<div style="FONT-FAMILY: arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><FONT color=black face=arial></FONT><SPAN style="DISPLAY: inline-block" contentEditable=false></SPAN>Hmmmm! Interesting....but I don't have a clue</div>
<div style="FONT-FAMILY: arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </div>
<div style="FONT-FAMILY: arial; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">On the other hand, I wouldn't mind getting looped with JLo</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Ron Van Putte <vanputte@cox.net><br>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><br>
Sent: Thu, Sep 23, 2010 9:50 pm<br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and beyond<br>
<br>
<div style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fff; MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, Sans-Serif; COLOR: #000; FONT-SIZE: 12px" id=AOLMsgPart_0_c6b5cb6f-fbd0-4c23-a2d3-9b864f9784aa>What is a "Loop with Jon Lowe"? <VBG> <br>
<br>
Ron <br>
<br>
On Sep 23, 2010, at 9:46 PM, Jon Lowe wrote: <br>
<br>
> My two cents: <br>
> A loop with <br>
> <br>
> Jon Lowe <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> -----Original Message----- <br>
> From: Dave <<A href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A>> <br>
> To: 'General pattern discussion' <<A href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>> <br>
> Sent: Thu, Sep 23, 2010 9:41 pm <br>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 > and beyond <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> As Arch stated, the current doctrine does not allow integrated loop/> roll maneuvers, and that is based on majority feedback to date. <br>
> <br>
> My personal opinion is that something like a loop with a roll on > top would be a good maneuver for Masters….it is not hard to do, but > it is very hard to do well. If the majority of those with a direct > stake in Masters want the loop with roll on top, we’d likely see it > added to both the Masters sequence and the Seq Guidance Doc would > be updated. <br>
> <br>
> And just to be clear, my use of “direct stake” means pilots > currently in Masters, those in Advanced moving up to Masters, and > FAI pilots changing to Masters. <br>
> <br>
> Regards, <br>
> <br>
> Dave Lockhart <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> From: <A href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A> [<A href="mailto:nsrca-?">mailto:nsrca-</A>> <A href="mailto:discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A>] On Behalf Of John Gayer <br>
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:07 PM <br>
> To: General pattern discussion <br>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 > and beyond <br>
> <br>
> Didn't the sequence committee write the doctrine? It should be a > living document with a clear and easy path to modify it and keep it > current. <br>
> That is the problem with many process documents. Once written they > become law and immutable. <br>
> <br>
> John <br>
> <br>
> On 9/23/2010 4:53 PM, Archie Stafford wrote: <br>
> The 4pt is exactly the type of maneuver Dave is referring to. I > know becausehe and I have both pushed for that. I dont think we > need some of the really crazy stuff, but we need to start adding > some. I dont think we need them at the bottom of loops, but the > current doctrine the sequence committee has to follow will notallow > a loop with a 4pt at the top. <br>
> <br>
> Arch <br>
> <br>
> Sent from my iPhone <br>
> <br>
> On Sep 23, 2010, at 6:46 PM, "Dave Harmon" <<A href="mailto:k6xyz@sbcglobal.net">k6xyz@sbcglobal.net</A>> > wrote: <br>
>> An avalanche or 4 pt roll in a loop is not an ‘FAI or IMAC style’ >> integrated maneuver. <br>
>> <br>
>> Dave Harmon <br>
>> NSRCA 586 <br>
>> K6XYZ[at]sbcglobal[dot]net <br>
>> Sperry, Ok. <br>
>> <br>
>> From: <A href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A> [<A href="mailto:nsrca-?">mailto:nsrca-</A>>> <A href="mailto:discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A>] On Behalf Of Archie Stafford <br>
>> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 5:31 PM <br>
>> To: General pattern discussion <br>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 >> and beyond <br>
>> <br>
>> Why not? An avalanche is an integrated maneuver. A 4pt roll at >> the top of a loop is certainly in the skill set of a masters pilot. <br>
>> <br>
>> Arch <br>
>> <br>
>> Sent from my iPhone <br>
>> <br>
>> On Sep 23, 2010, at 3:38 PM, "Dave Harmon" <<A href="mailto:k6xyz@sbcglobal.net">k6xyz@sbcglobal.net</A>> >> wrote: <br>
>> I agree with Dave l but otherwise I disagree totally…..FAI and >> IMAC style integrated maneuvers don’t belong in Masters. <br>
>> <br>
>> Dave Harmon <br>
>> NSRCA 586 <br>
>> K6XYZ[at]sbcglobal[dot]net <br>
>> Sperry, Ok. <br>
>> <br>
>> From: <A href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A> [<A href="mailto:nsrca-?">mailto:nsrca-</A>>> <A href="mailto:discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A>] On Behalf Of Dr Mike <br>
>> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:58 AM <br>
>> To: 'General pattern discussion' <br>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 >> and beyond <br>
>> <br>
