<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=US-ASCII http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2873" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">
<DIV>
<DIV>Geez this thread reminds me of the tons written about the present Masters schedule a couple years ago, only in reverse. The view some had at the time was that Masters pilots were going to break planes left, right and center because the schedule was crappy. The culprit was the reverse ava. Well, the pundits were half right.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It also reminded me of one of the koolest maneuvers in the book we flew as Sportsmen way back in antiquity, the "dreaded" Reverse Outside Loop. Talking crap your breeches and knock your knees scary (in whatever order you like). Took many gallons to perfect it. Was one of the better building blocks for all kinds of maneuvers later on.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Personally, I don't see much wrong with the present schedules in the lower classes. Next cycle, I would be in favor of the Reverse Outside on center. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>FWIW</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Matt</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 5/10/2006 3:58:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, jonlowe@aol.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT face=Arial>Dave,<BR>I agree everyone gets one vote. However the advanced pattern does not <BR>directly affect the Masters or FAI flyers, except they get to judge it. <BR> I agree the proposed advance pattern would be a challenge; I would <BR>enjoy the challenge of the the 6 sided outside and the on center stall <BR>turn. However, for me and apparently others, the current pattern <BR>would be a greater challenge, outside snap, inverted exits, <BR>push-pull-pull humpty bump and all. K factors alone for individual <BR>manuevers don't capture the overall challenge of a combined pattern. <BR>IMHO, people are taking this discussion WAY too personal. Not being in <BR>favor of a new pattern is not attacking anyone's manhood!<BR><BR>My basic concern about the new pattern remains and hasn't been <BR>addressed amidst all of the rhetoric about votes and surveys: what <BR>happened to the stepping stone of multiple inverted entrances and exits <BR>that added to the challenge of the current advanced sequence? It <BR>went from 4 or 5 in the old to zip in the new, with the new masters <BR>schedule having 8. No one has addressed that. I got some talk about <BR>inverted segments being part of the advanced pattern, but that begs the <BR>question.<BR><BR>I had no intention of implying that FAI and Masters flyers are elitist; <BR>they aren't, at least not in my experience. I appreciated very much <BR>all of the help I got at the Grand Stand/Green Sea event from you, <BR>Troy, Don, and everyone else, and I took time to say so on this list <BR>right after the event. If any one got the impression I was calling <BR>them elitist, I publically apologize.<BR><BR>Finally, I am going to ask as many other interemdiate and advanced <BR>pilots in my district as I can what they prefer, and present that <BR>information to our contest board representative. It is the right thing <BR>to do.<BR><BR>BTW, I made up one of your transmitter strap hook spacer thingies, and <BR>I like it a lot!! Much better balance.<BR><BR>Jon Lowe<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: DaveL322@comcast.net<BR>To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>Sent: Wed, 10 May 2006 18:39:23 +0000<BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2007 Advanced Schedule<BR><BR>Jon,<BR> <BR>Not at all picking on your input, because all of the discussion is good <BR>(even for those of us that have seen this discussion repeated every 2-3 <BR>years for the last 10 years). Your points regarding the apathy in the <BR>survey response and the survey being preliminary are valid and <BR>understood. However, it is the best we have, it is the greatest <BR>sampling we have, and while more responses would be good, our <BR>percentage of responses is not unlike similar surveys in other <BR>demographics.<BR> <BR>Correct me if wrong, but your are suggesting (or stating) that the <BR>direction of the Advanced class (for example) should not be influenced <BR>by those flying Masters or F3A. Why not? It is a democracy, we all <BR>get 1 vote. If anything, I would advocate a Masters or F3A flyers <BR>opinion just might be more noteworthy than a Sportsman solely on the <BR>base of experience, and being able to recall Advanced on both sides <BR>(moving up, and moving out).<BR> <BR>One of the recurring themes with this topic is always that each class <BR>should choose their own direction and make their own schedules. In the <BR>context of surveys, the idea is always put forth by some that questions <BR>about a particular class should only be answered by those in the <BR>class. It won't work - ok - it won't work as well. Key to the very <BR>core of pattern is the idea that the classes are linked progressively, <BR>and it is a fact that many of the piloting techniques and trimming <BR>techniques are best (but not exclusively) understood by the folks that <BR>have been around longer (which is generally Masters and F3A) or have <BR>risen to the top of the discipline. Segmenting the rules/schedules/etc <BR>by class groups will result in segmentation between the classes, and <BR>the gaps in difficulty will be worse than they are now.<BR> <BR>A second recurring theme regarding this topic usually goes something <BR>like the Masters and F3A guys are elitist, out of touch, and have no <BR>idea what Sportman and Intermediate pilots need. No doubt there are <BR>instances that provide basis for that idea. However, I think the <BR>majority of the time, that elitist idea is pure rubbish - consider the <BR>Grand Strain event recently in April - literally centuries worth of <BR>National level knowledge on designing, building, trimming, competing, <BR>flight techniques, judging, and coaching were available equally to <BR>all. Hands down an unqualified success and the best example I can <BR>think of in my time in pattern as a way share information, solve <BR>problems, and advance our pattern skills (Again, thanks to Rusty, Dave, <BR>and the Myrtle Beach crew for hosting).<BR> <BR>If a given pattern we have now is not perfect, it isn't the first time <BR>and assuredly it won't be the last. But if it does represent a good <BR>faith effort and is what the majority voted for, go with it. And if <BR>something can be done better, take part it making it better on the next <BR>iteration - combatting the existing result does little to improve the <BR>system for the next iteration.<BR> <BR>BTW - precisionaero is Mike Cohen (says so in the "From" line), and I <BR>agree it is nice to know the author of a post.<BR> <BR>Regards,<BR><BR>Dave Lockhart<BR>DaveL322@comcast.net</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>