[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal - Limiting Size/Power for Sportsman and Intermediate

[Larry Diamond]

+1
FWIW and as you pointed out, if there is any intimidation in the Intermediate class when I fly because I have a 2M pattern plane, it is soon washed away with my 1/2 roll in opposite and 2 rolls. I haven't put the time in to fix it and has been my problem for 15 years.
LD


Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 6, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: davel322--- via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> Date: 1/9/19  6:39 PM  (GMT-06:00) To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal - Limiting	Size/Power	for	Sportsman and Intermediate 
I think I have read all, or close to all of the comments on the topic of growing pattern.  A number of good points and ideas have been put forth. My takeaways –  The rules of pattern don’t matter if potential newbies don’t find us or see us. The perception of the type of plane it takes to fly pattern is a big item that needs to change (again, actual rules don’t matter). The perception of what it takes to compete is another item that needs to change (multiple days a week and 100s of practice flights per year). And, I think if we are being honest as a community, the perception of “the average pattern guy” needs to change (all pattern guys are not the loners flying at private practice fields). Don’t make changes that alienate our own – keeping a pattern pilot is much easier than finding or enticing a new one.  @ perceptions for planeHow many times have I heard……my plane is too big for the rules, my plane is too heavy for the rules, my plane can’t compete with a late model 2M pattern plane, etc.  No matter what the rules are, there can always be an excuse for not fitting into the rules.  I think the correct direction is to reduce restrictions on the entry level class, not increase them.  Reduce the opportunity for excuses, and increase the variety of planes found in the entry level class.  Give a bonus for smaller planes?  Sure, do it.  We all know bigger flies better, just as we know a smaller plane that is well flown can score better than a larger plane.  If a bonus is part of the rules, it mean as judges we need to be absolutely honest about scoring exactly what we see on the same standard, and not “pretty good for 30 size plane” – I’m sure I am not the only one who has heard that, or said that.  The bottom line is the lack of a pattern plane should not be an excuse for not giving pattern a try.  Most certainly any “old” pattern plane should be legal at the entry level.  They are some of the most available and affordable ways to get good cheap performance, and often come with an experienced mechanic/mentor.  Is a true pattern newbie more intimidated by a 2M Allure, 2M Prophecy, or an Elan (120 sized, and very close to 1.8M), or a Mythos 50?  All are intimidating to a pattern newbie – all of those planes are sleek, futuristic, and COOL looking.  I don’t see any practical way to eliminate pattern planes from the entry level class, and I don’t see any practical way to give a bonus to a non-pattern plane (should a 78” Extra get a bonus when flown against a Tower Kaos 40?).  This conflict leads to my next point….. @ perceptions for competing“I don’t have time others do, so I am not going to compete.”  That is a tough one.  A lot of dedicated pattern guys put in a lot of time and effort because they enjoy pattern and/or are very competitive, and that can be very intimidating to a newbie.  I think the correct direction is to structure and encourage the entry level class to be a true entry level class.  It should not be filled with seasoned veteran pilots that have top shelf equipment and are campaigning for the District Championship.  It should not have a District Champion at all, or a National Champion.  It shouldn’t have pilots collecting hardware in consecutive years.  Yes, there should be mandatory advancement out of the entry level class – keep in mind I advocate a very simple entry level class.  The maneuver schedule should be capable of being flown by a novice pilot WITH a trainer plane.  “WITH” emphasized because a trainer plane is far more capable in the hands of a seasoned pilot.  I don’t see a practical way to remove potentially intimidating pattern planes from the entry level class, but, a state of the art pattern plane in the entry level class looks a lot less intimidating when it is not being flown by a seasoned pilot. @newbies finding pattern, and the “average pattern guy”Advertising amongst ourselves does not increase our visibility.  Lots of good ideas have been put forth on how to increase visibility, along with good information targeted to newbies (notably by Mike Gosson).  In some clubs, the pattern guy is known as the go to guy for power system setups, airplane trimming, radio programming, and test flights.  In other clubs, the pattern guy is known as the loner always flying the same crap over and over again.  I make a point of flying my pattern plane on occasion at the sport field, including some showboat maneuvers (because the pattern itself is boring to many).  And I fly sport planes through the pattern.  It helps bridge the perception gap of what pattern and pattern pilots “have” to be, and even helps some make the connection that pattern flying is a good way to improve skillsets – flying, trimming, programming, etc. I think the core nature of pattern appeals to a limited few people……and some number of those people also find turbines, 3D, and giant scale equally or more appealing.  Pattern planes are no longer the coolest planes at the field.  Fiddling with the rules doesn’t increase our core appeal, or make our planes more cool.  Exposure to the broadest audience possible gives us the best chance at finding the limited few that don’t yet know they are pattern pilots. Regards,
Dave Lockhart From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> On Behalf Of Daniel Lipton via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 5:25 PM
To: Tjpritchett <tjpritchett at aol.com>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal - Limiting Size/Power for Sportsman and Intermediate +1In summary, my thoughts are we should not be adding additional limits on what types of aircraft people can use to get started in  and staying in our game (Sportsman/Intermediate) we should - if anything be opening up to more potential people.    I do like the idea of adding an intelligently crafted bonus for categories of aircraft that have a disadvantage given a pilot of similar skill level (such as the < 60” category)

