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

Thu Feb 2 20:38:40 AKST 2012

It has been a long time,(1994-1995) but I recall when I was flying
Sportsman it was three in, one out, three in...etc. Advanced was all
turn-around as I recall. When I started flying pattern turn-around had
pretty much completed its transition so I never really flew non turn-around
style.

I was asking a Sportsman flyer at the field that is just getting into it
how he thought he might like removing turn-around in his class and he was
not real hot on the idea. He thought it would be to big of a transition
into Intermediate which is all turn-around. I do like the idea of removing
it but his reaction surprised me a little, but I see his point, as it would
be difficult going from no box, to all in.

Would it be possible for a CD to make the decision at his contest to hold a
non turn-around, Novice class to experiment with the idea locally? I am not
sure what the ruling would be on that.

Rick

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Keith Hoard <khoard at gmail.com> wrote:

> Whenever I've tried to coach a sport pilot on pattern, they hang in there
> right up to the first turnaround maneuver. .
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 2, 2012, at 20:04, Archie Stafford <astafford at md.metrocast.net>
> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> I have suggested this previously and was told this was too difficult for
> Sportsman pilots.  I don’t agree with that at all.  I would like to see the
> lower classes have some more challenging maneuvers, but less box stuff.  I
> think this will attract guys to fly without having to invest a lot.  There
> will be a big jump at some point between classes, and I believe between
> Intermediate and Advanced.  By that time people know if they want to
> continue and can look to invest more time and effort into it.  The approach
> that we can make the patterns smoothly flow from one class to another
> simply wont work without lowering the overall difficulty.  We need to make
> it more fun for Sportsman to encourage new blood and let them see how much
> fun it can be.  This is just my opinion, but this approach seemed to work
> well 15-20 years ago.
>
> Arch
>
>
>
> On 2/2/12 8:59 PM, "John Fuqua" <johnfuqua at embarqmail.com> wrote:
>
> If this is as you suggest then NSRCA has the opportunity now to redo the
> Sportsman sequence and make it so power is not the criteria and more suited
> to sport planes.
>
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [
> mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Archie Stafford
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 02, 2012 7:41 PM
> *To:* General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topic relating
> tonewFAIrules
>
>
> 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<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 <mailto:vogel.peter at gmail.com <vogel.peter at gmail.com>>
>
>
> *To:* General pattern discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
>
>
> *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<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
>
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120203/d229f8d4/attachment.html>