[NSRCA-discussion] New sequences

Tue Jul 18 06:00:21 AKDT 2017

I meant 4-8 masters.    We were 7 at Iowa Pattern Championships. 1 Advance.
3-4 Intermidiate.  There were club and sportsman class but they didn't
judge.

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:52 AM Joe Lachowski via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> Hmmm we haven't had 6-8 Masters pilots in over a year.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on
> behalf of Verne Koester via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 18, 2017 6:38 AM
> *To:* Vicente Bortone; General pattern discussion
>
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] New sequences
> Or perhaps then you won't have any masters pilots at your contests either.
>
> Verne Koester
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 18, 2017, at 8:39 AM, Vicente Bortone via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> Her my humble opinion:
>
>
>
> I think the best solution is to adopt the FAI-P modified to meet Master
> requirements.  Here the reasons:
>
>
>
> 1.      We are overloading the lower classes judging Masters in local
> contest.  As time pass we have seen less FAI pilots in local contest.  Clearly
> the norm is to have 46-8 Masters, 0-2 FAI, 0-3 Advanced, 0-3 Intermediate
> and 0-3 Sportsman.  This is a reality that has been happening in the last
> few years.  There are some cases different but this has become normal.
>
> 2.      Is we used modified P in Masters the Masters pilots will be more
> willing to fly FAI and slit the class.  This will make the contest more
> balanced and avoid overloading the lower classes pilots.
>
> 3.      This will help Master pilots to try FAI and try to practice F.  Top
> FAI pilots will be more willing to go to local contest since they will have
> more competition.
>
> 4.      In my contest one traditional FAI pilot call me to ask me how
> many pilots were flying FAI.  I told him you will be the only one.  He
> turned around and went home.  This is a reality that we need to take into
> account.  It is happening.
>
> 5.      If I were and Advanced or Intermediate pilot and I go to a
> contest to judge 4-5 times a bunch of Masters pilots I will try to do
> something else in my weekend.
>
>
>
>
>
> I know that there are other reasons but I need to go back to work.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Curt Oberg via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
>> 60 aged?  YGTBKM.  My son is almost that old.
>>
>> Curt
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
>> *On Behalf Of *Joe Lachowski via NSRCA-discussion
>> *Sent:* Monday, July 17, 2017 4:07 PM
>> *To:* Derek Koopowitz; General pattern discussion
>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] New sequences
>>
>>
>>
>> To that I have to respond. A vast majority of Masters pilots are in the
>> same category if you think 59 going on 60 is aged. LOL.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Monday, July 17, 2017 1:59 PM
>> *To:* Joe Lachowski; General pattern discussion
>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] New sequences
>>
>>
>>
>> Age!!!
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 1:42 PM, Joe Lachowski via NSRCA-discussion <
>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>
>> There are two more things we need to seriously consider with these
>> sequences. Judgeability of course and something no one ever talks about,
>> ability to memorize a sequence and retain it. Not all of us have a caller
>> readily available when practicing. The current sequence bit me twice so far
>> this contest season. I actually started to swap  two maneuvers out of
>> sequence even with a caller. Took my 0's and throw away round. I now make
>> sure my caller reinforces that part of the sequence when calling for me.
>> In all my years of flying pattern this has never ever happened to me
>> before. My memory isn't bad. I usually have  a new sequence or previous
>> seasons sequence down in less than two practice sessions at the beginning
>> of every season.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
>> *Sent:* Monday, July 17, 2017 11:43 AM
>> *To:* Joe Lachowski
>> *Cc:* General pattern discussion
>> *Subject:* Re: New sequences
>>
>>
>>
>> In reply I’ll admit I did not evaluate it against any guideline
>> criteria.  I only flew it for “feel” and admittedly, I’m somewhat proud to
>> say I’ve flown enough F and Unknown sequences now that it didn’t seem very
>> unusual.   So your critique there is likely valid.  Given that all the
>> maneuvers were flyable with little more than calling the primary maneuver
>> name along with the individual elements, real time, I’m hard pressed to
>> call them “fabricated garbage”, as I think that needlessly insults the
>> people that worked hard, with good intent, to put these together.
>>
>>
>>
>> I do fly a fairly low drag, power efficient setup, so that point is valid.
>>
>>
>>
>> I will also agree that our constant evolution and increasing difficulty
>> of sequences has generally stagnated class advancement.  When I was moving
>> up, the classes never changed.  So once you were proficient in a class, the
>> only new challenge was to move up.  Now, with new classes every 2 years,
>> even if the difficulty is the same, you can stay put and still feel
>> challenged learning something new.
>>
>>
>>
>> -M
>>
>> *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
>>
>>
>>
>> <http://www.paragon-inc.com/>
>>
>> *Powering The Digital Experience*
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Joe Lachowski <jlachow at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> There are still too many new maneuvers introduced to the eligible
