[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

Tue Oct 20 17:48:40 AKDT 2009

There must be a bunch of you that are either retired or don't work much. How can I be caught up when I leave for work at 7:30 and have 149 postings on the same subject by the time I get home at 8pm.  The issue is already beat to death before I can even start.  it's like trying to rent the CD's for Dexter and catch up for the 4th season!

I like most of what Mark says.  I agree 100% with his second longer point on advancement, but have to disagree with the first point about wanting to fly in a new class a few times to check it out.  As he states later (today) people should have already tried and practiced the next class long before moving up, so moving up is a commitment you are ready for.  One can fly "up" as much as desired.  This is like dating.  Moving up is like getting married.  What's flying up a few times going to teach you that practice doesn't?  The analogy for this?  I guess its the humpty.

--Lance
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Atwood, Mark 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 8:28 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

  I'll jump in on two points here.  One, is that being able to move freely back and forth between classes (something that is being proposed) would facilitate trying the next class for even a contest or two without the permanent commitment to being stuck there.  The second point is Joe's comment on the "quality" of flying at the nats.  Pattern (In my opinion, and why I personally like it) is all about precision.  Watching Tony F. fly an 8pt roll, or ANY roll for that matter screams precision.  When Andrew/Chip/Jason/Dave L. (name your top flyer of choice) fly in a 25mph cross wind, and it looks like they're flying in the dead calm, it screams control.  That's pattern.

  When I moved to Advanced the maneuvers that separated the pack were the 4pt, the slow roll, and the 6 sided outside loop.  Those were the most difficult maneuvers in the sequence so if you wanted to win, you had to grease those.  But because they weren't THAT hard,  they couldn't be just passable, that had to be next to flawless. As did the rest of your flight.  Take off and Landing scores made a difference, so you learned to grease those too.  

  When I hear people talk about wanting to make the sequences harder, I watch people fly Intermediate and Advanced and think, it's already too hard.  Not because they can't do the maneuvers, but because they're spending so much time ON the maneuvers that they're not learning to clean up the "easy" stuff.  Intermediate and Advanced is where you learn to draw great lines, learn to show rhythm and pace, learn not just maneuver geometry, but sequence geometry.  Learn to make things perfect in every wind condition.     We seemed to have shifted the focus a little bit.  There's no longer a need to score 9's and 10's on K1 and K2 maneuvers because there are enough K5's that 7's and 8's will do.  

  That's also part of what has made the jump from Advanced to Masters "feel" so large.  I'm not seeing people truly master Advanced before trying to move.  

  Being able to change patterns more frequently may help in that we'll be able to eliminate the boredom component of flying one pattern too long.  But I completely agree with Joe that we need to follow the criteria established for what each level is supposed to achieve.  

  I also think that each level should be a "jump" in skill.  That's what keeps it challenging and fun (for me). 

  My $0.02

  -Mark

  Mark Atwood

  Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President

  5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124 

  Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102

  mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com  |  www.paragon-inc.com

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Joe Lachowski
  Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 8:22 AM
  To: NSRCA Discussion List
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

  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: rcpilot at wowway.com
  To: nsrca-discussion at 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: nsrca-discussion-bounces at 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 <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
  Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 9:58 PM
  To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at 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 <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
  To: NSRCA List <nsrca-discussion at 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: jlachow at hotmail.com
  To: nsrca-discussion at 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
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
  Version: 8.5.422 / Virus Database: 270.14.24/2449 - Release Date: 10/20/09 18:42:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091021/d50fc057/attachment.html>