[NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topicrelating tonewFAIrules

Fri Feb 3 10:05:25 AKST 2012

D5 runs a club contest at some of there contests. not sure of the rules. I am sure someone from the Hoffman Estates area will pipe up. I do know it is a one day contest you get a winner on Saturday and of course another winner on Sunday. 

--- On Fri, 2/3/12, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Another discussion topicrelating tonewFAIrules
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Friday, February 3, 2012, 12:39 PM

Verne, you
got that right. If I had not entered these local contests mostly for a weekend
of fun flying with members of both local and nearby clubs, I probably wouldn't
be flying pattern today. Pattern was one of several local club activities
scheduled through the flying season using local CD's, judges and helpers. The
complexity of compound turnaround maneuvers required some judge commitment and training
prior to the morning of the contest. This added additional burden to the non-pattern
dedicated local CD's who also on occasion had to deal with judging errors and
outraged competitors. In short the fun went away, the club judged declined and
the CD offered something else effectively eliminating pattern from the next
year's activities schedule. 

In short
we still have club members who are interested in flying aerobatics that would probably
participate in a local 'Classic' pattern contest. 

Times change,
modelers don't. 

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: Thursday, February 02, 2012
5:25 PM

To: 'General pattern discussion'

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Fwd: Another discussion topicrelating tonewFAIrules

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 

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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/f595ee9f/attachment.html>