>> I totally agree with you, Dave, however, I would encourage the >> Masters sequence to begin including some integrated, safe stuff, >> such as a loop with roll at top or some such thing. It just >> simply makes the event so much more fun and exciting. <br>
>> Thanks <br>
>> Mike <br>
>> <br>
>> From: <A href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A> [<A href="mailto:nsrca-?">mailto:nsrca-</A>>> <A href="mailto:discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A>] On Behalf Of Dave <br>
>> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:13 AM <br>
>> To: 'General pattern discussion' <br>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 >> and beyond <br>
>> <br>
>> John, <br>
>> <br>
>> The only bit of your discussion I differ on is regarding the >> difficulty level for the “destination” class Masters. It is only >> a destination for some, and regardless of whether or not it is a >> destination class (in practice, name, or design), the difficulty >> level should be set based on the wishes of the majority – not the >> difficulty level of FAI. We (AMA pattern pilots) can always >> choose to set the difficulty level of Masters slightly less than, >> equal to, or slightly greater than FAI. But since we (AMA pattern >> pilots) have pretty much zero input or influence on FAI, we should >> never tie ourselves to the FAI schedule allowing it to dictate the >> difficulty level of Masters. Masters and FAI do not share the >> share goal, and never will. <br>
>> <br>
>> Advancement systems aside, someone will be moving up or down for >> whatever reason(s), and I’m happy to partake in the celebrating or >> commiserating J <br>
>> <br>
>> Regards, <br>
>> <br>
>> Dave Lockhart <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> From: <A href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A> [<A href="mailto:nsrca-?">mailto:nsrca-</A>>> <A href="mailto:discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A>] On Behalf Of John Gayer <br>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 11:29 PM <br>
>> To: General pattern discussion <br>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 >> and beyond <br>
>> <br>
>> Dave, <br>
>> <br>
>> Every time you move to a new class including sportsman there are >> potential airplane killers lurking. Long ago and far away, I >> remember losing two airplanes learning to do three consecutive >> rolls centered. If combined roll/loop maneuvers were introduced >> to Masters, the Masters pilots would quickly sort out how to >> execute them. My only point in addressing the lack of these >> maneuvers in Masters is the fact that it is the final AMA >> destination class and as such should deliver equivalent difficulty >> to F3A. Otherwise it is a feeder class without Advancement >> requirements. <br>
>> <br>
>> In other countries where advancement to the next class has to be >> earned (by scoring average and the national organization keeps >> track), getting an advancement notice is cause for celebration and >> usually involves lots of beer. In Australia everyone aspires to >> gain admittance into the top level (which flies the F3A schedules >> and from which their World team is selected). The flip side is >> that if you start flying poorly or not at all, you find yourself >> moving back a class or two. <br>
>> <br>
>> Such a system has a lot of merit. Keep flying well against your >> peers, you move up. Fly poorly, you move down. The beer sounds >> good too. Celebrate on the way up, commiserate on the way down, >> drinks all around in either case. <br>
>> <br>
>> John <br>
>> <br>
>> On 9/22/2010 6:28 PM, Dave wrote: <br>
>> John, <br>
>> <br>
>> First, without picking a side on this particular debate, I’d offer >> the following comments / perspectives – <br>
>> <br>
>> - Historically, surveys and polls have answered that integrated >> looping/rolling maneuvers should not be included in the Masters >> pattern. <br>
>> - an “airplane killer” looks a lot differently to a skilled >> Masters pilot compared to a middle of the pack advanced pilot >> moving into Masters, and this concern has historically been >> expressed, and is a hot button for a substantial number. <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> Second, my opinions - <br>
>> <br>
>> I fly FAI because I want to…I want the more challenging schedules >> and higher level of competition. Arguably, the FAI P schedule is >> not more difficult in some years, and I could easily argue it does >> not contain state of the art maneuvers, but flying FAI is still >> more difficult if for no other reason than a pilots time must be >> split between flying P, F, and unknowns. <br>
>> <br>
>> Masters has a wide range of pilot abilities, and is “home” for >> many for different reasons. As such, it will always be a >> compromise class, unlike FAI F3A which is focused on picking the >> best F3A Team in the world and the best individual pilot in the >> world. So long as the majority of Masters do not want state of >> the art maneuvers, Masters should not have state of the art >> maneuvers. <br>
>> <br>
>> I do believe it might be a little easier to establish and maintain >> the difficulty level of each class and the steps between the >> classes IF a system were established that required a pilot advance >> to the next higher class based on achieving a given proficiency, >> and also demoted a pilot who did not achieve a minimum standard. >> Several countries use this approach, and from what I have seen, it >> appears to work as well or better than the point system used in >> the US. Mandatory advancement to F3A is a separate, but related >> topic. <br>
