[NSRCA-discussion] Maintaining schedule/class continuity: Was: Acceptable use policy for the list...

Tim tstebbins at gmail.com
Thu Oct 7 16:32:17 AKDT 2010


Just wanted to re-iterate what you stated.   I've flown Sportsman for  
the past couple of years and finally late this year started getting  
decent scores on all maneuvers so I felt it was time to move up a  
class and give it a try.    I went out this past week and tried the  
2011 Intermediate sequence for the first time.   Now I'm no spring  
chicken so I don't have nerves of steel like your son probably does,  
but the Sportsman sequence helped alot in providing me with the basics  
to attempt a more challenging sequence of maneuvers.    It is a big  
jump in skill level for me with much more throttle management and  
inverted flying, but I had a blast doing it.   Maneuvers are  
definitely challenging to someone at my skill level, but are unique  
and fun to fly.    So I'm really excited to fly in the new sequence  
next year.


On Oct 7, 2010, at 8:44 AM, Atwood, Mark wrote:

> Verne, I couldn’t agree more.  The schedule committee has done a  
> fabulous job but I think we as a group have to stay very vigilant  
> that we maintain a common “Gap” and progression between the  
> classes.  That does NOT mean we can’t or shouldn’t keep up with the  
> times.   But the balance is very important and I think we currently  
> have that (if by luck or design I don’t know or care).   My son is  
> going to try and jump from Sportsman to intermediate in the spring  
> and it will be a HUGE one for him.  BUT… we went out to fly the  
> maneuvers last week in stages and while he can’t put together the  
> whole sequence yet, I don’t think he scared himself making the  
> attempt.   A few of the maneuvers had some pucker factor… the double  
> immelman was the first time he had ever pushed through an outside  
> half loop, but since you immediately  roll to an upright and  
> comfortable orientation, he immediately relaxed and after 2 or 3  
> times I could tell it won’t be a problem.
>
> That’s how the transitions should be.  Exhilarating, but not  
> frightening.
>
> Again to the sequence committee..well done.
>
> -M
>
> 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
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> ] On Behalf Of Verne Koester
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 10:40 AM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Acceptable use policy for the list...
>
> I’m confident that the schedules created by the previous Sequence  
> Committee has a lot to do with it. The trick now is to keep the  
> class transitions and difficulty levels the same as they are now.  
> The quickest way to lose a new Sportsman pilot is to make  
> Intermediate too big of a jump in difficulty level.
>
> Verne
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> ] On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 9:34 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Acceptable use policy for the list...
>
> It has to be a cycle.   Our area (D4) use to be a hotbed for pattern  
> in the 80’s but through the 90’s and aught’s we saw a very steady  
> decline in participation.  But the last 3-4 years has seen a  
> resurgence of pattern activity and a host of new participants.   We  
> still have a large masters class of long time competitors, but our  
> contests now have a solid contingent of Sportsman and Intermediates  
> showing up to many contests.  Our district champs had 10 in  
> Advanced…   A combination of long time old blood, some new  
> advancements from Intermediate, and some former participants that  
> are coming back to the scene.
>
> I have NO idea what triggered this, but I like it J
>
> -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
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> ] On Behalf Of Ronald Van Putte
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 9:18 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Acceptable use policy for the list...
>
> It'll be interesting to see what happens next. The survival of our  
> newsletter is tied directly to the number of advertisers.  If those  
> who sell products related to our hobby don't think it is profitable  
> to continue advertising in the K-Factor, our newsletter will  
> founder.  I'm sure the poor economy is part of the problem.  As the  
> owner of a small hobby shop, I can tell you that my sales this year  
> will be about half of what they were 5-7 years ago.
>
> It appears that the number of competitors is down in the southeast.   
> I was stunned to see only 12 competitors at the O.J. Stillman  
> contest in Jacksonville just over a week ago.  That contest normally  
> has numbers in the high 20s - low 30s.  The Huntsville contest in  
> September used to be a major contest, but there were so few  
> contestants that we were either flying, calling or judging all the  
> time.  I know that numbers like that will cause clubs to think twice  
> about hosting another contest.  After a hiatus of almost ten years,  
> my club, the Eglin Aero Modellers, is hosting a contest in just over  
> a week.  I hope the number of competitors is sufficiently high,  
> because, if they are, I'm sure we will continue hosting the  
> contest.  If not, there won't be another contest.
>
> Ron
>
> On Oct 6, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Keith Hoard wrote:
>
>
> So how many competitors do we have left?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 6, 2010, at 13:11, mike mueller <mups1953 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>  I'm sure some see it as a small deal but if you are a competitor  
> and attempting to abide by the rules you may have a completly  
> different perspective. For that reason I think the rules in place  
> are well thought out and I think Derek is correct in pointing it  
> out. MIke
>
> --- On Wed, 10/6/10, Keith Hoard <khoard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Keith Hoard <khoard at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Acceptable use policy for the list...
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Wednesday, October 6, 2010, 12:49 PM
>
> I'll second that!!!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 6, 2010, at 12:03, "GEORGE KENNIE" <geobet4 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> I think this was meant as an advisory.
>
> I don't think you'd want to call him in January only to find out  
> that they were no longer an
> available item when you had expected them to be.
>
> I have always found his updates to be useful information and his use  
> of our site to be discreet !
>
> As he is not the only purveyor amoungst our group to utilize the  
> site for a heads up and certainly
> not abusing the privelidge, it would seem to me that these types of  
> advisories should be allowed
> without recriminations.
>
> I think a discretionary reaction should prevail.
>
> G.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Derek Koopowitz
> To: NSRCA List
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 9:51 AM
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Acceptable use policy for the list...
>
> I’d just like to point out a reminder for everyone about the list’s  
> acceptable use policy… please see:
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20101008/99687a3b/attachment.html>


More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list