[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Bill Glaze
billglaze at bellsouth.net
Tue Oct 20 13:48:05 AKDT 2009
Ron:
I remember the disappointment when we were not given control over this part
of our own destiny. Finally--it looks as if sanity is prevailing. Now, if
the law of unintended consequences doesn't raise it's ugly head......
It's a good first step.
Bill Glaze
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Van Putte" <vanputte at cox.net>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
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
_______________________________________________
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