<!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 6.00.6000.16481" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Making older equipment obsolete is the price of having
technological advances.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Better materials allow making a larger plane that is
lighter... resulting in the ability to make a TRUE 2-meter aircraft and keep it
under the weight limit.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The lighter structural materials allow you to also devote more
of your weight budget to the powerplant...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Better engines (and electric drives) allow the 11 lb planes to
accelerate verticly rather than depending on inertia to complete a vertical
maneuver. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Try some of the stuff that we do now with a 1970's era engine
on a 1970's era aircraft... Not happening.</FONT></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=drykert2@rochester.rr.com href="mailto:drykert2@rochester.rr.com">Del
K. Rykert</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 Mailing List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, July 27, 2007 2:45 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] CB member
RFC on Proposed MastersSequence for 2009/2010</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><STRONG>Hi
Vance..</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><STRONG> I do
have a couple of thoughts I need to share with your statement in reference to
equipment. Are you under the assumption that all competitors are using
digital servos and 1.60 or supercharged engines? Their was a time, in
the not to distant past, when maneuvers were not created that mandated the
latest and greatest equipment to fly them. Is it your intent and or that of
the NSRCA to make older equipment intentionally obsolete except in the entry
classes? </STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> <EM><FONT
color=#0000ff>Del</FONT></EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>From: "Lance Van Nostrand" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:patterndude@tx.rr.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>patterndude@tx.rr.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 12:41 AM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] CB member RFC on
Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> I'm on the contest board and there are more active pattern pilots
on it now <BR>> than ever before. The recent change to 2 year cycles
also happened with a <BR>> breakup of contest boards. Our board is
exclusively to approve pattern. <BR>> Can't get much more focused than
that. The process is cumbersome and I <BR>> can't say I endorse it,
but I'm going to work with it so the board support <BR>> pattern and the
collective wishes of the NSRCA.<BR>> <BR>> The timeline is in the AMA CB
Procedures doc, which I have in front of me <BR>> right now. There
are many steps but the critical ones are simple:<BR>> Basic (initial)
Proposals submitted by Sept 30<BR>> Dec 15, prelim votes by CB cast (1st
cut to see which proposals are properly <BR>> formed and should
continue)<BR>> Mar 1, Cross proposal deadline (alternate proposals accepted
to achieve an <BR>> approved initial proposal)<BR>> May 15, Final
ballots sent to CB and final vote is completed<BR>> Jan 1, new rules take
effect.<BR>> <BR>>>From this you can see that the process takes about
1 year and 3 months. <BR>> Proposals in this Sept (07) take effect Jan
09.<BR>> <BR>> This is the "normal" cycle, but there are off cycle
proposals of type <BR>> safety, emergency, urgent or interpretation.
I don't know about the board, <BR>> but I'm totally open to any and all
proposals as the workload to read, take <BR>> the pulse of my district and
vote/comment is far less than keeping up with <BR>> this list!<BR>>
<BR>> Comment on sequences:<BR>> *All sequences have squeezes and rough
spots. The more we worry about them <BR>> the harder it is to change
sequences when we want to. Fly them as best you <BR>> can and try to
do better than the next guy.<BR>> <BR>> *Masters should never conciously
trend to easier sequences. Sure one may be <BR>> easier than the
last, but this shouldn't trend. It should be held at a <BR>> constant
difficulty at least, and other classes are stepping stones to it. <BR>> The
jump from Advanced to Masters last time was not enough as we beat that
<BR>> to death on the list. Now we've swung the other way.
Shouldn't we balance <BR>> the steps, not change the target difficulty
level?. Now let me take this a <BR>> bit farther (maybe too far) The
Masters sequence we flew a few years ago <BR>> with YS120SCs were the same
difficulty as the current sequences we now fly <BR>> with 1.60 2 strokes
and improved supercharged 4 strokes. Airplane design <BR>> has
improved and so have the computer radios. We used to have coreless
<BR>> servos, now digital. Consider that maybe we should have harder
sequences if <BR>> we want to compare ourselves to our
predecessors.<BR>> <BR>> *I think the current feeling is that Sports,
Int, Adv should change less <BR>> frequently than Masters since designing
building blocks is much harder than <BR>> single sequences and many pilots
move up after a few years. What I've heard <BR>> as the goal is to
change the stepping classes no faster than every 4 years, <BR>> but change
Masters every 2.<BR>> <BR>> *Let's not reorient the sequences to
accommodate a new technology.<BR>> <BR>> I do not want to form my
opinion in a vacuum so feel free to comment.<BR>> --Lance<BR>> <BR>>
----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: "Mark Atwood" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>atwoodm@paragon-inc.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>><BR>>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:20 PM<BR>> Subject:
Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>>> Ron (RVP), Can you lay out for all of us the
chronology of what has to<BR>>> happen to get a new sequence
in?<BR>>><BR>>> I think this would be enlightening to most as to
what a PITA it is <BR>>> calendar<BR>>> time
wise.<BR>>><BR>>> I.e. To put the process in place that Ed is
suggesting, I think would put <BR>>> a<BR>>> new sequence out at
least 4 years from the "start" of creating it.<BR>>><BR>>> So I'd
be curious to see the timeline..<BR>>><BR>>> "We need a new
sequence..." - Day 1<BR>>><BR>>> Form a committee - x weeks or
months<BR>>><BR>>> Create sequence - X
Months<BR>>><BR>>> Review by NSRCA Board/put out for survey - X
Months<BR>>><BR>>> Blah blah blah...<BR>>><BR>>> AND
THEN...work backwards for the AMA process...<BR>>><BR>>>
Submission to the AMA for the 20XX year rules has to occur years before
