[NSRCA-discussion] FW: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 andbeyond

Fri Sep 24 13:40:39 AKDT 2010

I agree with Glen. Why is it the responsibility of guys who are abiding by the rules to move up. Neither Glen nor I started out at the top of Masters. I finished 27th at my first NATS in Masters. I have since worked my tail off, as has Glen, Tony, george Asteris, and many others. We paid our dues like everyone else. If you want to move up and compete in Masters WORK HARDER. Thats what each of us have done. 

Arch

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 24, 2010, at 5:19 PM, John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net> wrote:

> Glen,
> 
> If you don't want to be forced to move to FAI, then you must accept     that there are those in other classes who do not wish to advance to     the next class either. Peer pressure and the challenge of learning more complex maneuvers and doing better at a higher level are expected to work for Sportsman through Advanced but not for Masters? 
> 
> While F3A maneuvers are controlled by the FAI, there is nothing international about doing a loop with an integrated  8 point. It is, however, a challenge to do well. Why are so many of the Masters flyers disinterested in new challenges, new maneuvers, new competition? These are the things that drove them to excel in the lower classes and in Masters and then it all stops?
> 
> I would think that winning the NATS in any class would lead one to     look around and say "where's the next hill to climb?"
> 
> I firmly believe there needs to be some changes made in the advancement process. It should be the same across the board for all classes including Masters.
> In the past I have suggested abolishing the current advancement rules and replacing it with the following:
> 
> A competitor will select the class to be flown during the calendar year. This selected class may be any higher class or the next lower class than that flown in the previous calendar year. The set of classes referred to is 401-404 and 406.
> 
> This would at least make advancement requirements consistent for all participants and is very easy to enforce.
> 
> John Gayer
> AMA 75102
> NSRCA 632
> ex Sportsman, Advanced, Expert. Master, F3A and now thoroughly     challenged by Advanced(again)
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/24/2010 2:22 PM, Glen Watson wrote:
>> 
>> ...I probably meet Dave's description of a Masters' pilot who chooses not to             compete in an International class.  There are many personal reason why this is the case.  i.e. desire, age, dollars, time etc.
>>  
>> It's amazing to me the same issues are raised year-to-year about changing the current establishment (AMA rules) to meet one's needs.   Instead of trying to force someone like me to move-on to FAI why can't the pilots who view someone like me as a potential sandbagger work a bit harder in their respective class to become as competitive as they can.  I do not mean to come across arrogant, just voicing my opinion regarding attitude's I've  witness from the pattern community. 
>>  
>> I recognize the level of time, money and commitment it takes to achieve excellence.  That's why I enjoy the sport of pattern, it's the challenge of being competitive within the stated rules.
>>  
>> ~Glen Watson
>> AMA 136878
>> NSRCA 2293
>> 
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave
>> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:32 AM
>> To: 'General pattern discussion'
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FW: Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 andbeyond
>> 
>> 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 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20100924/2543b9aa/attachment.html>