[NSRCA-discussion] ENJOY PATTERN. IT WAS "Rules proposal 11-6 question"
Anthony Frackowiak
frackowiak at sbcglobal.net
Mon Oct 26 16:36:56 AKDT 2009
Extremely well worded and I am in complete agreement.
Tony
On Oct 26, 2009, at 4:53 PM, Keith Black wrote:
> For the record, I am also against adopting the FAI 'P' pattern for
> masters. I'm not concerned we'll suddenly find ourselves with a
> sequence that's too hard and I'm not concerned it will take decision
> making out of the AMA's hands.
>
> What is the Masters sequence meant to accomplish? Ultimately it's
> meant to determine who's the best pilot at any given local contest and
> at the NATS. It is not intended to make it easy for Advanced fliers to
> move up, it's not intended to allow easy judging by FAI judges, it's
> function is to allow us to discern who's the best pilot.
>
> Therefore, when developing the sequence it is critical that we take
> into account this ultimate goal. It needs to be of adequate length,
> difficulty, etc., etc. Obviously this is not ALL we want out of the
> sequence, but if it does not accomplish this it is a failure.
>
> My concern is that the FAI has a different goal with the P pattern.
> Their goal is to quickly as possible weed out the weaker pilots and
> get to a semi-final round. Therefore the FAI wants the sequence to be
> short and with the VAST difference in pilot abilities in different
> countries they have to make flyable by all that wish to participate.
>
> I believe we need to continue developing our own sequence for Masters
> to ensure it meets our needs.
>
> Keith
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Matthew Frederick <mjfrederick at cox.net
> > wrote:
>> OK, Vince, at your suggestion I re-read the proposal. I can
>> honestly say
>> that I am even more convinced it's a bad idea. The main reason
>> being that
>> for the proposal to work it requires the sequences to be removed
>> from the
>> rule book giving the NSRCA free reign over the schedules. This is a
>> suggestion that I'm dead-set against. The more I think about it and
>> the more
>> I hear, the less I want the NSRCA to have sole control over the
>> sequences.
>> My latest argument against it that I recently thought of is
>> probably the
>> strongest. That being: the NSRCA does not represent all pattern
>> pilots. Not
>> everyone that competes is an NSRCA member, and not every member of
>> the NSRCA
>> competes (So they don't have a dog in the hunt anyway). Let's say a
>> very
>> non-scientific poll is taken by the NSRCA (as they all are) showing
>> that 55%
>> of their members are in favor of a proposal. OK, sounds like a
>> majority,
>> let's let it pass, right? Wrong. What about the non-NSRCA members?
>> What if
>> they're ALL against it and let's say that puts 60% against amongst
>> actual
>> pattern pilots? Not that it really matters to the NSRCA, because
>> they'll
>> just say "Well, they should have joined." From my point of view the
>> NSRCA
>> should be there to serve pattern regardless of how many members it
>> has.
>> Lately to me it seems more about serving the agenda of a select few
>> people.
>> As well-intentioned as their actions may be, they may be going
>> against the
>> majority. I don't trust any one organization having the sole
>> authority to do
>> anything. There has to be a check to the NSRCA's actions for non-
>> members,
>> and that is the contest board. Yeah, they may not enjoy having to
>> deal with
>> all the rules changes associated with the maneuver sequences, but
>> there MUST
>> be a way for non-NSRCA members to have their voices heard, and the
>> contest
>> board is that recourse. Taking actions like some of the ones
>> proposed this
>> year is like opening Pandora's Box. Once this is done, it can never
>> be put
>> back if it doesn't work because the contest board would never
>> accept the
>> responsibility again. I'd just like to say thanks to Keith Black
>> for helping
>> me solidify my view on these matters this weekend, our conversation
>> really
>> got me thinking.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>> To: General pattern discussion
>> Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 2:35 AM
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] ENJOY PATTERN. IT WAS "Rules
>> proposal 11-6
>> question"
>>
>> Matt,
>>
>>
>>
>> I have been trying to follow all the e-mails in regard the proposal
>> 11-6.
>> Just too much work in the last few weeks and I never had chance to
>> respond
>> or didn't see any feedback after I responded to Lance. Also the
>> subject
>> changed too many times. I am taking this opportunity to explain
>> you with
>> more detail the reasons we introduced the proposal. I suggest that
>> you
>> review one more time the proposal that can be found in the
>> following link:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/RCA11-6.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> We tried to explain in the proposal the reasons why suggested the
>> change. I
>> understand that we could have done a better job justifying the
>> proposal.
