<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18828">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>I'm asking for a bit of history now. When the turnaround system was
added, were't the pattern folks flying unmuffled (or barely muffled) 2-strokes
with high noise levels, not the now (relatigvely quiet) well muffled 4
strokes? (to say nothing of the current generation electrics?) There
may be some interconnection /correlation here. Just asking, Dave, not
quarreling at all. I've flown pattern before it was called pattern, when
you made up your own sequence, and did only those maneuvers you wanted to
do. Now of coursw, we have a well established turnaround
pattern. (Which, by the way, I prefer.)</DIV>
<DIV>Again, just asking.</DIV>
<DIV>Bill Glaze</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=bob@toprudder.com href="mailto:bob@toprudder.com">Bob Richards</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">General pattern discussion</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:34
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules
proposal 11-6 question</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>
<DIV>Dave L mentioned the "noise footprint", but I am not sure that is a
major reason (maybe it was?) that we went to turnaround. I was not
heavily involved in pattern at that time. However, "noise footprint" can
be divided into two parts, "noise" and "footprint". The fact that, as
Dave mentioned, some sites in the NE are starting to fly pattern events
again may be due more to the noise level than the overall flight
footprint. So, the turnaround aspect may not be the saviour in this case
as much as the noise reduction itself. Either way, thanks can go to
FAI because that is where the noise reduction technology came from,
and it filtered down to the AMA flyers. IMHO.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>All that aside, I have always felt, and expressed my opinion, that
the AMA rules and schedules should be geared towards what is best
for the sport of precision aerobatics IN THE USA. I don't think we
should pick schedules for any class, including Masters, with the major
concern of helping prepare our pilots for FAI. FAI is another
class, and if you think about that, here in the US it is almost two
classes in itself: Those that fly at national/world level, and those
that don't. If someone is really aspiring to fly at a world level, they
will find the FAI class all by themselves. The fact that we do fly the
FAI class at all contests is, IMHO, all we need to do to help them
prepare for world level competitions. There is no need for us
to put an FAI flavor in the Masters sequence, unless it will
benefit pattern flying in general.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Again, this is JMHO.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bob R.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>--- On <B>Tue, 10/20/09, John Gayer
<I><jgghome@comcast.net></I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><BR>
<DIV id=yiv1158923941>As I recall, the ONLY reason AMA is now flying
turnaround is because F3A went to a turnaround format. The
"powersthatwere" were concerned that our team would not have the
relevant experience to compete on the world stage. This started a
process of conversion to turnaround by including the FAI pattern and
then expert turnaround in AMA pattern contests.<BR>The pendulum has
now swung the other way where the AMA pattern community, while overly
committed to turnaround, rejects the patterns, rules and concepts of
the FAI.<BR><BR>While I no longer see a need to use the current(or
past schedule as we have already done) F3A pattern as the Masters
pattern, I believe it is important to address whatever is new and
challenging in the upcoming F3A patterns and consider introducing
similar elements into the Masters pattern.<BR><BR>At the other end of
the spectrum, I believe that the Sportsman class should have the
turnaround elements removed completely. Perhaps some of the center
maneuvers could be upgraded in difficulty at the same time. The
sportsman flyer needs more focus on learning the maneuvers and where
to place them. Making them fly the box simply insures that they aree
not in position to do a proper center maneuver. This is not intended
as a first step in getting rid of turnaround but rather creating a
progression in the learning process.<BR><BR>John
Gayer<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<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>