (that is quite flexible and accommodating to
> reflect progress and evolving ideas) for designing sequences, but it
> does not work without participation, and as with many other endeavors,
> it does not do very well accommodating armchair quarterbacking and
> occasional comments from sidelines base on limited or incomplete data.
> The length of time it takes to draft, propose, review, and implement
> rules is always a hot topic, and it certainly doesn't get any shorter
> with late entries to the game or increasingly larger numbers of people
> involved. I can assure you that the active core of the current
> Sequence Committee is listening, and nothing is being done in a vacuum.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Dave Lockhart
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *John
> Gayer
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 20, 2009 11:39 AM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
>
>
>
> 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 <mailto:jlachow at hotmail.com>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto: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 <mailto:burtona at atmc.net>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:56:40 -0400
> CC: tom_babs at bellsouth.net <mailto: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>
> [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>
> <mailto:patterndude at tx.rr.com>
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091020/fe0cd352/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list