[NSRCA-discussion] FW: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

Fri Sep 24 11:06:25 AKDT 2010

Wow, this thread is wearing me out...Can we get back to something a bit less sensitive, like...I don't know...How about judging Snaps or something like that... ;^ ))

--- On Fri, 9/24/10, Stuart Chale <schale at optonline.net> wrote:

From: Stuart Chale <schale at optonline.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Friday, September 24, 2010, 2:51 PM

I usually fall way behind when every time I check my email the list has 60 new posts but I finally caught up to the end :)  There will probably be 5 more posts while I am writing this.

I do fly masters, although not at a top level.  The sequences have increased in complexity over time.  As some have mentioned early FAI P sequences are easier than the current masters sequence.  Back then masters pilots also complained that the FAI sequence was too difficult to fly.  I think I got started flying again when the avalanche with the snap on the bottom was the current pattern.  I didn't like the maneuver and do not think I actually flew a contest with that maneuver in it as it was changing the next year.  But how many people would really be bothered by it now?  If there were some maneuvers with integrated rolls (while flying upwards) we would all learn to fly them.  Some better than others.  Another way to help separate out the top fliers.  But no one would lose a plane because of it.  

I know people hate to compare us to IMAC but their beginner sequence has no breaks to leave the box, and integrated rollers are started in the middle classes.  Yes they have different judging criteria especially for loops with integrated rolls, but if they can learn them then so can you.  I would welcome integrated rolling maneuvers and like the rest of you would practice them to the best of my ability.  I can't believe any one would drop out of pattern because of it.  If it is really beyond your capabilities then I suspect you are scoring low in masters anyway and have the option to move back to advanced, or wait to move up.

Stuart C.

On 9/24/2010 2:32 PM, Joe Lachowski wrote: 

Ding, Ding, Ding 

From: DaveL322 at comcast.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 12:31:55 -0400
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

#yiv175132286 .yiv175132286ExternalClass .yiv175132286ecxshape
{}

#yiv175132286 .yiv175132286ExternalClass a:link
{}
#yiv175132286 .yiv175132286ExternalClass span.yiv175132286ecxMSOHYPERLINK
{}
#yiv175132286 .yiv175132286ExternalClass a:visited
{}
#yiv175132286 .yiv175132286ExternalClass span.yiv175132286ecxMSOHYPERLINKFOLLOWED
{}
#yiv175132286 .yiv175132286ExternalClass p
{}
#yiv175132286 .yiv175132286ExternalClass pre
{}
#yiv175132286 .yiv175132286ExternalClass span.yiv175132286ecxHTMLPREFORMATTEDCHAR
{}
#yiv175132286 .yiv175132286ExternalClass p.yiv175132286ecxMsoNormal, #yiv175132286 .yiv175132286ExternalClass li.yiv175132286ecxMsoNormal, #yiv175132286 .yiv175132286ExternalClass div.yiv175132286ecxMsoNormal
{margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';color:black;}
#yiv175132286 .yiv175132286ExternalClass a:link, #yiv175132286 .yiv175132286ExternalClass span.yiv175132286ecxMsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv175132286 .yiv175132286ExternalClass a:visited, #yiv175132286 .yiv175132286ExternalClass span.yiv175132286ecxMsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv175132286 .yiv175132286ExternalClass p
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';color:black;}
#yiv175132286 .yiv175132286ExternalClass pre
{margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:'Courier New';color:black;}
#yiv175132286 .yiv175132286ExternalClass span.yiv175132286ecxhtmlpreformattedchar
{font-family:Consolas;}
#yiv175132286 .yiv175132286ExternalClass span.yiv175132286ecxEmailStyle20
{font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D;}
#yiv175132286 .yiv175132286ExternalClass span.yiv175132286ecxEmailStyle21
{font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D;}
#yiv175132286 .yiv175132286ExternalClass span.yiv175132286ecxEmailStyle22
{font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D;}
#yiv175132286 .yiv175132286ExternalClass span.yiv175132286ecxEmailStyle23
{font-family:Arial;color:navy;}
#yiv175132286 .yiv175132286ExternalClass span.yiv175132286ecxEmailStyle24
{font-family:Arial;color:navy;}
#yiv175132286 .yiv175132286ExternalClass span.yiv175132286ecxEmailStyle25
{font-family:Arial;color:navy;}
 _filtered #yiv175132286 {}
#yiv175132286 .yiv175132286ExternalClass div.yiv175132286ecxSection1
{}

John,

I’m not quite sure how to respond as I think my commentary made perfect sense.

