[NSRCA-discussion] Anthony Manifesto/pattern participation

Tue Nov 8 09:12:50 AKST 2016

+3

Regards,
Dave
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy Note5.
-------- Original message --------From: ronlock--- via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> Date: 11/8/16  12:15 PM  (GMT-05:00) To: Pete Cosky <pcosky at comcast.net>, General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Anthony Manifesto/pattern participation 
+2

Ron Lockhart

From: "Pete Cosky via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
To: "Mark Atwood" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>, "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 11:36:37 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Anthony Manifesto/pattern participation

+1

Sent from my mobile device

On Nov 8, 2016, at 11:20 AM, Atwood, Mark via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

I’d prefer to stay out of this fray since I’m  a voting member of the contest board, but how can anyone say that the “2 meter rule is the neutralizer” when our planes have been 2M in size for 20 years and yet they continue to grow?   Weight IS the current limiting factor… Not the 2M dimensions.    Simply go back to an earlier 2M design if you feel that 2M is truly the constraint.  There are MANY that will make weight with nooooo  problem.   Pretty sure I have a 2M nemesis that’s just under 9 lbs.  

Yes, I’m being adversarial… sorry about that.    But I feel the need to drive the point that 2M is not our current constraining rule.  Weight is.  There is a significant buffer in place for the lower classes to relax the weight rule for repairs, less skilled builders, cheaper introductory equipment and the like. 

I think there might be tolerance for increasing that buffer.  But eliminating the rule altogether is likely a non starter.

-Mark

MARK ATWOOD

o.  (440) 229-2502
c.  (216) 316-2489
e.  atwoodm at paragon-inc.com

Paragon Consulting, Inc.
5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
www.paragon-inc.com

Powering The Digital Experience

On Nov 8, 2016, at 10:53 AM, Ron via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

+1
On Nov 8, 2016 8:30 AM, blotch44026--- via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

Agreed on the weight rule. I have $5000 in a new bird; just missed making weight out of the box. A few mods and 1000  gram batts (4500mah) would have got me there.  After a few landing gear repairs, It would never make weight so that takes me out of attending the Nationals. Weight rule makes no sense, but it always gets voted down. The 2 meter rule is the neutralizer. 

Rick

-----Original Message----- 
From: Dave Burton via NSRCA-discussion 
Sent: Nov 5, 2016 11:45 AM 
To: Snaproll4 at aol.com, 'General pattern discussion' 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Anthony Manifesto/pattern participation 

I agree with almost everything here and would add elimination take off and landing as scored maneuvers as well for AMA classes. Refusal to adopt similar changes are why I dropped out of NSRCA a few years ago. 
I think the only limitations on airframe should be max 2 meter dimensions but remove the weight limit. All the weight limit does is drive up the cost of airplanes.
If  rules changes like these aren't implemented pattern will continue to die out and the only people flying will be the few FAI flyers who can contend for the US team. 
Most of these ideas have been submitted as rules changes in the past but were shot down by the NSRCA BOD. You would hope the drastic drop in participation would force considerations of changing some things
Dave

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Snaproll4--- via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2016 12:12 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Anthony Manifesto/pattern participation

I do not want to be NSRCA president, but If I were NSRCA King, this is what I would do:

  1.  Eliminate ALL mandatory advancement rules.  In fact, as King, I would ban all conversation about advancement.  I've been saying this for 20 years, but every time this gets voted on, the proposal gets soundly defeated.  Can't we all name a pilot who moved up to Masters and then dropped out?  We should never have rules that discourage participation.  This includes the rule about trying higher classes and not being able to move back down.

2.  Sportsman and Intermediate should be non-turnaround. Turnaround was the death of the casual competitor. No 2 meter planes will be allowed in Sportsman.  You're not going to get a club flyer to compete when there are 4 Allures and a Proteus in his class.  This is not supposed to be a money competition. 

3. Advanced should be 50% turn-around and somewhat less difficult than it is today.  The emphasis here should be on the slightly more committed pilot and NOT as a building block for Masters.  This should become the new destination class.

4.  Masters should fly all rounds of FAI P, but not compete directly against FAI pilots.  I can put up a respectable P, but I don't want to fly against Team members. (besides, who would judge?)  The sequence would still change every 2 years. Think of the advantages in judging as FAI pilots and Masters usually judge each other.  This would eliminate the need for development of a new Masters schedule and let the sequence committee concentrate on the other 3 classes.

5.  It would be nice if we could make Sportsman two 1 day contests, consisting of 4 rounds each day.  Perhaps they could fly two rounds within each flight.  Yes, that would mean 3 more awards, but you can't expect Sportsman pilots to spend the time and money to go to 2 day contests.  This way, a pilot could do family stuff on Saturday and compete on Sunday.

Steve Miller, NSRCA #673

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13342 - Release Date: 11/03/16_______________________________________________
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/20161108/e0f4d08e/attachment.html>