>> maneuvers list. Only a couple should be introduced each rules cycle if
>> necessary. That was part of the intent of the guide. Battery consumption
>> is too high with the low drag plane and motor combination that you use Mark
>> in comparison to others. I'm assuming this is the sequence that is on the
>> NSRCA site.
>>
>>
>>
>> A few of the maneuvers are just fabricated garbage. When the guide was
>> put together it was done to keep getting carried away with this stuff and
>> adding a boat load of  "Oh, this would be cool to do" type maneuvers which
>> have already infiltrated FAI. There is a lot of stupidity designed into the
>> sequence.
>>
>>
>>
>> A fellow Masters pilot tried to fly  some of this this weekend and
>> concluded it was a bunch of crap, ripped it up and threw it into the
>> garbage.
>>
>>
>> I had an Advanced pilot fly the new sequence for Advanced this weekend
>> also. The Cobra with snap may be an issue.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are also a lot of 3/4 rolls in the sequence that an Advanced pilot
>> will have to figure out which way to roll. This may be an information
>> overload requirement that might be overcome by a lot more practice than
>> typically required. You only have some much time available to practice. The
>> designers did not do a thorough analysis of the roll elements.
>>
>>
>>
>> I firmly believe we need to dumb down on Masters. The current one is
>> already difficult and requires  more practice time than I would care to put
>> into flying pattern. The fun is starting to dissipate for this flyer and
>> I'm retired.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not everyone can get out several evenings during the week and the weekend
>> to practice. I'm thinking of the 95% not the top 5% and I'm a middle of the
>> road Masters pilot. I have also seen decline in Masters attendance on the
>> local level. Based on what I see so far, I will either pack it in or
>> reluctantly drop to Advanced which has crept ever closer towards being a
>> Masters sequence. This is the first time I have seen so much controversy
>> over one sequence.  Start fresh. There is still time to form a new
>> committee hopefully with some people who previously served and get this
>> thing right. There is still plenty of time to get it right by December
>> 31st. Heck I could do it all on my own and come up with something more sane
>> that what has been proposed or thrown out in this discussion list!
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on
>> behalf of Atwood, Mark via NSRCA-discussion <
>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> *Sent:* Monday, July 17, 2017 8:09 AM
>> *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] New sequences
>>
>>
>>
>> Hey All,
>>
>>
>>
>> I was able to fly both the proposed Masters and Advanced sequences this
>> weekend with Chuck Edwards.  All in all good, with a few thoughts.
>>
>> *Masters* -
>>
>>
>>
>> I like it. Flows reasonably well.  Some fun challenges, but nothing
>> daunting.  The two rolls opposite is easily the prettiest maneuver in the
>> schedule, and it will separate anyone not comfortable rolling both ways.
>>
>>
>>
>> *One concern* - The only sticky maneuver I thought is the 1 1/4, KE
>> flight, 1 1/4.   It’s simply too long to make look pretty, and if it’s a
>> strong head wind, will really look like crap.  You’re basically trying to
>> fit 2 1/2 rolls AND sustained KE flight on a downwind leg and stay in the
>> box, thus forcing somewhat rapid rolls which simply look rushed.
>>
>> I would strongly suggest changing it to 3/4 roll, KE, 3/4 roll.   Same
>> difficulty really, but a full roll shorter and thus allows for a more
>> graceful, controlled roll rate.
>>
>> Total Mah draw in modest wind (7-9kt cross) was 3580mah  without paying
>> particular attention to throttle management, given that it was the first
>> time through the sequence.  Quite a bit less time and power than the
>> current schedule.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Advanced*.
>>
>> It’s also nice, with one *major* concern.  The Cobra.  It’s not as
>> conventional as I think is expected, and I feel it’s too much for an
>> advanced flyer just learning to snap their airplane (my opinion).  You’re
>> already a bit rushed going into is, and you’re pushing in from Inverted.
>> No biggie.  Half roll up, over the top and back down on a 45.  THEN you
>> have a single snap on the 45 deg DOWN line.
>>
>> I can tell you from personal experience and a re-kitted Spark (St.
>> Clairsville flying F-11 with a 1 1/2 snap down on the cobra) that a snap
>> like this *WILL *crash an airplane.  You’re heading down, not all that
>> high to begin with, and if you badly miss the snap and lose your
>> orientation, you’re likely on low throttle and low airspeed and will
>> proceed to stall/snap it into the ground in your attempt to recover.    I’d
>> much rather see a snap on the UP leg of the cobra.  It would still be
>> rushed, but FAR more airplane and pilot friendly.
>>
>> Other than that, is has all the traditional challenges.     Power was
>> very low as I flew the schedule with only 2800mah (also a 7-9kt crosswind).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> My $0.02 worth with 1 time through Advanced and twice through Masters.
>> So limited testing.  Your mileage may vary.
>>
>> Hope to see a bunch of you in Arkansas!
>>
>> -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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-- 
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170718/8b184c36/attachment.html>