<!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>Joe:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Succinct, and extremely well stated. Bill
Glaze</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=jlachow@hotmail.com href="mailto:jlachow@hotmail.com">Joe
Lachowski</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 Discussion List</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:11
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] ENJOY
PATTERN. IT WAS "Rules proposal11-6 question"</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>This proposal is a non-starter. I'm not worried. I'm
sure the contest board will bury it. Masters pilots have been polled
time and time again and the result has always been no adoption of current or
past FAI sequences. Why do we keep on revisiting this? P11/F11 are great
examples of really poorly designed sequences by the international
community that justifies not going the direction of the proposal. Modifying
one of these FAI sequences is no more easier than just coming up with
something new under the current system.<BR><BR> <BR>> Date: Mon, 26
Oct 2009 17:56:45 -0700<BR>> From: mups1953@yahoo.com<BR>> To:
nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] ENJOY
PATTERN. IT WAS "Rules proposal 11-6 question"<BR>> <BR>> Double ditto
that Keith and Tony. Big difference when it's the only sequence we fly for 2
seasons. I want it as long as it is now. Thanks, Mike<BR>> <BR>> --- On
Mon, 10/26/09, Anthony Frackowiak <frackowiak@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > From: Anthony Frackowiak
<frackowiak@sbcglobal.net><BR>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
ENJOY PATTERN. IT WAS "Rules proposal 11-6 question"<BR>> > To: "General
pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> >
Date: Monday, October 26, 2009, 7:36 PM<BR>> > Extremely well worded and
I am in<BR>> > complete agreement.<BR>> > <BR>> >
Tony<BR>> > <BR>> > On Oct 26, 2009, at 4:53 PM, Keith Black
wrote:<BR>> > <BR>> > > For the record, I am also against
adopting the FAI 'P'<BR>> > pattern for<BR>> > > masters.
I'm not concerned we'll suddenly find<BR>> > ourselves with a<BR>>
> > sequence that's too hard and I'm not concerned it will<BR>> >
take decision<BR>> > > making out of the AMA's hands.<BR>> >
> <BR>> > > What is the Masters sequence meant to
accomplish?<BR>> > Ultimately it's<BR>> > > meant to determine
who's the best pilot at any given<BR>> > local contest and<BR>> >
> at the NATS. It is not intended to make it easy for<BR>> > Advanced
fliers to<BR>> > > move up, it's not intended to allow easy judging
by<BR>> > FAI judges, it's<BR>> > > function is to allow us to
discern who's the best<BR>> > pilot.<BR>> > > <BR>> >
> Therefore, when developing the sequence it is critical<BR>> > that
we take<BR>> > > into account this ultimate goal. It needs to be
of<BR>> > adequate length,<BR>> > > difficulty, etc., etc.
