[NSRCA-discussion] ENJOY PATTERN. IT WAS "Rules proposal 11-6 question"

mike mueller mups1953 at yahoo.com
Mon Oct 26 16:56:47 AKDT 2009 

 Double ditto that Keith and Tony. Big difference when it's the only sequence we fly for 2 seasons. I want it as long as it is now. Thanks, Mike

--- On Mon, 10/26/09, Anthony Frackowiak <frackowiak at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> From: Anthony Frackowiak <frackowiak at sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] ENJOY PATTERN. IT WAS "Rules proposal 11-6 question"
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, October 26, 2009, 7:36 PM
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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