it<BR>>> goes into effect (prelim vote, changes, final vote,
publication, etc etc)<BR>>><BR>>> I think Ron has a feel for the
required process, but I'd love to hear what<BR>>> the beginning to "in
effect" time lag is for a new sequence under the AMA<BR>>> rules
process.<BR>>><BR>>> -M<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> On
7/26/07 11:59 AM, "Ed Alt" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:ed_alt@hotmail.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>ed_alt@hotmail.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>
wrote:<BR>>><BR>>>> Doug:<BR>>>> I agree that we
should not have a panel of non-enthusiasts in charge of <BR>>>>
the<BR>>>> actual sequence design. I don't think I stated my point
too well. The <BR>>>> SIG<BR>>>> does contain the best
source of knowledge to construct sequences. Given <BR>>>>
the<BR>>>> right structure to how the committee is formed and how
their work <BR>>>> overseen<BR>>>> is what is
criitical. I don't think NSRCA has this process quite right
<BR>>>> yet.<BR>>>> This isn't meant to
criticize anyone, but I think that more thought has <BR>>>>
to<BR>>>> be put into how we manage the process in the
future.<BR>>>><BR>>>> It seems to me that the Sequence
Committee work should first pass muster<BR>>>> with the NSRCA board,
who should review it to make sure that it certain<BR>>>> criteria are
met, not whether personally like it or not. What is that<BR>>>>
criteria? That needs to be better defined. It appears to take the
form <BR>>>> of<BR>>>> tribal knowledge. One attempt to put
some structure to evaluating a <BR>>>> sequence<BR>>>> is
via a tool that Dave Lockhart developed , which I think is very
<BR>>>> useful.<BR>>>> However, is this developed to the
point it needs to be? Whatever method <BR>>>>
we<BR>>>> use to create and evaluate should be well understood and
applied<BR>>>> consistently.<BR>>>><BR>>>> Beyond
how we establish consistency within our SIG, it seems that the
EC<BR>>>> role ought to be to review that their flock of SIGS
followed AMA <BR>>>> guidelines<BR>>>> for producing their
work, not to define exactly how they produce the work<BR>>>> product
(the sequences in this case). So, the EC should demand that the
<BR>>>> SIG<BR>>>> has a defined procedure and that the SIG
leadership has assured <BR>>>> compliance<BR>>>> through
their oversight and ultimately, their signatures on the
product.<BR>>>><BR>>>>
Ed<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>> From: Doug Cronkhite
<</FONT><A href="mailto:seefo@san.rr.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>seefo@san.rr.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>>>>> Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <</FONT><A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <</FONT><A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>><BR>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed
Masters Sequence for 2009/2010<BR>>>>> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007
08:04:26 -0700<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Just because you CAN
change them every year doesn't mean you have to or<BR>>>>> should.
I agree with you that the lower classes should have some<BR>>>>>
stability so newer pilots have a chance to build the foundation
the<BR>>>>> higher classes
require.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> I think the SIG should
absolutely have control of the schedules, as the<BR>>>>> people
leading the SIG are generally actively involved in the
sport.<BR>>>>> Other than Tony Stillman, are any of the EC active
in pattern? Because<BR>>>>> if they're not, then I don't think
they can make an accurate assessment<BR>>>>> of the needs of the
SIG. Tony may be the only one on the EC who even<BR>>>>> flies
anything on a regular basis now.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
-Doug<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>> I like variety in schedules
too, but I think there is a balance to<BR>>>>>> strike with the
lower classes. It's a lot of effort each year to<BR>>>>>>
learn a new sequence. Once you have enough experience
flying<BR>>>>>> aerobatics, you can focus on new sequences
without detracting from the<BR>>>>>> other improvements you
want to make.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Re. giving the
SIG all the control, I would not want to see that<BR>>>>>>
happen. In the case of IMAC, the SIG leadership became very
IAC<BR>>>>>> centric and made changes that work against being
able to learn<BR>>>>>> fundamentals before moving up, in favor
a being a carbon copy<BR>>>>>> miniature of IAC. Just
look at what the IMAC lower class sequences<BR>>>>>> now
contain and consider what problems they represent for
learning<BR>>>>>> fundamentals. I think you need an
effective counterbalance to help<BR>>>>>> keep sanity to the
sequence design.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>
Ed<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>>>>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>>>>> </FONT><A
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>>>>> </FONT><A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"><FONT
face=Arial
size=2>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</FONT></A><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>>>><BR>>>>
_________________________________________________________________<BR>>>>
</FONT><A href="http://newlivehotmail.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://newlivehotmail.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>>>><BR>>>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>>>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>>>> </FONT><A
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>>>> </FONT><A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"><FONT
face=Arial
size=2>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</FONT></A><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>>><BR>>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>> NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR>>> </FONT><A
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>>> </FONT><A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"><FONT
face=Arial
size=2>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</FONT></A><FONT
face=Arial size=2> <BR>> <BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR>> </FONT><A
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> </FONT><A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"><FONT
face=Arial
size=2>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</FONT></A>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG Free
Edition. <BR>Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.22/922 - Release Date:
7/27/2007 6:08 AM<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>