On Jan 9, 2019, at 2:15 PM, tim pritchett via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:    Larry's comments tapped a thought I've been considering for a while.  Our planes are pretty cool, and attract a lot of attention.   You see folks walk the lines looking, and stopping at the 2M Pattern Planes.  I still do that at contests.  They are why I got into (and stay in) the sport in the first place.  If they were ugly, I wouldn't have wanted or bought one.  I think every one has an affinity for the planes.  When we were flying a lot of nitro, pipes and retracts were not allowed in Novice (may still not be).  I flew a stick that year, and couldn't wait to get out to fly the 'big stuff' in Sportsman.  Young, poor, and stupid, but I had an EU1-A!    In addition to restricting our own pilots who fly Intermediate for many years, as was pointed out, we also have potential recruits who look at the planes and want to fly one.  If we tell them no, you can't fly this until you're capable of X class, today they would just abandon the prospect and go buy a jet.  I think our planes carry some value in recruiting for the sport, and are more of an asset than a liability.  We should find ways to leverage that 'passion' we all share.      Point also taken on the industrial impact.  We should know what our manufacturers/distributors think about rules changes, as I'm sure they are impacted by regulation, better or worse.  They are a very integral part of what we do, and should have a voice; a loud one.  Without them we have no sport.   My $.02 (...most of it stolen)

