<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<STYLE>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</STYLE>
<STYLE><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US dir=ltr link=blue vLink=purple>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>The new proposed masters is a good. I cant remember sh— anymore and
was able to do the complete pattern on my own after two runs of it.</DIV>
<DIV>A testimant to how well it was put together. The reverse top hat is a
little tricky that sets up the hour glass. </DIV>
<DIV>But it has plenty of options to get you where you need to be in the
hourglass. </DIV>
<DIV>The up line snap in the reverse cuban is so so for me but can be done to
look nice. </DIV>
<DIV>The roller in the loop is really about as easy as it gets for a
roller. Just let mother nature create the arc while rolling... oopps,
letting out the secrets.</DIV>
<DIV>I like it. LQQking forward to competing with it next season.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Speaking of new standards. I started flying SPA contest recently with
a Dirty Birdy electrified. What a totally different style of flying.
I forget what it was like.</DIV>
<DIV>It really makes you appreciate how far we have come since ballistic
pattern. You get more bang for your buck as far as maneuvers are concerned in
turn around. </DIV>
<DIV>It seemed like the turning around to set up the next maneuver back then
took so much more time as guys will fly way out to set up. </DIV>
<DIV>Seemed like a waste of flying time. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I like where we are with the schedule. Its good too that others are
chiming in whether displeased or not.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Wayne</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">John Fuqua via
NSRCA-discussion</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Monday, August 18, 2014 3:20 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">'General pattern discussion'</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed
sequences</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'>Agree
with the demographics. Disagree with the dwindling
proficiency. My observation is that there was a tremendous
leap of skill sets required when we went to turnaround. I
would argue that all pilots of today are much better than 20 years ago
regardless of age. We have gained skills over time and now the
standard is so much higher than it was 20 years ago. The
bar was raised and we all responded. I do not want AMA to
follow FAI down the ever ending increase in difficulty but I have no issues with
trying to do new maneuvers that should increase my skill set ( such as it is
!!!).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'>John<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: #1f497d'><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style='FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"'> NSRCA-discussion
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Joe
Lachowski via NSRCA-discussion<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, August 18, 2014 2:20
PM<BR><B>To:</B> NSRCA Discussion List<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
2015 proposed sequences<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"'>First. Lets
look at the age demographics in Masters. I would dare say the majority of us are
getting up there in age. I bet the majority of pilots in the finals for Masters
this year were below the age of 50. The rest of us there who didn't make the
finals Masters were probably 55 plus. Heck some 70 plus. Do we want to make
things so difficult that it forces the older guys to just hang it
up?<BR> <BR>Second. As far as scoring, judging is subjective and aside from
the obvious bad maneuver, we tend to lumber in the 7 plus to 10 zone. I have
seen 10s given out that were in no way a ten. I still think some people are
clueless as to what they are seeing in the chair. Sometimes I even
question my own ability. Especially when judging the integrated rolling stuff in
FAI. Seeing scores of the top 8 at the Nats being reasonably close should be no
surprise. Afterall, the Nats brings the best of the best from around the country
to compete against each other.<BR> <BR>Another thought, our numbers are
dwindling significantly. People just don't have the time to practice to attain a
repectable level of proficiency. Its a pride thing. I sure in heck don't want to
be floundering in the air at a contest. Making the sequences significantly
harder just dwindles those numbers further. For the most part at least 75% of
those showing up at the majority of the contests at least in our neck of the
woods are the same core group of diehards. Newbies are far and
between.<BR> <BR>I do not see the same level of flying precision/
proficiency these days that was around in the lower classes 5 , 10, 15 or even
20 yrs ago and the numbers in those classes has been most significantly
impacted. Look at IMAC, there biggest class is Basic. It's attainable to most
anyone. From there with the significant difficulty jump in the other classes the
numbers dwindle. We are just the inverse of that on the local level excluding
FAI. When I first started flying pattern in the late 80's we were bottom heavy.
I remember at one local contest flying against two dozen others in the then
second level class, Sportsman. Things aren't healthy in the sport right
now.<BR> <BR>There is a larger jump between the classes as the sequences
are proposed (primarily Intermediate to Advanced and then Masters).
Sportsman and Intermediate are reasonably designed within the intent of the
guidelines. The rest are no longer as representative of the building
blocks approach as myself and several former members of the sequence committees
of the past 10 to 15 years strived to accomplish with Masters as the destination
class. And we tried to limit the difficulty creep with restraint. Believe me it
was difficult to do so. This time around it is not so. The sequences now
appear as sequences that appease the bored, oh that would be cool to do, and
those who could care less about flying with the gratest of precision and
proficiency. Why there is such a fixation on the hourglass boggles the mind. It
is such an ugly maneuver from the get go.<BR> <BR>I could ramble on forever
I guess, but that would be fruitless and everyone would think I was nuts.
LOL. We need to step back a little and rethink what we are trying to
accomplish with the sequences that will assure a healthy event that will last.
FAI is so different than AMA. FAI is designed to do one thing and one thing
only, pick a World Champion. Our sequence progression is to build the basic
skills at each level to make someone proficient enough to someday fly at the
World level IF THEY CHOSE TO DO SO. Now we are forcing things that are FAI
specific down to the AMA level. I think that is wrong. If you want to become
proficient at integrated rolling and knifeedge geometric shapes, you can learn
them on your own time. When you get to doing the FAI maneuvers, you already have
the basics behind you and only need to focus on the FAI specific stuff. I for
one do not want to expend the time and energy nor do I have the skill level to
do these type of maneuvers. When the Sequence Guidelines were written, we
specifically left out those maneuvers uniquely specific to FAI.<BR> <BR>And
one last thing to consider. Do we want sequences so difficult that they outright
favor those in the warmer climates who are fortunate enough to have the weather
they can practice in just about all year round? I already have to cram things
into a short period of time just to fly with reasonable proficiency. And I know
I have sacrificed time needed to set up my planes the right way which I have not
been able to do. I have to take the easy way out and live with probably some
unnecessary programmable mixes that are more a hinderance than a
help.<BR> <BR>Signing Off!!!<BR> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"'>
<HR id=stopSpelling align=center SIZE=2 width="100%">
</SPAN></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"'>To: <A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>Date:
Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:58:49 -0400<BR>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed
sequences<BR>From: <A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"'>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. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"'>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. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"'>On a
totally opposite point, given 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.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"'>Anthony Romano<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style='FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"'><BR>_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list <A
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>
<A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>