[NSRCA-discussion] New sequences

Scott McHarg scmcharg at gmail.com
Tue Jul 18 09:57:24 AKDT 2017 

Vicente and Dave,

The problem with this is that the majority of FAI pilots want to fly F at
the local contests.  Honestly, I can't blame them.  As a CD, I want to give
my pilots what they want.  As a pilot looking forward to FAI myself, I'm
not excited about the drastic jump and learning two sequences at the same
time with F being as crazy as it is.  Yes, I know I could just fly P but if
I can't do what the rest of the class is doing,  I'm just not that
interested, frankly.

This is the reason for either Masters flying P or a new class.  With our
participation where it is, a new class is not really possible.  Earl said
that FAI is an AMA class.  Everyone agreed that was the best email yet.
But still, we don't want to consider the step between Masters and FAI.
This, I cannot understand.

*Scott A. McHarg*
VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
Texas A&M University
PPL - ASEL
Remote Pilot Certified Under FAA Part 107

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Vicente Bortone <vincebrc at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Scott,
>
> There has been more than one  solution for that.  We all know those.  In
> any case, per FAI rules F cannot been flown in a two day contest.  I could
> be wrong on this conclusion.  We need to check the rule book.  I remember
> reading this few years back.  There was already a similar comment on this.
>   However,  this is easy one to take care.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:32 PM Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Because even at local contest, FAI flies both P and F.
>>
>> On Jul 18, 2017 11:33 AM, "Verne Koester via NSRCA-discussion" <
>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>
>>> And the masters pilots aren't simply
>>> flying fai now because?
>>>
>>> Verne Koester
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Vicente Bortone <vincebrc at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Verne,
>>>
>>> I am sure that all Masters pilots that usually come to my contest still
>>> will come.  They just love this stuff too much.  We already discussed.  I
>>> am also sure more FAI pilots will attend if they see more participation in
>>> their class.  Yes, I have been collecting a lot of FAI trophies.  We will
>>> be able to flip flop more easily between Masters and FAI.  Then judging
>>> becomes easier and a lot more precise since we will be judging similar
>>> schedule.  In any event, when I see the proposed new Master schedule many
>>> of those manuevers were already in old FAI-P so it is not really a big
>>> deal.  I understand that we want to revise it and change the elements that
>>> do not meet the Masters (sometimes we will need to make it more
>>> stringent) requirements and fix the flow is required.  Furthermore, will
>>> make the life of the committe in charge a lot easier.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:38 AM Verne Koester <verne at mi.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20170718/8c265108/attachment.html>

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list