[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Tue Mar 13 05:30:53 AKDT 2012

Peter,

I love what you wrote. I think your are correct in everything you said, especially the first sentence.

Bob R.

--- On Mon, 3/12/12, Peter Vogel <vogel.peter at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Peter Vogel <vogel.peter at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, March 12, 2012, 7:35 PM

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 

To: General pattern discussion 

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://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
_______________________________________________
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

-----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/20120313/1cf5be1b/attachment.html>