<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1543" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV> Careful Matt you will scare them all away. We do the reverse outside
in SPA all the time.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Jim Ivey</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=Rcmaster199@aol.com
href="mailto:Rcmaster199@aol.com">Rcmaster199@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, May 10, 2006 11:36
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2007
Advanced Schedule</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>