>> <br>
>> Regards, <br>
>> <br>
>> Dave Lockhart <br>
>> <A href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A> <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> From: <A href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A> [<A href="mailto:nsrca-?">mailto:nsrca-</A>>> <A href="mailto:discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A>] On Behalf Of John Gayer <br>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 6:40 PM <br>
>> To: General pattern discussion; Mark Hunt <br>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 >> and beyond <br>
>> <br>
>> Derek, <br>
>> <br>
>> I thought we already selected a pattern through the survey. Is the >> survey now meaningless because it chose the wrong length pattern? <br>
>> <br>
>> I'm not quite sure I understand the logic behind raising the >> complexity of the short pattern at this late date, either. The >> sequence committee has worked on these patterns for two years or >> so and now it appears that because of a few comments at the Nats >> or whatever that all that work and the surveys are to be thrown >> out or at least revisited. <br>
>> I offered comments on the patterns 6 months ago and and said at >> that time that the Masters pattern was too easy in some areas. >> Didn't see anyone jumping to and making changes then. <br>
>> Comments about airplane killer maneuvers are also uncalled for. >> Any Masters pilot should be able to perform integrated roll/loop >> maneuvers without endangering the airplane. Making them good >> enough to score 8s and 9s, well that's a different matter. If you >> are making changes to the Masters pattern and keeping its role as >> a destination class, I firmly believe it should contain state of >> the art pattern maneuvers. <br>
>> <br>
>> John Gayer <br>
>> District 6 Advanced pilot <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> On 9/22/2010 4:10 PM, Derek Koopowitz wrote: <br>
>> Dave, <br>
>> <br>
>> You are correct in that everyone is impacted on a short vs long >> schedule - my apologies for the definition of who is impacted. >> Regardless, please voice your opinion to your District VP. <br>
>> <br>
>> -Derek <br>
>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Dave Burton <<A href="mailto:burtona@atmc.net">burtona@atmc.net</A>> >> wrote: <br>
>> Derek, <br>
>> I really object to your definition of who has “Skin in the game” >> - We all do if we pay our dues and attend contest. <br>
>> The “skin” is the impact of a long vs. short sequence for every >> Masters flyer, Flyer who will be flying Masters in the next two >> years, every flyer/non flyer who judges at a contest, and every >> other flyer in all the other class who have to wait until the >> typically large Masters class finishes whatever sequence they fly. <br>
>> So, whether I fly Masters in the next two years or not, I intend >> to let my opinion be known to my district VP and I expect him to >> give my view the same weight of any other opinion from “Masters” >> flyers or others. <br>
>> This is an issue that should not be decided by only “Masters” flyers. <br>
>> Dave Burton <br>
>> <br>
>> From: <A href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A> [<A href="mailto:nsrca-?">mailto:nsrca-</A>>> <A href="mailto:discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A>] On Behalf Of Derek Koopowitz <br>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 5:31 PM <br>
>> To: General pattern discussion <br>
>> <br>
>> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA sequences for 2011 and >> beyond <br>
>> <br>
>> Over 10 months ago the NSRCA Sequence Committee completed its work >> on the new sequences. These were posted on the NSRCA website for >> review and comment - see below: <br>
>> <br>
>> <A href="http://nsrca.us/proposedsequences/2011sequences.html" target=_blank>http://nsrca.us/proposedsequences/2011sequences.html</A> <br>
>> <br>
>> Included in all this material was a draft document that outlined >> the process on how sequences are developed, tested and approved >> and the makeup/content of the sequences based on the class it is >> meant to serve. This document is titled "NSRCA Procedures, >> Standards and Guidelines for AMA R/C Precision Aerobatics Sequence >> Development". A mouthful, but it does outline a lot of >> information. It details the charter for the Sequence Committee, >> sequence development standards and guidelines for all classes, >> catalog of maneuvers for all classes and the process that the >> NSRCA will follow in designing, testing and approving changes to >> sequences, or for proposed sequences. These sequence development >> standards and guidelines have been in place for about 4 years now >> and have been used very successfully to build the current set of >> sequences that everyone is flying today, in addition to the prior >> Masters sequence (and the new one as well). <br>
>> <br>
