<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Interesting conversation over the past week or so, and while I am fairly confident that we will NOT be re-writing the entire AMA rule set for pattern just because NSRCA is moving the Nats next year; I am also fairly confident that the rules do not play as large a role in participation (or not) as many would opine. We have read a lot about folks not having the time to practice enough to feel good about competing; lots of perspectives on life gets in the way; and the many reasons members were either drawn to pattern or drifted away. Last year the Contest Board made changes to facilitate fluidity between classes, so that work is done for the time being. There are a whole set of issues related to parity with F3A that NSRCA is concerned with, aligning AMA rules, etc. While I am not adding any of my own opinions to those conversations here today, suffice it to say most of the rules are ok the way they are. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We have a highly NICHE interest in precision aerobatics (what happened to IMAC?) that just does NOT appeal to many people, and which happens to be relatively expensive as a hobby/sport when one adds up travel to contests and time away from work, family and other commitments. Same as with any competitive sport: not for everyone, time consuming, and relatively expensive compared to just enjoying the hobby part without adding competition. Jets right now seem to be more attractive to young precision pilots, so I’ve noticed, and that is even more expensive than F3A or AMA pattern equipment!</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Enjoy your lunch hour and get out and vote! It’s the big day in America and we are all very proud to be Americans who can freely vote our conscience!</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 8, 2016, at 11:12 AM, cahochhalter via NSRCA-discussion <<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" class="">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class=""><div class="">
<div class="">Not sure what class you flyin but the AMA rules committee backed off the weight limit quite a bit. Intemediate and advanced are 5150 I believe now and masters and fai are 5050.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I dont understand why we are trying to eliminate all the rules in pattern?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Pretty soon judging will be all impression and we like that guy scores.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Pattern is competition with rules and limits and winners and losers. We just do it smoother than others.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Chuck</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div id="composer_signature" class=""><div style="font-size:88%;color:#364f67" dir="auto" class="">Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone</div></div><br class=""><br class="">-------- Original message --------<br class="">From: Ron via NSRCA-discussion <<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" class="">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>> <br class="">Date: 11/8/16 9:53 AM (GMT-06:00) <br class="">To: <a href="mailto:blotch44026@mypacks.net" class="">blotch44026@mypacks.net</a>, General pattern discussion <<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" class="">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>> <br class="">Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Anthony Manifesto/pattern participation <br class=""><br class=""><p dir="ltr" class="">+1</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Nov 8, 2016 8:30 AM, blotch44026--- via NSRCA-discussion <<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" class="">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution" class=""><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=""><div style="font-size: 13px; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" class="">Agreed on the weight rule. I have $5000 in a new bird; just missed making weight out of the box. A few mods and 1000 gram batts (4500mah) would have got me there. After a few landing gear repairs, It would never make weight so that takes me out of attending the Nationals. Weight rule makes no sense, but it always gets voted down. The 2 meter rule is the neutralizer. <br class=""><br class="">Rick<br class=""> <br class=""><br class=""><blockquote style="padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 0px; border-left-color: rgb(0, 0, 255); border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 10pt; font-family: arial, sans-serif;" class="">-----Original Message-----
<br class="">From: Dave Burton via NSRCA-discussion
<br class="">Sent: Nov 5, 2016 11:45 AM
<br class="">To: <a href="mailto:Snaproll4@aol.com" class="">Snaproll4@aol.com</a>, 'General pattern discussion'
<br class="">Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Anthony Manifesto/pattern participation
<br class=""><br class="">
