[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Tue Mar 13 06:20:26 AKDT 2012

Bravo Peter!

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Ronald Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net> wrote:

> I do too.  I kept finding myself nodding in agreement all the way through.
>
> Peter's e-mail should be published in the K-Factor.
>
> Ron
>
> On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:30 AM, Bob Richards wrote:
>
> 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<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=vicenterc@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<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=dunnaway@hbcomm.net>
>
> *To: *"General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@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<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=khoard@gmail.com>
> >
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@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<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=khoard@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Michael Ramsey <milehipilot at gmail.com<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=milehipilot@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<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=BUDDYonRC@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<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=drmikedds@sbcglobal.net>writes:
>
> well spoken, Bob****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org>[mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion-bounces@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<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=drykert2@rochester.rr.com>
> >* wrote:****
>
>
> From: Del <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=drykert2@rochester.rr.com>
> >
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@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://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@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://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@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://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://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://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://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@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://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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/f487c777/attachment.html>