<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE>.hmmessage P {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18828"></HEAD>
<BODY class=hmmessage bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Ed:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Why are we tied to FAI? Ed, certainly you must
realize that we are tied to FAI so that every 2 years we can send a handful of
model flyers to some foreign land to compete in a contest, the results of which
will be of interest to only a handful of people here, and, certainly, won't
boost interest in pattern for the general model flying community. That's
why!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>So there!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Bill</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=ed_alt@hotmail.com href="mailto:ed_alt@hotmail.com">Ed Alt</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 List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, October 19, 2009 9:33
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules
proposal 11-6 question</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Re. the notion of robotically accepting whatever FAI P
sequence comes our way as our Masters sequence, let's keep it simple.
What problem, exactly, are we trying to solve? And what exactly
is it about giving up all autonomy with respect to creating our AMA
Masters sequences in this country that leads us to believe that this
represents a solution?<BR> <BR>I think that you need to look no further
than the P-11 and F-11 to fully understand why this should not be
done. On the one hand, you have a prelim sequence that was done
either with complete lack of understanding of what the box boundaries are, or
perhaps worse yet, contemplates that it is best to fly at 220m in order to
stay within them while maintaining consistency with roll rates and maneuver
size throughout the sequence. And then you have snaposaurus F-11.
I quit IMAC in favor of Pattern after 2003 for some good reasons, and
these two 2001 FAI sequences harken back to that time for me. Let's not
start introducing the mindless application of snap rolls and lack of thought
for what the aerobatic box is there for, just to make it easier to flit
between Masters and FAI during the season. <BR> <BR>Joe Lachowski and
Dave Lockhart put a great deal of of thought and energy into creating sequence
design criteria, which is a good tool to help design better sequences. I
think that we should continue to refine this approach and use it to our
advantage to make the best sequences that we are capable of, rather than just
adopt something that we have essentially no control of.<BR>Ed<BR> <BR>
<HR id=stopSpelling>
From: jlachow@hotmail.com<BR>To: nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>Date:
Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:24:03 -0400<BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules
proposal 11-6 question<BR><BR>
<STYLE>
.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P
{padding:0px;}
.ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
</STYLE>
If we go this route, I for one will definitely quit.<BR> <BR> We
already have new sequences designed for 2011 for all the classes. And we
have been adopting a maneuver here and there from the FAI
sequences. They will be presented in the K-factor sometime in the future.
There are even two different sequences put together for Masters. One is the
traditional length and the other is the same length as FAI.<BR> <BR>The
new FAI sequence for next year is a real good example not
to flat out adopt a P sequence as it is.<BR> <BR>
<HR id=ecxstopSpelling>
From: burtona@atmc.net<BR>To: nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>Date: Mon,
19 Oct 2009 11:56:40 -0400<BR>CC: tom_babs@bellsouth.net<BR>Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question<BR><BR>
<STYLE>
.ExternalClass p.ecxMsoNormal, .ExternalClass li.ecxMsoNormal, .ExternalClass div.ecxMsoNormal
{margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';}
.ExternalClass a:link, .ExternalClass span.ecxMsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
.ExternalClass a:visited, .ExternalClass span.ecxMsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}
.ExternalClass p
{margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';}
.ExternalClass span.ecxEmailStyle19
{font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D;}
.ExternalClass .ecxMsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;}
.ExternalClass div.ecxSection1
{page:Section1;}
</STYLE>
<DIV class=ecxecxSection1>
<P class=ecxecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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.</SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Dave
Burton </SPAN></P>
<P class=ecxecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"></SPAN> </P>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<P class=ecxecxMsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
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</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=ecxecxMsoNormal> </P>
<DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: black">Hi
Lance,</SPAN><BR><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"> </SPAN><BR>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><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</SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P class=ecxecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">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"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=ecxecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=ecxecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">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"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=ecxecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=ecxecxMsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">--Lance</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: black"></SPAN></P></DIV>
<P class=ecxecxMsoNormal><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</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR>
<HR>
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. <A
href="http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/">Get it now.</A> <BR>
<HR>
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. <A
href="http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/" target=_new>Get it
now.</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</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>