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Walker via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; Larry Diamond <ldiamond at diamondrc.com>
Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2019 3:27 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposal - Limiting Size/Power for Sportsman and IntermediateThanks Larry! As a point of clarification, rules proposal submittals are done by AMA members and not the NSRCA (This is an AMA process).  This particular one was proposed by Mike Harrison as an individual.  We've been talking a lot about how we can clarify this process so the NSRCA can represent the community, but that's an ongoing task.  I love the motivation behind looking to encourage participation of course.  Do I agree with the proposal as written? Not entirely.  I posted earlier that giving or loaning our older, unused planes to folks that show interest in seeing what pattern is all about can be a compelling strategy since it eliminates the "cost of entry" barrier entirely. I'd encourage you to go re-read some of the K-factors in the last year or two.  We have all been promoting aerobatic competition flying inclusive of F3A, SPA, CPA, JPA, F3P and IMAC with vigor.  Bringing everyone together is the clear path forward in my opinion.  Locally, we get a lot of crossover between IMAC, SPA and AMA pattern.  Jamie Strong even created a contest for CPA and SPA planes in March of this year.  I'm looking forward to that for sure (with an old Atlanta and MK Arrow).  So, I don't think that we have lost sight as an organization, we are just looking for ways to entice folks to bring their toys out to play. Enjoy! Joe On Wednesday, January 9, 2019, 2:55:47 PM EST, Larry Diamond via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:   Here is the link to review the Rule Change Proposal on the AMA website, RCA20-02… https://www.modelaircraft.org/sites/default/files/Comp/RCA20-02.pdf Yes, I read the complete proposal and understand the 2 year grand-father clause. This is a Ready, Fire, Aim mentality. We are driving to impose a rule change without understanding, or accounting for, the root-cause of the decline. The NSRCA will lose more members than they think because of this. The gamble is it will somehow attract more members, to not only replace those like me, but we are arrogant enough to think it will save the NSRCA by increasing membership as a whole because of this rule change. Every action taken, to my knowledge, by rule change has caused another layer of decline. Anyone, please provide an example, with the data, that shows changing the rules regarding the Plane itself has increased NSRCA membership. Just one example with the data is all I am asking, engine size, wing span, length, anything that resulted in a surge of NSRCA membership. Are we as an organization data driven? Or, just willing to accept a good sales pitch and not worry or complicate things with data. If it’s the later, then that is politics. If politics prevails, then I must agree with Bob Kane, the end of NSRCA is inevitable. What is the data behind this rule change? Real factual data, not words or opinions. The thought behind the rule change, which is seemingly more popular than I thought it would be, is presented to counter the decline in Pattern. What isn’t addressed with any sense of credibility is the real unintended consequences of current participants. This is a dose of reality !!! From my point of view only, let’s assume this rule passes. This is my situation and the decisions I must consider. I’m willing to bet I am not alone. 1)      I have been in Intermediate since 2004, 15 years this year (NSRCA 3083).2)      I wanted and could afford some of the best equipment on the market, and no I am not sponsored so this it is all out of pocket.3)      I currently own the following 2M Planesa.       1 – Of 10 Allures made in this scheme from the World Championship painted in Red/White/Blue with Stars/Stripes.b.      1 – Alchemy NIBc.       1 – Shinden RTFd.      1 – 2M Acuity RTFe.      1 – Considering purchasing a CK Aero Allure Bipe this summer.                                                               i.      This has been a discussion back and forth with me and Bryan Hebert for 6+ months.f.        Every 2M Plane has a set of Wing Bags from Caroline.g.       I have 100% of all necessary Futaba equipment for the Allure and Alchemy, including Battery packs, 12+ (5S 5000mAh).4)      My total investment in 2M Pattern planes is what, easily $15K+ You count my investment based on buying new with your own numbers… Color me stupid, dumb, silly, or maybe I just like the sexy 2M planes regardless how well I fly. Given these facts, the unintended consequences are, I will have planes I can’t use and can’t sell to recover any sizeable part of my investment simply because of a rule change. More importantly, you have cost CK Aero, AJ Aircraft, and F3A Unlimited future revenue in a difficult market. Please explain how this is good for Pattern? I don’t believe I am alone, but this is somehow going to cause me to want to stay in the NSRCA and be enthusiastic about promoting Pattern (sarcasm)? Just so that it is clear, if this rule passes, it will force me out of the NSRCA within two years. If I continue to compete it will be in IMAC, SPA CPA, or some other discipline. Which brings me to the real reason for the NSRCA decline. We are the SIG for the AMA for Precision Aerobatics. It is good to see we are, as a SIG, embracing F3P. We let the CPA and SPA get away and create a new SIGs or organizations, when the National Society of Radio Controlled Aerobatics should have been inclusive, not exclusive (you know, like “Elitist”, as painful as that sounds). Root-Cause (only an opinion) – We, the NSRCA, are focused only on F3A, and now F3P. We didn’t keep up with the change of times and excluded members, who then went a different direction along with some of the NSRCA membership to form the SPA, CPA, etc… We need a paradigm shift in the organization, not a rule change like this. Our By-Laws state, “…promote the construction and competitive flying of radio controlled aerobatic model airplanes…”, not just F3A, and we lost sight of that perspective. We need to figure out how to unite all precision aerobatic disciplines for the survival and betterment of everyone who enjoys precision aerobatics. That is my proposal… Best Regards, Larry Diamond _______________________________________________
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/20190110/55046ff9/attachment.html>