[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Mon Mar 12 15:35:37 AKDT 2012

If we're serious about "increasing participation" then I think we need to
take a look at what captures the imaginations of the young pilots these
days and figure out how to integrate that into what we do.  F3P gets
participation because it has the freestyle component where people get to
innovate and "wow" the crowd.  It also has a very high crowd appeal.

If I can digress for a moment into a fair, but somewhat flawed, analogy --
consider figure skating: up through, I believe 1992, amateur figure skating
had 3 components: the compulsory figures, the short program and the long
program.  In 100's of hours of figure skating competition that I watched on
television through 1992 I believe I saw a total of about 5 minutes of the
compulsory figures, TV rightly considered them too boring to watch.  They
are, however, the building blocks of the short + long program.

In 1994's Albertville Olympics, the compulsory figures were removed from
the competition entirely, replaced with a requirement for specific figures
to occur during the short program, but the skater was encouraged to put
them together in a creative and innovative fashion that would have crowd
appeal (read: artistic impression) as well as demonstrating technical
prowess -- additional figures could be added into the program, and they
would be judged, and it's possible to substitute a harder figure for an
easier one (i.e. triple axle could be used instead of a triple lutz) but
you cannot skip any of the compulsory figures (i.e. there's still always a
figure 8 at some point, there's always a spinning stunt that requires a
foot change and manipulation of angular momentum) or you get a severe
downgrade in your technical score that the artistic score cannot recover.

I said it was a flawed analogy, but I don't think any amount of
turnaround/non-turnaround, heavy/light, small/large, etc. is going to bring
more people into pattern.  "Young kids nowadays" with obvious exceptions,
want to do stuff that gets the "wow" on YouBoob, it takes actually being
introduced to pattern, experiencing the thrill of executing a maneuver
"with precision" and knowing what it takes to do that for watching pattern
to be interesting, just as was true with the compulsories in figure
skating.  You have to be a competitor to appreciate another competitor's
flight + effort.  I'd argue you even have to be there and have a dog in the
hunt for it to be truly interesting because I love pattern but I have a
tolerance for about 10 minutes of watching pattern competition on YouBoob,
even though I'll happily watch others compete (or even practice) for hours
trying to learn something from what I'm seeing when I'm watching in person.
 That argues for some kind of "coaching" or "development" program, some way
for the venerated experts to hand down their knowledge and expertise to the
young pups who can probably fly the 3D pants off their coaches, but can't
fly anything where the wing is actually doing the work with precision to
save their lives, and the young (and not so young) sport fliers who are
interested but don't know how to start, how to think about executing the
maneuvers, how to think about corrections, etc.  I'd say I wouldn't be in
pattern if it weren't for 4 factors: a long dormant interest, the Osiris
(and now the Vanquish), Dave Scott's excellent books on sport + precision
aerobatics, and some GREAT guys at the field and at the competitions I've
been to.  I talk to a LOT of 3D + sport guys who have some interest in
"improving their precision" but don't know how to get started with pattern
and find watching pattern boring.  The young folk that do fly pattern seem
to have one common characteristic: a parent or close relative/friend who is
actively, or used to be, a good pattern pilot

I can say for certain, and the 3D/sport guys I know understand intuitively,
that flying pattern (even as poorly as I do it) will dramatically improve
*all* your flying (knock on wood, I haven't crashed an aircraft other than
some less than perfect landings, since I started flying pattern -- I used
to routinely crash and just accepted that as part of the nature & cost of
the hobby (my first instructor said "if you fly them, you crash them" as a
fundamental rule of the hobby)).

To use another less than perfect analogy, back in the 60's and 70's the US
had *no* internationally capable soccer team -- in the 70's the US branch
of FIFA introduced a YMCA soccer program and real soccer talent developed
in the US, we now routinely compete well (though have yet to take home the
cup) in the world cup of men's soccer and I believe this last year was the
first time in 2 decades that the US women didn't walk away with the world
cup.

If you want growth in anything, no amount of rules change is going to move
the lever, you need to have a real development program to capture and
nurture raw interest and talent.  Great pilots need to learn how to teach
new pilots their skillz, as Jim Kimbro did for Matt, as Tim Jesky and
others did for Andrew, etc.

Hmmm -- why not a YMCA/AMA partnership to develop new pilots from trainers
-> sport aerobatics -> precision aerobatics?