Obviously this is not ALL we<BR>> > want out of the<BR>> > >
sequence, but if it does not accomplish this it is a<BR>> >
failure.<BR>> > > <BR>> > > My concern is that the FAI has a
different goal with<BR>> > the P pattern.<BR>> > > Their goal
is to quickly as possible weed out the<BR>> > weaker pilots and<BR>>
> > get to a semi-final round. Therefore the FAI wants the<BR>> >
sequence to be<BR>> > > short and with the VAST difference in pilot
abilities<BR>> > in different<BR>> > > countries they have to
make flyable by all that wish<BR>> > to participate.<BR>> > >
<BR>> > > I believe we need to continue developing our own<BR>>
> sequence for Masters<BR>> > > to ensure it meets our
needs.<BR>> > > <BR>> > > Keith<BR>> > > <BR>>
> > <BR>> > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Matthew
Frederick<BR>> > <mjfrederick@cox.net><BR>> > wrote:<BR>>
> >> OK, Vince, at your suggestion I re-read the<BR>> >
proposal. I can honestly say<BR>> > >> that I am even more
convinced it's a bad idea. The<BR>> > main reason being that<BR>>
> >> for the proposal to work it requires the sequences<BR>> >
to be removed from the<BR>> > >> rule book giving the NSRCA free
reign over the<BR>> > schedules. This is a<BR>> > >>
suggestion that I'm dead-set against. The more I<BR>> > think about it
and the more<BR>> > >> I hear, the less I want the NSRCA to have
sole<BR>> > control over the sequences.<BR>> > >> My latest
argument against it that I recently<BR>> > thought of is probably
the<BR>> > >> strongest. That being: the NSRCA does not<BR>>
> represent all pattern pilots. Not<BR>> > >> everyone that
competes is an NSRCA member, and not<BR>> > every member of the
NSRCA<BR>> > >> competes (So they don't have a dog in the
hunt<BR>> > anyway). Let's say a very<BR>> > >>
non-scientific poll is taken by the NSRCA (as they<BR>> > all are)
showing that 55%<BR>> > >> of their members are in favor of a
proposal. OK,<BR>> > sounds like a majority,<BR>> > >> let's
let it pass, right? Wrong. What about the<BR>> > non-NSRCA members? What
if<BR>> > >> they're ALL against it and let's say that puts
60%<BR>> > against amongst actual<BR>> > >> pattern pilots?
Not that it really matters to the<BR>> > NSRCA, because they'll<BR>>
> >> just say "Well, they should have joined." From my<BR>> >
point of view the NSRCA<BR>> > >> should be there to serve pattern
regardless of how<BR>> > many members it has.<BR>> > >>
Lately to me it seems more about serving the<BR>> > agenda of a select
few people.<BR>> > >> As well-intentioned as their actions may be,
they<BR>> > may be going against the<BR>> > >> majority. I
don't trust any one organization<BR>> > having the sole authority to
do<BR>> > >> anything. There has to be a check to the
NSRCA's<BR>> > actions for non-members,<BR>> > >> and that
is the contest board. Yeah, they may not<BR>> > enjoy having to deal
with<BR>> > >> all the rules changes associated with the
maneuver<BR>> > sequences, but there MUST<BR>> > >> be a way
for non-NSRCA members to have their<BR>> > voices heard, and the
contest<BR>> > >> board is that recourse. Taking actions like
some<BR>> > of the ones proposed this<BR>> > >> year is like
opening Pandora's Box. Once this is<BR>> > done, it can never be
put<BR>> > >> back if it doesn't work because the contest
board<BR>> > would never accept the<BR>> > >> responsibility
again. I'd just like to say thanks<BR>> > to Keith Black for
helping<BR>> > >> me solidify my view on these matters this
weekend,<BR>> > our conversation really<BR>> > >> got me
thinking.<BR>> > >> <BR>> > >> Matt<BR>> >
>> <BR>> > >> ----- Original Message -----<BR>> >
>> From: Vicente "Vince" Bortone<BR>> > >> To: General
pattern discussion<BR>> > >> Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 2:35
AM<BR>> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] ENJOY PATTERN.
