[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Dave
DaveL322 at comcast.net
Tue Oct 20 15:38:51 AKDT 2009
John,
Thanks for the response - seriously - I know you put thought into your
responses.
Your point on the rolling circles in F3A is spot on - it is an excellent
example of why AMA should never blindly follow FAI. Circles are absolutely
contrary to the reducing overflight requirements and noise footprint. There
are a number of people including myself who have advocated against rolling
circles - and apparently we are in the minority or it has fallen on deaf
ears at FAI.
Comparing current day turnaround 2M planes to ballistic style 63" wingspan
piped 2C 60s is not really a fair comparison. When turnaround went into
effect, the airspace used definitely decreased. As the airplanes have
gotten larger (another example of unintended consequence of another short
sighted FAI rule change), the airspace requirements have gradually crept up
to the current day.
You are correct that noise could have been addressed separately (to an
extent) from the style of flying. However, the noise footprint is the
product of the volume of noise and the amount of airspace used. I don't
find it coincidence that both were addressed at the same time.
I think at the time that FAI showed us the way to turnaround, it was
embraced in the US/AMA to the degree it was because it was clearly an aid to
reducing noise footprint, which was a huge problem in many areas of the
country. If FAI were to introduce another "magnitude" of change, I think
you are correct, US/AMA would not follow unless the benefits were
revolutionary.
I understand your history of reduced contests/contestants and the timing
with turnaround in your area. I've talked with Jeff Carrish many times
(former D1 guy, in D5 for ~12 years now, and hopefully getting back into
pattern with encouragement from Dan). I think the same story exists in many
parts of the US. In the NE US, I think the drop started before turnaround,
and it started because of the loss of flying fields that could handle the
ballistic pattern noise footprint and airspace needs. In the NE US, it was
very apparent a change was needed, and turnaround looked to have obvious
benefits (and it did), and the net result may well have been short term
losses for long term sustainability.
"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. "
***********Ok. If I understand your clarification, a full turnaround
sequence is more challenging than a non or partial turnaround sequence when
both have the same maneuvers, because simply flying in the box adds to the
challenge. If I got that right, we are in agreement. Whether or not the
progression of classes should start with flying in the box, or learning
specific maneuvers, that, to me, is a philosophical question/debate for
which I think both sides have merit. Almost a chicken and the egg kind of
thing. I really don't think it is possible to completely separate the two,
and based on coaching beginner pattern pilots for 20+ years, I think the
current Sportsman class is pretty solid, albeit maybe a bit long.
"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."
***********I believe you are partially correct. The current Masters class
is a destination for some, and others are passing through on their way to
F3A. The current difficulty level of Masters is based on feedback from
Masters Pilots in prior NSRCA Surveys (and as I've noted previously,
integrated loop/roll combinations and roll/snap combinations were not
desired in this class). Pilots that think Masters is too difficult can stay
in Advanced (I sincerely doubt any Advanced pilot who is cleaning up in
Advanced won't be able to handle Masters) and those that want more of a
challenge can take a look at F3A (which varies substantially depending on
the year). We can't control F3A. We can control Masters. I personally
think Masters should be a little more difficult, so some of the pilots will
stay in Advanced longer and reduce the top heavy class structure (talking
AMA only) we currently have. As others have stated (and I agree), guys that
want to fly F3A will, with or without "official" feeder classes. Even if
Masters were a feeder class to F3A, I see nothing wrong with an absence of
integrated loop/roll maneuvers, just as I don't see a problem with the
absence of spins in Intermediate. If new elements are not progressively
introduced, what do we end up with? Snaps and spins in Sportsman? Years
ago we had the problem of escalating difficulty within a class..and Novice
was inserted under Sportsman, and then Pre-Novice was inserted under Novice.
Silliness. That is a large driver in why the sequence design/criteria
documents were written (more on that later).
"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."
***********My intent was not to be insulting, but if it came across that way
I apologize. I freely admit to being frustrated by the lack of support and
interest in taking part in the Sequence Committee, only to have (by
comparison) voluminous commentary after the process has begun (and is
actually close to completion). Certainly anyone coming into the game after
it began is not guilty of armchair quarterbacking.
The structure of the Sequence Committee and the process to be completed was
outlined at the onset, and there was buy-in from the NSRCA Board, and no
dissent from the Membership. The process did not include oversight by the
general membership, just as the NSRCA Board does not include the general
membership in every email and phone call. Development of the sequences is a
process, and putting it on hold, or going backwards to include additional
people is counter productive.
The "sequence guidelines" - I don't think they are published anywhere, not
that they are a secret. They are a collection of word documents that are
all related - basically an outline for developing sequences as a related
group, and then specific docs for each class that include design criteria /
class objectives, and a maneuver catalog for each class. They are intended
to be modified as needed based Survey results, the inclusion of new
maneuvers in a sequence, or changes in the rules that would affect
flying/judging criteria of specific maneuvers. I will send a separate email
to the Sequence Committee and Prez Derek to see about posting them.
Regards,
Dave
_____
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 5:26 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
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
To: 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
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" <mailto:patterndude at tx.rr.com>
<patterndude at tx.rr.com>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
<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
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/> it now.
_____
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
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091020/d6ca8ea3/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list