Sorry about not jumping into this discussion earlier - I've been out of town celebrating my anniversary.<br><br>The rules survey will be mailed out to all members for voting with the district vice president ballots. One of the questions in the survey is to remove the schedules and maneuver descriptions from the rulebook and thus the need to post new sequences to be reviewed. Removing the schedules from the rulebook gives us much more time to draft/test/select them and the current sequence committee has been hard at work doing this for the past 4 or 5 months. I'm sure that Joe has outlined what they've accomplished and I applaud them all for their work - they've done a great job of coming up with replacement schedules and fixing the one's that needed fixing. We will make this sequences available for comment shortly - probably by year-end or early next year. Since we have until 3/31/2010 to submit rules proposals this will give us enough time to write up the proposals and to submit them.<br>
<br>Removing the sequences from the rulebook gives the NSRCA a lot more flexibility in being able to modify them quickly to fix potential problems. The sequence committee believes, and so do I, that the Sportsman sequence should hardly ever be changed and the Intermediate and Advanced sequences can be tweaked as needed with the potential to have the Masters sequence changed every other year.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Dave Burton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:burtona@atmc.net">burtona@atmc.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Where are all the new sequences for 2011 published for us to review?
I haven’t seen them. Don’t they have to be submitted as rules proposals
for the Contest Board? I hope the Masters sequence adopted is
shorter than the one we are flying now. Also eliminating judging takeoff and
landing would give judges a little more of a break between flyers. Spending
most of my time at a contest judging a large contingent of Masters flyers is
not my idea of fun anymore.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Dave Burton</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-style: solid none none; border-color: rgb(181, 196, 223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1pt medium medium; padding: 3pt 0in 0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size: 10pt;">
<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Joe
Lachowski<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, October 19, 2009 3:24 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> NSRCA Discussion List<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question</div></div></span></p>
</div>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">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>
</span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">
<hr width="100%" align="center" size="2">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">From: <a href="mailto:burtona@atmc.net" target="_blank">burtona@atmc.net</a><br>
To: <a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:56:40 -0400<br>
CC: <a href="mailto:tom_babs@bellsouth.net" target="_blank">tom_babs@bellsouth.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules proposal 11-6 question</span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">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><span style="font-size: 10pt;"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Dave Burton </span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-style: solid none none; border-color: rgb(181, 196, 223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1pt medium medium; padding: 3pt 0in 0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size: 10pt;">
<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] <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><span style="font-size: 10pt;"></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black;">Hi Lance,</span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br>
</span><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black;"> </span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; 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 <b><span>bold. </span></b>Thanks for
bringing this discussion to the list. <br>
<br>
Vicente "Vince" Bortone<br>
<br>
----- Original Message -----<br>
From: "Lance Van Nostrand" <<a href="mailto:patterndude@tx.rr.com" target="_blank">patterndude@tx.rr.com</a>><br>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><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><span style="font-size: 10pt;"></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; 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 <b><span>(this is for sure
the most important statement)</span></b>, but if the logic behind the
proposal as written causes confusion it may make a less convincing case. <b><span>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></b>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. <b><span>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></b>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.<b><span> 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></b>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. <b><span>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></b>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. <b><span>The
committee will decide whatever is appropriate. If they feel that the FAI
descriptions are appropiate we could use it as is.</span></b>
Oh, and how does AMA deal with the fact that FAI changes schedules in odd
years?<b><span> We will
need to follow FAI schedule. I think that this is very possible
and should not be a problem. </span></b></span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black;"> </span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; 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.<b><span> 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></b></span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black;"> </span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black;">--Lance</span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black;"><br>
_______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">
<hr width="100%" align="center" size="2">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Hotmail:
Free, trusted and rich email service. <a href="http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/" target="_blank">Get it
now.</a></span></p>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br></blockquote></div><br>