Peter+

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Vicente "Vince" Bortone <
vicenterc at comcast.net> wrote:

> Hi Joe,
>
>
>
> Indoor pattern F3P is getting some action here in Kansas City.  The novice
> class does not have turnaround.  I think is very good idea.
>
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *dunnaway at hbcomm.net
>
> *To: *"General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent: *Monday, March 12, 2012 5:31:29 PM
>
> *Subject: *Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
>
> Maybe adding a non-turnaround class is an option we should look at.
>
> Joe Dunnaway
>
> Sent from my HTC Inspire™ 4G
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Keith Hoard" <khoard at gmail.com>
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
> Date: Mon, Mar 12, 2012 17:22
>
>
> If you'd eliminate the turnaround maneuvers also, you'd get alot more
> sport guys coming back to pattern.
> .
> Just sayin' . . .
> .
>
> Keith Hoard
> Collierville, TN
> khoard at gmail.com
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Michael Ramsey <milehipilot at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Has there ever been any discussion about developing an AMA Pattern class
>> that uses aircraft approximately half that of the current 2-meter limits? A
>> more affordable way to fly, and be competitive would make contest
>> attendance personally more attractive. I'm thinking that the 3DHS Osiris
>> would be the benchmark.
>>
>> Thanks for sharing your thoughts,
>>
>> Michael...
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 4:41 PM, <BUDDYonRC at aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>> Mike, Bob and others
>>> Having served on the rules change survey committee back in 2005 this all
>>> sounds like the e-mail comments some 105 of them that I saved that are a
>>> near copy of the current reasons for and against the weight change issue of
>>> the current post's.
>>>  If you want to look at change and effect to pattern that i think has
>>> more to do with attracting new members look at the pattern difficulty.
>>> Back in 1996 everything was simple and beginners were shaking in their
>>> boots to do an outside loop the most difficult maneuver in FAI was
>>> a snap on a 45 down line. I think some possible new bees go to the field
>>> watch a while, try a while and leave. True those who have the funds,
>>> ability and competitive drive will stay.  By the way I was in favor of the
>>> weight change back then but like Bob my dog is in the cage and hasn't
>>> hunted in a while and when it does only looks for crippled birds.
>>> Buddy B.
>>>
>>>  In a message dated 3/12/2012 7:33:39 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
>>> drmikedds at sbcglobal.net writes:
>>>
>>>  well spoken, Bob****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
>>> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Bob Richards
>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 12, 2012 4:15 AM
>>> *To:* General pattern discussion
>>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> That may be so, but I don't see how this particular proposal would have
>>> that effect. Is anyone serious about leaving the hobby because of the
>>> weight rule proposal? Is anyone who was contemplating pattern competition
>>> going to be turned off by it?****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Keep in mind there will always be chronic complainers. How many times
>>> did I hear that "four-strokes are going to ruin the sport" or "turnaround
>>> ..." or "noise rules ...", etc etc. Some did leave the hobby, but there
>>> will always be turnover. Some of them will feel the need to give an excuse
>>> whether it really is the reason. I will say that some of the largest local
>>> contests I ever attended were AFTER all of those game-ruining rules that I
>>> mentioned. ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> The whole hobby of model airplanes has changed significantly in the last
>>> 10-15 years, with many more venues to divide one's time in the hobby -
>>> pattern is an overall smaller piece of the pie as a result. I personally
>>> don't think that anything about the rules can be blamed for any downturn in
>>> pattern contest attendance. Nor do I think that tweaking the rules we have
>>> will magically breath new life into it. ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Bob R.****
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On *Sun, 3/11/12, Del <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com>* wrote:****
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Del <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
>>> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Date: Sunday, March 11, 2012, 2:56 PM****
>>>
>>> *Bob.. *****
>>>
>>> * *****
>>>
>>> *Poorly disguised rule changes have driven more from the sport than any
>>> words or hashing about the sport. *****
>>>
>>> * *****
>>>
>>> *    Del *****
>>>
>>>  ----- Original Message ----- ****
>>>
>>> *From:* Bob Richards<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=bob@toprudder.com>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> *To:* General pattern discussion<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:22 PM****
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Guys,****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> For the life of me, I can't see why everyone is getting bent out of
>>> shape over the proposed weight limt rule for the lower classes. It opens up
>>> the possibilities for someone wanting to get started in pattern and
>>> competing in the lower classes, IMHO. If someone in the upper classes has a
>>> plane that is at the weight limit, but is unable to repair the plane
>>> without it going over the limit, then it becomes a perfect hand-me-down for
>>> someone getting started. ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> The fact is that the proposed rule does not exclude any planes that are
>>> already legal. The guys that build light know they should have a better
>>> flying plane than one that is heavier. The only reason I can think of that
>>> people with light planes can get upset with this rule is that someone with
>>> a heavier plane might beat them.. ****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> OTOH, how often are models weighed at local contests? I never saw it
>>> done in the years I flew, but that was before the electrics came on the
>>> scene. Tell me, does any CD weigh planes at a local event now? If not, then
>>> I am really confused about weight limit discussions where someone says it
>>> is ruining things to raise the weight limit, when no one is checking it at
>>> local contests anyway. Why all the fuss (one way or the other) about a rule
>>> that no one enforces except at the Nats?****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> I really don't have a dog in this hunt. I'm just confused about all the
>>> strongly worded comments going back and forth. This, IMHO, does more to
>>> turn people off from pattern than any rule change proposal.****
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>
>>> Bob R.****
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  ****
>>>  ------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@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<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
>

-- 
Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training
Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20120312/bec5bed1/attachment.html>