<html>
<head>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style>
<div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">After several flights of the proposed schedules, I started writing this thinking that both Advanced and Masters are too hard. Reading a comment about the range of scores for the top eight from this years Nats made me rethink my position. The difference in Advanced was about 40 points per round and Masters was 109 points per round. If you look at the top seven Masters drops to 49 points per round. Pretty tight competition when compared to the FAI finals having a difference of 203 points per round. </div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Does this help us? Do harder schedules make judging easier by forcing egregious errors instead of requiring judges to scour each maneuver for every little wing bobble? Just looking for a discussion not an argument. </div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">On a totally opposite point, g<span style="font-size: 12pt;">iven the attention that our hobby is getting from external eyes, particularly in the area of altitude limits do we want to be designing sequences with figure nines and hourglasses? We seem to be pulling out some of the worst FAI maneuvers to add to our sequences. Agreeing with the earlier comment that turnaround was supposed to reduce our footprint yet we continue to see FAI using rolling circles, KE triangles, vertical eights in sequences. We should not follow this error.</span></div><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></div><div><br></div><div>Anthony Romano<br><br><div><br></div></div></div>
</div>
</div>
</div></body>
</html>