<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>It seems to me that adopting the FAI “P” schedule for the
Masters class with “changes” is not the way to go. A better alternative IMO is
to fly FAI P schedule under FAI rules as a separate class. Those of us with
some age remember when this was done years ago as “D” expert and “D” Novice
classes. As I remember AMA class “D” was the FAI event back then. This would
have the advantages of two classes flying under the same rules and the benefits
of more flyers/judges familiar with the same rules and maneuvers. It would
also eliminate the work involved in coming up with a new Masters sequence every
three or so years as a new schedule would be automatically be invoked FAI
changed. I’d like to see a proposal for this change submitted to the Contest
Board.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Dave Burton <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Vicente
"Vince" Bortone<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, October 19, 2009 11:29 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> General pattern discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>Hi Lance,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:black'>Just to clarify. I am not the only one making this
proposal. Don Ramsey and Charlie Rock helped me to put it
together. I am going to try to respond to your questions below.
Please read below in <strong><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>bold.
</span></strong>Thanks for bringing this discussion to the list. <br>
<br>
Vicente "Vince" Bortone<br>
<br>
----- Original Message -----<br>
From: "Lance Van Nostrand" <patterndude@tx.rr.com><br>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><br>
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 11:51:30 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central<br>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:black'>I know official discussion hasn't started but this list is one of
the good vetting forums. Vince proposed Masters flying FAI P, which is
clear <strong><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>(this is for sure
the most important statement)</span></strong>, but if the logic behind the
proposal as written causes confusion it may make a less convincing case. <strong><span
style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Good point. We assumed that was
easy for someone that is very familiar to pattern to digest the intent of the
proposal. Your conclusions are correct. We are assuming that the
current procedures we use to design the Master schedule are not
changed. We adopt the current FAI P schedule with the
appropriate changes to suit the Master class. This is the
reason why we didn't try to discuss other details. </span></strong>For
example, it says "there is an evident pile up f pilots in the Masters
class" but never clearly states how flying the same sequence would change
that. He may be implying that people will more freely move between
classes to balance the lines because they are flying a similar sequence but the
sequences may not be identical and the judging rules are not
identical. <strong><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Correct.
You actually saw what happened in Tulsa this year. There were 10
pilots in Masters and you decided to divide the group in two and five flew
Masters and five flew FAI. This also happened already in other local
contest around KC. It happens at Fort Scott contest also. Pilots
will be more willing to do this we fly the same schedule. </span></strong>At
another point it says "This will make judging of both classes very
accurate" but doesn't address the obvious differences in judging criteria
between AMA and FAI, which is the current burden that Masters and FAI pilots
currently bear when the fly one class and judge the other.<strong><span
style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> I am sure that we will agree that it
will be a lot easier to deal with these differences if we fly the same
schedules. The proposal intent is not to address the differences in
judging criteria between AMA and FAI. I believe that it will become
natural as we start to fly the same schedule and the differences will
go away with time. </span></strong>Finally, there is no exact
wording proposed on the form where it is expected, but later in the logic it
refers to the idea of replacing some FAI maneuvers where appropriate. <strong><span
style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>We are assuming that the current
procedure to design the schedules is still in place. The
committee will check the current FAI P schedule and proposed a final one with
the changes to make it suitable for Masters. For example, P11 the only
portion I will change is the integrated half loop on the figure M. I will
suggest something like 2 of 4 or 1/2 roll on bottom to replace the
integrated 1/2 roll. I believe that all other maneuvers are
suitable for Masters. </span></strong>Without exact wording, its not
clear how this is done, or if the maneuver descriptions will be re-written in
the AMA rules, or referenced to the FAI descriptions like the
sequence. <strong><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>The
committee will decide whatever is appropriate. If they feel that the FAI
descriptions are appropiate we could use it as is.</span></strong>
Oh, and how does AMA deal with the fact that FAI changes schedules in odd
years?<strong><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> We will
need to follow FAI schedule. I think that this is very possible
and should not be a problem. </span></strong></span><span
style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:black'>My intent is simply to point out aspects that detract from it's
thoroughness. I do not yet have a stance on the issue.<strong><span
style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> We put this together just
taking at the 2008 Nats. I remember that I have to judge FAI and I never
had the chance to judge FAI before the Nats. I was trying to study the
FAI schedule at the same time that I was trying to fly my own contest.
This is clearly an additional pressure on the contestant. If this
proposal pass it will make our life easier at the local contest and when
we judging at the Nats or any other contest. Also, clearly will make the
judging level very high because Masters and FAI pilots will be very familiar
with the schedules we fly and the details requires to judge each of the
maneuvers. Finally, the balance in local contest will be easier to
fix since we will more willing to fly FAI when required.
</span></strong></span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:black'>--Lance</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'><br>
_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>