[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
michael s harrison
drmikedds at sbcglobal.net
Wed Oct 21 04:29:45 AKDT 2009
Why don't we fly straight lines and give every body a first place trophy!
Mike
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Lance Van
Nostrand
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 8:48 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
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 <mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: General pattern discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
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
<http://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 <http://www.eset.com/>
_____
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/> 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/20091021/6a036e81/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list