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

Thu Oct 14 07:24:43 AKDT 2010

I've watched you fly too many times to buy that. I'm glad you don't practice as much as me or I'd be saying that to you!

Verne

---- Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com> wrote: 

=============
What I wouldn't give for one of your "bad" rounds  . . . .  . .;)

Bob Kane

getterflash at yahoo.com

--- On Thu, 10/14/10, verne at twmi.rr.com <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:

From: verne at twmi.rr.com <verne at twmi.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Maintaining schedule/class continuity: Was:Acceptable use policy for the list...
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 9:04 AM

I'm having enough trouble with the proposed schedule. After a fair amount of practice, I just now have the quality level up to what most would call a bad round. There's not much time left either. It's getting dark before 7:00 PM around here...

Verne

---- Joe Lachowski <jlachow at hotmail.com> wrote: 

=============

Hey Verne, we could put one of those cubans in the 2013 Masters sequence <g>. 

> From: verne at twmi.rr.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:27:33 -0400
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Maintaining schedule/class continuity: Was:Acceptable use policy for the list...
> 
> Would that be called the "Screwin Cuban"?
> 
> I'm just asking....
> 
> Verne
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Atwood, Mark
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 10:02 PM
> To: jonlowe at aol.com; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Maintaining schedule/class continuity: Was:Acceptable use policy for the list...
> 
> Nah, no nerve. Just light hearted agreement that those sequences lack something. I'm particularly fond of the Cuban 8 fetish someone must have. I'm waiting for the Cuban with rolls integrated into each loop.
> 
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone
> 
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Jon Lowe" <jonlowe at aol.com>
> Date: Wed, Oct 13, 2010 9:37 pm
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Maintaining schedule/class continuity: Was:Acceptable use policy for the list...
> To: "nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> I think I stuck more than one nerve.....!
> 
> Jon Lowe
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Wed, Oct 13, 2010 7:39 pm
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Maintaining schedule/class continuity: Was:Acceptable use policy for the list...
> 
> Just to be clear…they suck to fly too. At least with the Figure M it’s centered so both the pilot and the judge can see what’s happening. On the turn-around’s it’s more of a crap shoot depending on the lighting and background as to whether or not you can really tell what the plane is doing. Yeah, you can get away with some stuff, but more often you just end up in a bad position for the next maneuver.
> 
> 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<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com> | www.paragon-inc.com<http://www.paragon-inc.com/>
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?>] On Behalf Of Verne Koester
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 8:26 PM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Maintaining schedule/class continuity: Was:Acceptable use policy for the list...
> 
> Jon,
> The FAI maneuvers that I REALLY don’t like are the ones in yaw. They look terrible and are virtually impossible to judge. I’m talking about maneuvers like the half loop with two opposite full rolls integrated from F09 which is only made uglier by the fact that it’s an end maneuver and the Half outside loop, with ½ integrated roll, also an end maneuver. They just look lousy to me.
> 
> Verne
> 
> 
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org?>] On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 3:52 PM
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Maintaining schedule/class continuity: Was:Acceptable use policy for the list...
> 
> The FAI sequence committee ought to let ours do their work. The F11 sequence is a disaster. 1 1/2 reverse cuban with a whole bunch of crap in it followed by an end box inverted half cuban eight = a mess. Also, a snap followed by a 4/8 opposite AND a snap with a 4 pt opposite in the same sequence. What were they thinking? No one could have ever actually flown that mess before putting it on paper.
> Jon Lowe
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Glaze <billglaze at bellsouth.net<mailto:billglaze at bellsouth.net>>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> Sent: Wed, Oct 13, 2010 2:35 pm
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Maintaining schedule/class continuity: Was:Acceptable use policy for the list...
> Verne:
> I couldn't agree more. In the length of time I've been flying Pattern, I haven't seen a schedule of figures that was bad--some may have been better than others, (notice: operative word: "MAY") but there hasn't been a lousy one that I've seen; this wasn't magic. I think you're spot on for commending those people on the previous comittee. Thanks for doing so.
> Bill Glaze
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Verne Koester<mailto:verne at twmi.rr.com>
> To: 'General pattern discussion'<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 3:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Maintaining schedule/class continuity: Was:Acceptable use policy for the list...
> 
> Just so there’s no confusion, I’m complimenting and crediting the PREVIOUS Sequence Committee that created the schedules we’ve been flying for the past few years. I’m on the current committee and hope that the schedules that will serve pattern in the next few years do so as well as the schedules we’ve been flying. Just my opinion, but I’ve watched the trends for a couple decades now and you can really harm the sport, particularly Sportsman and Intermediate with schedules that are way out of whack with the skill set at those levels. The increased activity level we’re seeing in and around D4 in Sportsman through Advanced are directly related to the success of those schedules. I remember Troy Newman, Joe Lachowski, and possibly Dave Lockhart being on that committee as well as others and they’re to be commended for getting us back on track.
> 
> Verne Koester
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> [mailto: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 11:44 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Maintaining schedule/class continuity: Was: Acceptable use policy for the list...
> 
> 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<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com> | www.paragon-inc.com<http://www.paragon-inc.com/>
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> [mailto: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> [mailto: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 ☺
> 
> -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<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com> | www.paragon-inc.com<http://www.paragon-inc.com/>
> 
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:khoard at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> From: Keith Hoard <khoard at gmail.com<mailto:khoard at gmail.com>>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Acceptable use policy for the list...
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://us.mc510.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=derekkoopowitz@gmail.com>
> To: NSRCA List<http://us.mc510.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org>
> 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<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> 
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> 
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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