[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com
Tue Oct 20 18:24:21 AKDT 2009
7:30AM to 8PM? Only working half a day?
Just kidding ;)
Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com
--- On Tue, 10/20/09, Lance Van Nostrand <patterndude at tx.rr.com> wrote:
> From: Lance Van Nostrand <patterndude at tx.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 9:48 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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