>> This motivated Lance to ask some questions and I tried to explain
>> when I
>> responded to Lance. I would like to take this opportunity to add the
>> following:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. I have been flying Masters for 5-6 years. It is evident that in
>> the last
>> few years at the local contest we had 8-10 Masters Pilots with no
>> FAI pilots
>> in some cases. In order to balance the contest, we have been
>> dividing the
>> group in two and 1/2 of the Masters Pilots fly FAI to help to
>> balance the
>> contest. We have been doing this for fun and to help the CD to run
>> the
>> contest. However, I believe that it will be a lot easier and fare
>> if we fly
>> approximately similar schedule. Please notice that the proposal
>> suggest
>> that NSRCA committee is free to change the maneuvers that are not
>> proper for
>> Masters level like integrated rolling maneuvers and landing and
>> takeoff
>> should be judged. We missed to add that the NSRCA committee could
>> change turn around maneuvers that don't flow well. Probably this
>> could be
>> added in the revision.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. Clearly next year I will have the pressure to fly both Masters
>> and
>> FAI-P11 in order to get ready for the season. This represents a
>> lot more
>> work for me. If we adopt FAI-P11, I will guess that the maneuver
>> #1 is
>> probably the only one that needs to be changed. I read some e-
>> mails that
>> suggest that the turn around after #1 does not flow well. If we
>> change
>> these two maneuvers it will be a lot easier for Masters Pilots to
>> switch
>> around Masters and FAI-P in local contest. Probably some will
>> suggest that
>> the loop with the integrated 8 point roll should not be in Masters.
>> However, I think this maneuver should be left as is. I believe
>> that this
>> maneuver is a very good one to learn integrated rolling maneuvers.
>> I tried
>> and it is fun.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. If we adopt FAI-P schedule with modifications, it will be easier
>> for
>> Master pilots to make the decision to switch to fly FAI because we
>> will need
>> to learn the F schedule only. Yes, I know that some of us will never
>> consider flying the FAI F. If you ask me, I will really like to
>> try. Are
>> the integrated rolling maneuvers difficult for me? Yes. Again, I
>> really
>> will like to try. I believe that this change will facilitate this
>> process.
>>
>>
>>
>> 4. Finally, please don't forget that we have to judge. It will be
>> a lot
>> easier and the level of judging will improve a lot if we fly
>> approximately
>> the same schedule.
>>
>>
>>
>> 5. It will be interesting to guess how this change could benefit
>> the high
>> level pilots in Masters to try FAI at the Nats. I am sure that
>> some can
>> help me. I know that if I fly Masters at the Nats I will be better
>> prepare
>> to judge FAI P schedule. The only pressure is to get ready to
>> judge F
>> schedule so the work load at the Nats is somehow reduced for the
>> Masters and
>> FAI competitors.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Matthew Frederick" <mjfrederick at cox.net>
>> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 9:42:16 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada
>> Central
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YOU DON'T HAVE TO COMPETE TO ENJOY
>> PATTERN
>>
>> Umm, I don't think anyone threated to quit after seeing the Advanced
>> pattern. I said I would quit after Advanced if we adopt the F3A P
>> sequence
>> for Masters. I haven't even looked at the new Advanced pattern yet
>> mainly
>> because if I continue at this rate without throwing a contest here
>> and there
>> I will point out of Advanced before I ever get to fly the new one in
>> competition... and I've only flown Advanced in 3 contests!
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: frank
>> To: 'General pattern discussion'
>> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:03 AM
>> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YOU DON'T HAVE TO COMPETE TO ENJOY
>> PATTERN
>>
>> Having read the response of one fellow who threatened to quit after
>> seeing
>> the new proposed Advanced sequence ( all sequences look great,
>> IMO), may I
>> respectfully suggest that you continue to practice and enjoy this
>> great
>> hobby sport even if you feel that you can’t be competitive. I
>> compete very
>> little by choice( was once a very active UKIE competitor- for two
>> decades)
>> ,but still practice( in most weather conditions) and enjoy pattern
>> as much
>> as anyone I know ( I fly with some very active, die hard flyers who
>> can
>> attest). I’d probably be bored out of my skull if I flew sport
>> again and
>> don’t wish to fly anything but pattern aircraft. Try taking a year
>> off and
>> practice the hell out of the new sequence- you might surprise
>> yourself and
>> will definitely become a better pilot to boot. Please take no
>> offense, just
>> my .02.
>>
>>
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 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
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list