[NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relatingto new FAIrules

Wed Feb 1 04:12:06 AKST 2012

i had the same experience as John, i was about ready to quit when turn
around came on the scene regardless of the fact that i was doing really well
with the original ama style.  it took massive amounts of land area and was
really noisy.  i got where i couldn't stand the noise and i had people
coming from a mile away complaining about the noise.  some of those people
were not pleasant.  i had people complaining about flyovers, etc.  i was
glad big time when it changed.

mike harrison

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Fuqua
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 7:07 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relatingto new
FAIrules

One the other hand I had quit pattern because I got bored.   But when
turnaround came on the scene I got really excited about it and have been
going at it ever since.   I remember all the arguments pro and con.   Yes a
lot of folks quit.   But for those that stuck with it have greatly improved
their skills that most would not have learned otherwise.

John Fuqua

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Mark Atwood
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 6:29 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relatingto new
FAIrules

My recall is slightly different from Verne's but similar. I started Pattern
in '89 so I lived through the transition as I moved up through Novice,
Sportsman and Advanced.   My recall was that most of us in Sportsman and
Advanced were excited to see turn around coming.  It was mostly the more
advanced and veteran fliers that were opposed to the change.

But where Verne is 100% on the money is the change to local contests.  It
wasn't just the Sportsman guys that we lost.  We lost ALL the "old pattern
guys" that no longer toured the circuit, but loved to come to the local
contest and show their stuff.   In cleveland we would get 10+ guys that USED
to travel, flew all the various classes that prior to turnaround would come
out the day before the contest with a dusted off Dirty Birdy and practice a
few maneuvers, and then fly the contest VERY competently.  Prior to turn
around, a former advanced flier could come out and have someone call them
through the maneuvers and be competent.  Once turnaround came in, there was
no chance.    A year or two of looking foolish, and they stopped
participating.  Our contests went from 40 to 30 contestants almost
overnight.  

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
<http://www.paragon-inc.com/> 

On Jan 31, 2012, at 7:12 PM, Verne Koester wrote:

When I flew Advanced in the 1990 Nats, Sportsman (now Intermediate) and
Advanced shared the same flight line and the switch was all anybody was
talking about and it was very heated as you recall. I remember a bunch of
Sportsman guys saying that if we went to all turnaround, they wouldn't be
back.

I think the Sportsman (now Intermediate) class saw the biggest decline when
it changed to turnaround and it's taken a long time to get it back. I feel
fortunate to have come up  through the system where everything was a center
maneuver. Back then, you could really focus on the geometry and precision of
a maneuver and then get a short breather while you turned around without
being scored and without being confined to a box.

I also remember the Sportsman class pretty much funding local contests
because it was occupied mostly by local guys who rarely traveled more than
80 - 100 miles to compete. You could go to another region a couple hundred
miles away and there'd be a whole different group of ten or so guys flying
in Sportsman there. All those guys did a pretty credible job without
spending the money and time it takes to be competitive now. I think it's
unfortunate that we don't start off pilots that way now and campaigned for
it for a long time. I finally got tired of all the arguments pro and con and
gave up.

Verne

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 6:43 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relatingto new
FAIrules

Verne, I also flue expert turnaround, advancing to masters when it was
discontinued.

After flying turnaround in sport aerobatics, commonly referred to as IMAC I
had already been indoctrinated and didn't care to fly another full throttle
half reverse cuban eight a 1/3 of a mile out.

You probably also remember the sometimes heated pro and con discussions
appearing in the model press leading up to the change. It was an interesting
time.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Verne Koester
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:24 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relatingto new
FAIrules

Hi Peter,

If you want to see how AMA pattern looked prior to turnaround, download the
1988-89 rulebook. FAI had already started flying turnaround but it naturally
won't appear in the rulebooks. If you also download the 1990-91 rulebook,
you'll see how the transition started. Masters went from a "build your own"
schedule to a fixed set of non-turnaround maneuvers and Expert was
introduced as the first AMA all-turnaround schedule. You then have to
download 92-93 rulebook and the 94-95 version to see the transition
progress. Along the way, Expert was dropped and Advanced and Masters were
made all turnaround.

We lost a BUNCH of competitors as all of this took place who didn't want to
make the transition. As time went on, the transition filtered down through
the classes to what we have today. To see how it took place, One only needs
to look at the schedules and how they changed from 1988 through 1995. Each
rulebook in between those periods made changes to complete the transition.

Verne Koester

BTW, I was one of many who opposed the changes because I could see we were
going to lose a bunch of guys in the process but I was too hooked to walk
away. I could see the writing on the wall and made the transition. In 1990,
I flew Advanced at the Nats (pre-turnaround) and in 1991 I flew Expert
Turnaround at the Nats. When Expert was dropped in 1992, those in that class
had the option of going to Advanced which was now turnaround but easier than
Expert or Masters which was also made all-turnaround but harder than Expert.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Peter Vogel
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:23 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Cc: NSRCA Discussion List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating to
new FAIrules

I was reading some of the archived K-factors and it got me curious, is there
an archive of the sequences pre-turnaround?

