[NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topicrelatingto new FAIrules

Wed Feb 1 05:58:36 AKST 2012

Amen Verne ~~ and me too.. I got tired  of the head bleeds from the bashing against stone walls.. 

Del
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Verne Koester 
  To: 'General pattern discussion' 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 7:12 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topicrelatingto new FAIrules

  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

  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]On Behalf Of tocdon 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
  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 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

  _______________________________________________
  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/bcaea556/attachment.html>