[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question

Wed Oct 21 10:03:43 AKDT 2009

They will be made available later tonight on the NSRCA website...

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Anthony Frackowiak <
frackowiak at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> I certainly hope that the NSRCA Board decided to get this out to us pilots
> ASAP. It is imperative so that at least some in the country can test fly
> them before the weather makes it impossible.
> Tony
>
>   On Oct 21, 2009, at 6:04 AM, Joe Lachowski wrote:
>
>   The sequence descriptions along with Aresti diagrams will be officially
> forwarded to our President by next week. He and the board will determine
> when and how it will be publically released for comment.
>
> The current guidelines need to be revisited and should be available early
> next year. This takes time and we all have other activities in our lives
> that get in the way. Please be patient.  Keep in mind the guidelines used
> are pretty much what was established with some tweaks here and there when
> the sequences we are flying now were generated by the sequence committee for
> the 2007-2009 rules cycle. Prior to this there was really no formal
> documentation at all that I know of. What we have now is something that is
> more formalized. It just needs to be cleaned up and updated based on the
> committees experience this time around.
> ------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:47:17 -0600
> From: jgghome at comcast.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question
>
> Dave,
>
> Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
>
> However I will repeat that I feel strongly that if there are new sequences
> already generated then they should be published now along with the
> guidelines used. They must be in a more or less final form now if they have
> been presented to District 2 for comment.
>
> If you are looking for volunteers in the next rules cycle, consider me
> volunteered.
>
> Also see +++ comments below.
>
> Cheers
>
> John Gayer
>
> Dave wrote:
>
>  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.
>
> +++++++++I saw both Jeff and Dan in August at the first AAM contest in
> about a decade. Hopefully Jeff will start flying competitively again. Jim
> Eide showed up to judge.
> I certainly agree that the move to turnaround, gradual as it was, was a
> good thing. It is clearly more challenging and interesting. It has led to
> aircraft that are a delight to fly and almost too quiet if you fly at an
> open field.
> In this part of the country, it did run off a lot of top level pilots and,
> I believe, lead to a gradual decline of pattern in the Rocky mountain
> region. I can't speak for other parts of the country although I used to fly
> at the Aeroguidance field in the 60s.
>
>
> “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.
>
> +++++++++ Removing the judging and the specificity of the turnaround
> maneuvers does not eliminate the need to get on the correct track for a
> center maneuver through the use of a turnaround maneuver. It does take the
> pressure off and should insure that the contestant is not  trying to do an
> outside loop in the next county or overhead for that matter. The emphasis as
> always is the teaching of wings level, rudder comes later.
>
>
> “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).
>
> +++++++++++I agree that Masters should be more difficult. I'm not sure how
> you would do that without introducing some elements of roll/loop or
> roll/snap combinations.  Right now the pattern is not up to the quality of
> pilot that is sitting at the top of Masters whether you consider it a
> destination class or a feeder class.
>
>
> “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.
>
> +++++++++I understand your frustration in getting participation for these
> committees. I believe that the leadership has an e-mailing list for the
> full  membership. The districts also have mailing lists. Was there a mass
> mailing explaining the function of the sequence committee and asking for
> volunteers? Has this been done for the Event Director of the World
> Championships?  Until these things are done, you cannot sit back and
> complain that you are not getting support.
>
>
> 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<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<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 <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
>  *To:* NSRCA List <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<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> <patterndude at tx.rr.com>
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <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 it now.<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/>
>  ------------------------------
>  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
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222986/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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091021/28f41834/attachment.html>