Peter+

Sent from my iPhone4S

On Jan 31, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Joe Lachowski <jlachow at hotmail.com> wrote:

You can log on at the NSRCA website and then proceed to the judges section
and click on archived documents. Thanks to Jim Hiller who provided me a lot
of these, I was able to scan them in and put them into the PDF Format.
Anyone who has anything older than whats up there, send a hard copy to me to
scan and I'll have Derek put them up.

  _____  

Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:45:38 -0800
From: derekkoopowitz at gmail.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating to
new FAIrules

We have a pretty good collection of AMA and FAI rule books on the website if
anyone wants to see what rules were like, or how much they have changed over
the years...

Click on the link below:

http://nsrca.us/index.php/archiveddocuments 

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com> wrote:

It would appear that the FAI is going down the same road as IMAC, with
IMAC's subjective "airspace control" factor.  The smoothness and
gracefulness 25% gives a judge a non-objective way to give a downgrade of 2
to 3 points.  Since there is no scoring criteria for it that I could find,
other than Michael Ramel's instructions to the judges at the WC, I'm not
sure what we do with it.  I would think that his instructions would have
been protestable, if anyone had wanted to go down that path, since I'm
unaware of any official FAI rule interpretation saying, for example, that
constant speed is a part of smoothness and gracefulness.  I'm sure he was
just trying to give meaning to a poorly writen criteria.

Very sorry to see the FAI going this way.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Atwood <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 9:49 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating to
new FAIrules

Dave, the answer, by your own math, is that a geometrically perfect maneuver
can't be beaten purely by other criteria.   With geometry making up 50% of
the score, no amount of smoothness can be valued MORE than precision.  

I could also argue that a geometrically "perfect" maneuver would always have
at least some level of gracefulness based on that perfect geometry.  They're
not completely independent.  

Unfortunately S&G is completely subjective, and as analytical people, we're
not too keen on subjectivity.  But that's the nature of the sport.  It's
perceived precision, not measured.    Vertical lines at the end of the box
don't need to BE vertical, they need to LOOK vertical, etc.   

If we want purely objective scoring... look to racing.  Go fast, bank left,
pull.   

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
<http://www.paragon-inc.com/> 

On Jan 31, 2012, at 10:37 AM, DaveL322 at comcast.net wrote:

There has never been guidance for s+g downgrades in AMA or FAI.....which is
why I have always advocated s+g should be eliminated from the judging
criteria.  Of course if I am mistaken about the goal of pattern being
precision aerobatics, then maybe s+g should be the only criteria.

I've never gotten an answer to this question.  How can a geometrically
perfect maneuver be outscored by a geometrically flawed maneuver?  Of course
with the new FAI scoring.....it would seem that geometrically perfect
maneuver might only be scored a 5.

Regards,

Dave

Sent from my HTC on the Now Network from Sprint!

----- Reply message -----
From: "Ronald Van Putte" <vanputte at cox.net>
Date: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 09:49
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating to new
FAIrules
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

After thinking about this further, I wonder how the change in  ranking
affects anything.  Positioning has specific downgrades (2 point downgrade
for each 1/4 of the maneuver off center).  However, I am unaware of any
specific downgrades for smoothness and gracefulness.

Ron Van Putte

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ronald Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net>

Date: January 31, 2012 8:24:56 AM CST

To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Another discussion topic relating to new
FAIrules

Reply-To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

That's interesting.  I know #2. and #3. were in reverse order before.  I
don't remember a rules change vote on this.

Ron Van Putte

On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:19 AM, Bob Kane wrote:

FWIW, this is identical to to the ranking in the AMA Competition
regulations:

>From the current AMA document (RCA-12):

1. Precision of the maneuver.

2. Smoothness and gracefulness of the maneuver.

3. Positioning or display of the maneuver.

4. Size or dimensions of the maneuver relative to the maneuvering area,
distance from the judges, and other maneuvers in the flight.

The above criteria are listed in order of importance; however, all of them
must be met for a maneuver to be rated perfect.

Bob Kane getterflash at yahoo.com

From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 3:51 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Another discussion topic relating to new
FAIrules

I would have thought positioning rated a higher precision aerobatics.
Smoothness and gracefulness is polish.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: 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
Oftocdon at netscape.net
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 6:06 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Another discussion topic relating to new
FAIrules

This will keep the list going (and the discussions too).  I recall Michael
Ramel clearly discussing the future of the rules during the judges training
at the World Championships at Muncie.  This was relating to smoothness and
gracefulness being directly related to constant speed.  The following
reflects what he discussed, as cited on page 35, and effect the way a score
is awarded:

Geometry:  50%

Smoothness and Gracefulness: 25%

Position of maneuver: 12.5%

Size of maneuver: 12.5%

Proportion of the maneuver outside the (box) in addition to above.

The specific, objective criteria used to judge smoothness and gracefulness
includes, "maintaining constant speed throughout various maneuver
components, like climbing and decending sections..."

Also the sentence about radii being very loose or very tight, even if equal
size within a maneuver, are grounds for downgrade of smoothness and
gracefulness.

Cheers,

Don

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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.orghttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrc
a-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/20120201/63fcb6be/attachment.html>