IT<BR>> > WAS "Rules proposal 11-6<BR>> > >>
question"<BR>> > >> <BR>> > >> Matt,<BR>> >
>> <BR>> > >> <BR>> > >> <BR>> > >>
I have been trying to follow all the e-mails in<BR>> > regard the
proposal 11-6.<BR>> > >> Just too much work in the last few weeks
and I<BR>> > never had chance to respond<BR>> > >> or didn't
see any feedback after I responded to<BR>> > Lance. Also the
subject<BR>> > >> changed too many times. I am taking
this<BR>> > opportunity to explain you with<BR>> > >> more
detail the reasons we introduced the<BR>> > proposal. I suggest that
you<BR>> > >> review one more time the proposal that can
be<BR>> > found in the following link:<BR>> > >> <BR>>
> >> <BR>> > >> <BR>> > >>
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/RCA11-6.pdf<BR>> > >> <BR>>
> >> <BR>> > >> <BR>> > >> We tried to
explain in the proposal the reasons<BR>> > why suggested the
change. I<BR>> > >> understand that we could have done a
better job<BR>> > justifying the proposal.<BR>> > >> This
motivated Lance to ask some questions and I<BR>> > tried to explain when
I<BR>> > >> responded to Lance. I would like to take<BR>>
> this opportunity to add the<BR>> > >> following:<BR>> >
>> <BR>> > >> <BR>> > >> <BR>> > >>
1. I have been flying Masters for 5-6 years. <BR>> > It is evident
that in the last<BR>> > >> few years at the local contest we had
8-10 Masters<BR>> > Pilots with no FAI pilots<BR>> > >> in
some cases. In order to balance the<BR>> > contest, we have been
dividing the<BR>> > >> group in two and 1/2 of the Masters Pilots
fly FAI<BR>> > to help to balance the<BR>> > >>
contest. We have been doing this for fun and<BR>> > to help the CD
to run the<BR>> > >> contest. However, I believe that it
will be<BR>> > a lot easier and fare if we fly<BR>> > >>
approximately similar schedule. Please<BR>> > notice that the
proposal suggest<BR>> > >> that NSRCA committee is free to change
the<BR>> > maneuvers that are not proper for<BR>> > >>
Masters level like integrated rolling maneuvers<BR>> > and landing and
takeoff<BR>> > >> should be judged. We missed to add that
the<BR>> > NSRCA committee could<BR>> > >> change turn
around maneuvers that don't flow<BR>> > well. Probably this could
be<BR>> > >> added in the revision.<BR>> > >> <BR>>
> >> <BR>> > >> <BR>> > >> 2. Clearly
next year I will have the<BR>> > pressure to fly both Masters
and<BR>> > >> FAI-P11 in order to get ready for the<BR>> >
season. This represents a lot more<BR>> > >> work for
me. If we adopt FAI-P11, I will<BR>> > guess that the maneuver #1
is<BR>> > >> probably the only one that needs to be<BR>> >
changed. I read some e-mails that<BR>> > >> suggest that the
turn around after #1 does not<BR>> > flow well. If we
change<BR>> > >> these two maneuvers it will be a lot easier
for<BR>> > Masters Pilots to switch<BR>> > >> around Masters
and FAI-P in local contest. <BR>> > Probably some will suggest
that<BR>> > >> the loop with the integrated 8 point roll
should<BR>> > not be in Masters.<BR>> > >> However, I think
this maneuver should be left as<BR>> > is. I believe that
this<BR>> > >> maneuver is a very good one to learn
integrated<BR>> > rolling maneuvers. I tried<BR>> > >>
and it is fun.<BR>> > >> <BR>> > >> <BR>> >
>> <BR>> > >> 3. If we adopt FAI-P schedule with
modifications,<BR>> > it will be easier for<BR>> > >> Master
pilots to make the decision to switch to<BR>> > fly FAI because we will
need<BR>> > >> to learn the F schedule only. Yes, I
know<BR>> > that some of us will never<BR>> > >> consider
flying the FAI F. If you ask me, I<BR>> > will really like to
try. Are<BR>> > >> the integrated rolling maneuvers
difficult for<BR>> > me? Yes. Again, I really<BR>> >
>> will like to try. I believe that this change<BR>> > will
facilitate this process.<BR>> > >> <BR>> > >> <BR>>
> >> <BR>> > >> 4. Finally, please don't forget
that we have<BR>> > to judge. It will be a lot<BR>> >
>> easier and the level of judging will improve a lot<BR>> > if we
fly approximately<BR>> > >> the same schedule.<BR>> >
>> <BR>> > >> <BR>> > >> <BR>> > >>
5. It will be interesting to guess how this<BR>> > change could
benefit the high<BR>> > >> level pilots in Masters to try FAI at
the<BR>> > Nats. I am sure that some can<BR>> > >>
help me. I know that if I fly Masters at the<BR>> > Nats I will be
better prepare<BR>> > >> to judge FAI P schedule. The only
pressure<BR>> > is to get ready to judge F<BR>> > >>
schedule so the work load at the Nats is somehow<BR>> > reduced for the
Masters and<BR>> > >> FAI competitors.<BR>> > >>
<BR>> > >> <BR>> > >> <BR>> > >> Best
regards,<BR>> > >> <BR>> > >> Vicente "Vince"
Bortone<BR>> > >> <BR>> > >> ----- Original Message
-----<BR>> > >> From: "Matthew Frederick"
<mjfrederick@cox.net><BR>> > >> To: "General pattern
discussion" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> > >>
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 9:42:16 PM GMT<BR>> > -06:00 US/Canada
Central<BR>> > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YOU DON'T HAVE
TO<BR>> > COMPETE TO ENJOY PATTERN<BR>> > >> <BR>> >
>> Umm, I don't think anyone threated to quit after<BR>> > seeing
the Advanced<BR>> > >> pattern. I said I would quit after Advanced
if we<BR>> > adopt the F3A P sequence<BR>> > >> for Masters.