>> Overall we received positive comments on the proposed sequences >> from Sportsman through Masters. As you know, there were two >> sequences developed for Masters, a long sequence using the >> standard 23 maneuver count and a short sequence using 19 >> maneuvers. In the time since we posted the sequences, some >> informal surveys were also made on the NSRCA website as well as on >> RCU asking for a preference of either the short or long Masters >> schedule. The overwhelming majority of respondents chose the >> short sequence. However, these surveys were a little flawed in >> that we didn't really know who was voting for them - were they all >> judges/pilots who voted because they didn't want to judge a long >> sequence, or were they really current and/or future Masters pilots >> that really did want to fly a shorter sequence. <br>
>> <br>
>> Since the release of the proposed schedules, and some post Nats >> comments, the sequence committee has been hard at work making some >> tweaks to the short schedule with a view to increasing the >> difficulty level of the short Masters sequence to bring it into >> line with the long Masters sequence and also to ensure that we >> weren't lowering the bar in difficulty by introducing a shorter >> sequence. Bear in mind that the short sequence is only 19 >> maneuvers (17 of them flyable) so raising the difficulty level is >> a challenge if one is to avoid using some existing F3A type >> maneuvers, or "airplane killers", and to only use maneuvers that >> match the philosophy that we've embraced for a number of years. >> Since we've never developed a short Masters sequence, we need to >> make sure we get it right and that it not only provides a >> challenge to those that fly it but that it still provides a >> somewhat relatively higher jump for those pilots that are moving >> up from Advanced. We realize that creating a perfect schedule is >> not going to happen - we won't be able to please every pilot that >> moves up from Advanced, nor will we be able to please some former >> F3A pilots that think the schedule is too easy and isn't enough of >> a challenge. There has to be a balance. The Sequence Committee >> came up with some good positive changes and these are being vetted/>> tested as I write this. They've received extremely positive >> feedback from everyone that has either flown the newer short >> sequence on a simulator or using their pattern plane at the >> field. By the end of this weekend we'll know for sure whether it >> is a keeper or not. <br>
>> <br>
>> When we do post the revised sequence I would like all of you that >> have "skin in this game", meaning you are a current Masters pilot >> or will be moving to Masters in the next year or two, to please >> contact your NSRCA District VP and let them know what your >> preference is - short or long sequence. The reason they need to >> know is that the NSRCA board will vote in the next couple of weeks >> to approve all the proposed sequences and also to select which >> sequence the Masters class will be flying in 2011/2012. <br>
>> <br>
>> The Sequence Committee is comprised of Joe Lachowski, Dave >> Lockhart, Verne Koester, Bill Glaze, Archie Stafford, and Richard >> Lewis. They've put in an extraordinary amount of work on these >> sequences and documentation and deserve huge kudos from everyone! >> Thanks guys - your work is very much appreciated! <br>
>> <br>
>> We've also created a Sequence Committee section on the NSRCA >> website which will have more information soon. It will contain >> the updated draft documentation and all the proposed sequences in >> one location. You can get to the new section from the main menu - >> just look for Sequence Committee - it is near the bottom of the menu. <br>
>> No virus found in this incoming message. <br>
>> Checked by AVG - <A href="http://www.avg.com/" target=_blank>www.avg.com</A> <br>
>> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3152 - Release Date: >> 09/22/10 02:34:00 <br>
>> <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>
>> <br>
>> _______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion >> mailing <A href="mailto:listNSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.orghttp">listNSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.orghttp</A>://lists.nsrca.org/>> mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion >> _______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion >> mailing <A href="mailto:listNSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.orghttp">listNSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.orghttp</A>://lists.nsrca.org/>> mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <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>
>> _______________________________________________ <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>
> _______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion > mailing <A href="mailto:listNSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.orghttp">listNSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.orghttp</A>://lists.nsrca.org/> mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <br>
> _______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion > mailing list <A href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A> http://> lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <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>
<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>
</div>