[NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating tonewFAIrules

Thu Feb 2 16:40:59 AKST 2012

I agree Verne. I wish it was set up as it used to be, where sportsman left the box often and even Intermediate had a couple of breaks. I would like to see the difficulty increased in the lower classes, but more box brakes. It amazes me that 20 years ago a Novice pilot had to do 3 loops, but with todays airplanes and technology, suddenly this is more difficult. I would bet many Advanced pilots would have trouble with it and even more so the three rolls that were in Sportsman. It seems as though we have totally changed the entry levels encouraging the need for full blown pattern ships. Years ago you could fly Novice with any average sport plane. Adding complexity with maneuvers at the top of the box and the vertical upline that requires some power has made this sequence much harder to fly competitively with a .40 size sport plane. 

Arch

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 2, 2012, at 8:25 PM, "Verne Koester" <verne at twmi.rr.com> wrote:

> It wasn’t the expense. It was the fact that an above-average sport pilot could do a pretty respectable job with that old Sportsman schedule without the full commitment that a full-time pattern pilot makes. Those guys had a blast going against their rivals in whatever region they lived in. Go somewhere else and it’d be an entirely different group having just as much fun flying against their pals.. A few of those guys would move up through the classes but most seemed to be quite happy and content to do 2 or 3 “local” contests a year and have at it against their pals. Turnaround raised the ante and the commitment to a level those guys obviously didn’t want to go to.
>  
> I never flew against any of those guys because my first contest away from my home field was in Advanced which is a long story in itself. Suffice to say, I wouldn’t have recommended it then and especially not now. FWIW, I love turnaround flying. I have just always thought we put a little too much pressure on those that want to give it a try and probably scare off some or many in the process. For those that might want to argue the point, forget it. Been there, done that, ain’t doing it no more.
>  
> Verne Koester
>  
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Peter Vogel
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 6:42 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Cc: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating tonewFAIrules
>  
> I don't buy the expense argument anymore.  The $200-$400 Osiris from 3DHobbyShop winds up at $400-$800 all-up, depending on how you choose to equip it and is more than capable of turning in very respectable showing. 
>  
> Now the $650 Vanquish even puts a full 2M plane in an affordable range. 
>  
> Peter+
> 
> Sent from my iPhone4S
> 
> On Feb 2, 2012, at 12:50 PM, "Del" <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> Your right Peter.. The beauty of that period of flying anyone with an Ugly stick or under powered kadet could enter and fly pattern. Attendance at meets was amazing at most parts of country. That style did get some heat as blamed for loss of fields from over flights of homes etc. but if the full truth were to be looked at all flying endeavors loud and noisy aircraft flying near and over homes was the bigger culprit. Pattern was at the forefront of addressing that and mandating a reasonable sound level at the nats especially but bonus points could be award for quiet aircraft and penalties for noisy planes. 
>  
> The other big advantage was as recently petitioned people would come out and enjoy themselves flying after only practicing the weekend before if at all and do fairly well sometimes. The changes have hurt overall mass attendance but the quality of the flying by competitors has improved dramatically. Some like that tradeoff. Others not so much. Partially because of increased expenses to compete means they can't participate and still feel they made a reasonable showing.
>  
>     Del
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Peter Vogel
> To: General pattern discussion
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 3:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating tonewFAIrules
>  
> OK.  Looking at some of the old rule books, I'm confused.  Take for example the novice sequence from 86-87:
> Takeoff
> Straight flight out (U)
> Procedure turn
> Straight flight back (D)
> Stall Turn (U)
> Immelmann Turn (U)
> 3 inside loops (U)
> One horizontal roll (D)
> Landing
>  
> The procedure turn, stall turn, and Immelmann sure seem like turnarounds to me, granted to meet the mandatory directions relative to wind you would need to have a free turnaround between the straight flight back and the stall turn, and another free turnaround between the stall and the Immelmann, etc.  So were all the "stunt" turns intended to be executed at show center with a free turnaround outside the box between each maneuver?  
>  
> I'm amazed at the amount of "heat" (aka: passion) there seems to have been in the K-factor around the change to turnaround schedules.  I admit I like my 2 "free" turnarounds outside the box in Sportsman between maneuvers 6+7 and 11+12 but I could muddle through without them if I had to, and I honestly can't imagine flying such a disjoint sequence as the ones I'm seeing in the old rulebooks.  Hardly feels like a "sequence".
>  
> Peter+
>  
> 
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:43 AM, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:
> The sequences flown were published in the old rule books. Be aware that over the years some of the class names changed.
> Some time back I applied K-factors to those non-turnaround schedules to try to understand the migration of increasing difficulty, concluding that the K-factor alone is a poor indicator of actual difficulty. But we all step up to the challenge regardless of the difficulty.
> Jim
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> 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 11:23 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Cc: NSRCA Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating tonew 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
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120203/f05fca43/attachment.html>