I’ll try it another way –

The US has a substantial number of pilots that do not aspire to international competition.  Many Masters pilots have expressed the opinion that if they were required to fly a more difficult schedule, or fly multiple schedules, they would drop out of the event.  So why force them into a class that contains elements they clearly don’t want, and for which they have virtually no input or control?  How does chasing people out of the event benefit pattern in the US?

With respect to “ALL the lower classes and maneuvers are selected by someone else(the sequence committee)”

I couldn’t disagree more.  The Seq Com has always been comprised of pilots from all classes, and the direction taken by the Seq Com has always been based on survey results and feedback from the masses.  “Someone else” is us, just like the judges are us.

Regards,

Dave Lockhart

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Gayer
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 12:09 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

That makes no sense. Every other country has resolved the issue of having their own internal classes and then finally advancing their best pilots to F3A. Just because the maneuvers are selected by an international committee on which we are represented is not a reason to preclude F3A from an advancement process. We only have Turnaround pattern in this country because the FAI led the way and we decided to follow rather than go the way of the dodo.
>From my point of view, ALL the lower classes and maneuvers are selected by someone else(the sequence committee). For F3A that committe is international. So what?

John Gayer
NSRCA 632

On 9/24/2010 8:36 AM, Dave wrote: 
I believe the practical perspective is that FAI-F3A is an AMA class, but it does not run in accordance with AMA rules (except where FAI is silent), and AMA has virtually no control over F3A.  Given AMA has no control over F3A, that is a key point in not requiring advancement to F3A from Masters.

Regards,

Dave Lockhart

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Gene Maurice
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 8:18 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

Sorry, FAI is an AMA class, 406,  it’s only that the Sporting Code supersedes, doesn’t replace, the AMA rule book and the exemption from advancement. >From the 2009-2010 rule book:

RADIO CONTROL PATTERN 
For events 401, 402, 403, 404, 406. 

7. Pattern event classes: The Pattern event shall
be divided into five (5) classes. The first four (4
shall (in order of increasing difficulty) be 
referred to as Sportsman, Intermediate, 
Advanced, and Masters. The fifth class shall be 
referred to as the FAI class. The Sportsman class
is supplemental (see Supplemental and 
Provisional Rules, page 2). Competitors must be
advised prior to the start of the contest of any 
planned deviations from standard AMA rules 
pertaining to the events they have entered. 

19. FAI Pattern Maneuvers: The FAI class 
shall fly according to the current FAI RC 
Aerobatics (F3A) rules. The noise limit shall be 
the current noise limit used in AMA competition 
for classes 401-404, except in the case of a USA 
Team Selection contest, where the noise limit 
shall be the current FAI noise rule. The builder-
of-the-model rule, if any, shall not be enforced. 
The AMA Competition Regulations will be 
applied when the FAI Sporting Code is silent on, 
or does not provide guidance concerning the 
conduct or rules of the FAI - F3A events. 

  8.2.5: There is no mandatory 
advancement into FAI from the Masters class. 
Contestants may enter their current AMA class 
or the FAI class at any contest but not both.

Gene Maurice
gene.maurice at sgmservice.com
Dallas, GA
AMA 3408
NSRCA 877
PACSS.sgmservice.com

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Harmon
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 12:19 AM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

Hi Vince….well….FAI/F3A is not an AMA class…..Masters and below ARE….so…FAI/F3A cannot be a destination class for an AMA event.

Dave Harmon
NSRCA 586
K6XYZ[at]sbcglobal[dot]net
Sperry, Ok.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Vicente "Vince" Bortone
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:24 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

I think that making FAI-F3A destination class will be easier natural solution.  How we are going to organize local contests having one additional class?

Vicente "Vince" Bortone

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Harmon" <k6xyz at sbcglobal.net>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond

>> time because the new class would 
be populated from the other classes….like Masters and Intermediate.<<<
arrrrgghhh……I meant Advanced……another class between Advanced and Masters.
Sorry….

Dave Harmon
NSRCA 586
K6XYZ[at]sbcglobal[dot]net
Sperry, Ok.
nfo/nsrca-discussion  _______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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/20100924/07877808/attachment.html>