[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed 2015 sequences

Mon Jul 28 12:09:24 AKDT 2014

I too find the masters proposed does not consume more power than the 
current, maybe slightly less? The current schedule, second to last 
maneuver is the figure eight, bottom first. This one can really put a 
hurt on the battery, at the end of the sequence!

Dale

------ Original Message ------
From: "Scott McHarg via NSRCA-discussion" 
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
To: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>; "General pattern 
discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: 7/28/2014 6:37:41 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed 2015 sequences

>I also think it's important to understand that, for Masters, this is 
>only a 1 year sequence.  Masters will get a new sequence in 2016-2017 
>to coincide with FAI and all the rest of the AMA classes will fly the 
>new sequences for 3 years.  This is due to the rule that says Masters 
>must change at least every 2 years (I can't remember if Dale told me 
>Advanced would get a new sequence after 2015 as well).  I also do not 
>think that there's anything in the new sequence for Masters that causes 
>us to spend more on equipment versus the current sequence.  No maneuver 
>in the proposed sequence requires more power or anything out of the 
>ordinary in my opinion at all.  In fact, I feel that, aside from a 
>maneuver or two, the proposed sequence is easier than what we are 
>flying now.  I'm using less mah albeit not by much and the sequence 
>flows nicely.  The Top Hat requires some pre-planning which I also 
>enjoy along with the centered Stall Turn.  It really is a good 
>sequence.
>
>Scott
>
>Scott A. McHarg
>VSCL / CANVASS U.A.V. Pilot Texas A&M University
>PPL - ASEL
>
>
>On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Atwood, Mark via NSRCA-discussion 
><nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>I do, and yes I think it’s simply the reality of any competition.   
>>Technology changes in every sport, and the sport adapts to the 
>>technology.  I also think the idea of never moving back in classes is 
>>a stigma we need to eradicate.   There are a myriad of valid reasons 
>>that someone would and should move back a class without issue.  There 
>>comes a point in the hobby where it transitions from mostly 
>>competitive, to mostly social.  Age, vision, desire, expense, life, 
>>all can get in the way of the burning pursuit to be the very best, but 
>>our passion for the hobby and the people in it cause us to want to 
>>stay in this competitive niche for the social value AND… SELF 
>>competition.  Keeping our skills, setting our own goals, etc.     None 
>>of that should hold back the competitor that is still climbing the 
>>ladder and striving to make our world team.
>>
>>I’d also argue that nothing being introduced in this cycle does 
>>anything to change the needed equipment, and is all well within the 
>>skill of any Masters pilot.  Is it a slippery slope to more complex 
>>maneuvers?  Probably.  But that’s the point.  By the time another 
>>cycle has come around, pilots will be more comfortable with that 
>>simple roll over the top.  Moreover, the current “top designs” will 
>>have two more years to bleed into the used market, and trickle down to 
>>the lower classes as they always have.  Few are still flying the late 
>>90’s designs that would struggle with a long sustained knife edge or 
>>be incapable of a KE loop.  It’s been 10 years since the KE loop was 
>>introduced into FAI and at this point those designs have infiltrated 
>>down through even the Sportsman ranks, long before the maneuver has 
>>worked into even the Masters pattern.
>>
>>So yes… I realize it will drive a few away.  But I think it will be a 
>>net positive for the overall health of the sport, and for our overall 
>>competitiveness.
>>
>>
>>Mark Atwood
>>Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
>>5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
>>Direct: 440.229.2502 |  Fax: 440.684.3102
>>www.paragon-inc.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Jul 28, 2014, at 9:05 AM, Del R <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>While I do not dispute your thoughts and writing Mark do you accept 
>>and realize that this also drives the casual and medium dollar pilot 
>>backwards or away?  As long as you accept that is part of what drives 
>>people away from being able to compete then you are also a realist.
>>
>>     Del
>>         x nsrca 473
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From:Atwood, Mark via NSRCA-discussion
>>>To:NSRCA General
>>>Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 9:11 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed 2015 sequences
>>>
>>>Integrated rolling maneuvers were only introduced to FAI in the last 
>>>10 years.  Over that time Masters has stayed fairly stagnant with 
>>>regard to any type of new maneuver or difficulty.  I was flying 
>>>masters when they introduced 2 rolls in opposite directions and we 
>>>all had a similar thought… “I have to roll the OTHER way???  This 
>>>isn’t FAI….”   We adjusted.
>>>
>>>The gap between Masters and FAI is growing rapidly.  If we want 
>>>Masters to prepare pilots for FAI than we need to keep the gap 
>>>reasonable.  Yes, Masters is a destination for some.  So is 
>>>Advanced…heck, so is Intermediate.  But that doesn’t change their 
>>>primary purpose of being stepping stones to improve our flying, 
>>>culminating with FAI.
>>>
>>>
>>>Mark Atwood
>>>Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
>>>5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
>>>Direct: 440.229.2502 |  Fax: 440.684.3102
>>>http://www.paragon-inc.com/
>>>
>>>
>>><image001.png>
>>>
>>>On Jul 27, 2014, at 8:42 PM, Whodaddy Whodaddy via NSRCA-discussion 
>>><nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Several masters pilots at the NATS indicated they would return to 
>>>advanced because of the roller...It was indicated that who cares how 
>>>easy it might be masters is not FAI ..
>>>
>>>An hour glass in advanced seemed a bit much for that class imo..
>>>Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>>On Jul 27, 2014, at 10:07 AM, Dale Olstinske via NSRCA-discussion 
>>>><nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>We would be asking for final BOD approval in Oct.
>>>>
>>>>Dale
>>>>
>>>>>On Jul 27, 2014, at 8:05 AM, Chuck Hochhalter via NSRCA-discussion 
>>>>><nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>When will these be approved?
>>>>>
>>>>>Chuck
>>>>>
>>>>>Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>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/20140728/e89ca3ce/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6692 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20140728/e89ca3ce/attachment.png>