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

Joe Lachowski jlachow at hotmail.com
Tue Oct 27 04:11:13 AKDT 2009 

This proposal is a non-starter. I'm not worried. I'm sure the contest board will bury it. Masters pilots have been polled time and time again and the result has always been no adoption of current or past FAI sequences. Why do we keep on revisiting this? P11/F11 are great examples of really poorly designed sequences by the international community that justifies not going the direction of the proposal. Modifying one of these FAI sequences is no more easier than just coming up with something new under the current system.


 
> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:56:45 -0700
> From: mups1953 at yahoo.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] ENJOY PATTERN. IT WAS "Rules proposal 11-6 question"
> 
> 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
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
New Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pc-scout/default.aspx?CBID=wl&ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_pcscout:102009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091027/7ee468cd/attachment.html>

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list