I haven't even looked at the new<BR>> > Advanced pattern yet
mainly<BR>> > >> because if I continue at this rate
without<BR>> > throwing a contest here and there<BR>> > >> I
will point out of Advanced before I ever get to<BR>> > fly the new one
in<BR>> > >> competition... and I've only flown Advanced in
3<BR>> > contests!<BR>> > >> <BR>> > >>
Matt<BR>> > >> <BR>> > >> ----- Original Message
-----<BR>> > >> From: frank<BR>> > >> To: 'General
pattern discussion'<BR>> > >> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009
10:03 AM<BR>> > >> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] YOU DON'T HAVE
TO<BR>> > COMPETE TO ENJOY PATTERN<BR>> > >> <BR>> >
>> Having read the response of one fellow who<BR>> > threatened to
quit after seeing<BR>> > >> the new proposed Advanced
sequence (<BR>> > all sequences look great, IMO), may I<BR>> >
>> respectfully suggest that you continue to<BR>> > practice
and enjoy this great<BR>> > >> hobby sport even if you feel
that you<BR>> > can’t be competitive. I compete very<BR>> >
>> little by choice( was once a very active<BR>> > UKIE
competitor- for two decades)<BR>> > >> ,but still practice( in
most weather conditions)<BR>> > and enjoy pattern as much<BR>> >
>> as anyone I know ( I fly with some very active,<BR>> > die hard
flyers who can<BR>> > >> attest). I’d probably be bored out of my
skull<BR>> > if I flew sport again and<BR>> > >> don’t wish
to fly anything but pattern aircraft.<BR>> > Try taking a year off
and<BR>> > >> practice the hell out of the new sequence-
you<BR>> > might surprise yourself and<BR>> > >> will
definitely become a better pilot to<BR>> > boot. Please take no
offense, just<BR>> > >> my .02.<BR>> > >> <BR>>
> >> <BR>> > >> <BR>> > >> Frank<BR>> >
>> <BR>> > >> ________________________________<BR>> >
>> <BR>> > >>
_______________________________________________<BR>> > >>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > >>
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > >>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> > >>
<BR>> > >> _______________________________________________<BR>>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing<BR>> > >> list
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > >>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> > >>
<BR>> > >> ________________________________<BR>> > >>
<BR>> > >> _______________________________________________<BR>>
> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > >>
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > >>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> > >>
<BR>> > >> _______________________________________________<BR>>
> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > >>
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > >>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> > >>
<BR>> > > _______________________________________________<BR>>
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > >
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > >
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> > <BR>>
> _______________________________________________<BR>> >
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> >
NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> > <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR><BR>
<HR>
New Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. <A
href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pc-scout/default.aspx?CBID=wl&ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_pcscout:102009"
target=_new>Learn more.</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>