<div class=""><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:'calibri' ,;color:#1f497d" class="">I agree with almost everything here and would add elimination take off and landing as scored maneuvers as well for AMA classes. Refusal to adopt similar changes are why I dropped out of NSRCA a few years ago. </span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:'calibri' ,;color:#1f497d" class="">I think the only limitations on airframe should be max 2 meter dimensions but remove the weight limit. All the weight limit does is drive up the cost of airplanes.</span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:'calibri' ,;color:#1f497d" class="">If rules changes like these aren't implemented pattern will continue to die out and the only people flying will be the few FAI flyers who can contend for the US team. </span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:'calibri' ,;color:#1f497d" class="">Most of these ideas have been submitted as rules changes in the past but were shot down by the NSRCA BOD. You would hope the drastic drop in participation would force considerations of changing some things</span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:'calibri' ,;color:#1f497d" class="">Dave</span></p><div class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:'calibri' ,;color:#1f497d" class=""> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div class=""><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1pt;padding:3pt 0in 0in 0in" class=""><p class=""><b class=""><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'tahoma' ," class="">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'tahoma' ," class=""> NSRCA-discussion [<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org" class="">mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] <b class="">On Behalf Of </b>Snaproll4--- via NSRCA-discussion<br class=""><b class="">Sent:</b> Saturday, November 05, 2016 12:12 PM<br class=""><b class="">To:</b> <a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" class="">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br class=""><b class="">Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Anthony Manifesto/pattern participation</span></p></div></div><div class=""> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div class=""><p class=""><span style="" class="">I do not want to be NSRCA president, but If I were NSRCA King, this is what I would do:</span></p></div><div class=""><div class=""><span style="" class=""> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div><div class=""><p class=""><span style="" class=""> 1. Eliminate ALL mandatory advancement rules. In fact, as King, I would ban all conversation about advancement. I've been saying this for 20 years, but every time this gets voted on, the proposal gets soundly defeated. Can't we all name a pilot who moved up to Masters and then dropped out? We should never have rules that discourage participation. This includes the rule about trying higher classes and not being able to move back down.</span></p></div><div class=""><div class=""><span style="" class=""> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><span style="" class=""> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div><div class=""><p class=""><span style="" class="">2. Sportsman and Intermediate should be non-turnaround. Turnaround was the death of the casual competitor. No 2 meter planes will be allowed in Sportsman. You're not going to get a club flyer to compete when there are 4 Allures and a Proteus in his class. This is not supposed to be a money competition. </span></p></div><div class=""><div class=""><span style="" class=""> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><span style="" class=""> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div><div class=""><p class=""><span style="" class="">3. Advanced should be 50% turn-around and somewhat less difficult than it is today. The emphasis here should be on the slightly more committed pilot and NOT as a building block for Masters. This should become the new destination class.</span></p></div><div class=""><div class=""><span style="" class=""> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><span style="" class=""> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div><div class=""><p class=""><span style="" class="">4. Masters should fly all rounds of FAI P, but not compete directly against FAI pilots. I can put up a respectable P, but I don't want to fly against Team members. (besides, who would judge?) The sequence would still change every 2 years. Think of the advantages in judging as FAI pilots and Masters usually judge each other. This would eliminate the need for development of a new Masters schedule and let the sequence committee concentrate on the other 3 classes.</span></p></div><div class=""><div class=""><span style="" class=""> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div><div class=""><p class=""><span style="" class="">5. It would be nice if we could make Sportsman two 1 day contests, consisting of 4 rounds each day. Perhaps they could fly two rounds within each flight. Yes, that would mean 3 more awards, but you can't expect Sportsman pilots to spend the time and money to go to 2 day contests. This way, a pilot could do family stuff on Saturday and compete on Sunday.</span></p></div><div class=""><div class=""><span style="" class=""> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div><div class=""><p class=""><span style="" class="">Steve Miller, NSRCA #673</span></p></div><div class=""><div class=""><span style="" class=""> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><span style="" class=""> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><span style="" class=""> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><span style="" class=""> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><span style="" class=""> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div><div style="text-align:center" align="center" class=""><span style="" class=""></span><hr style="color:#a0a0a0" width="100%" size="1" noshade="" align="center" class=""></div><p class=""><span style="" class="">No virus found in this message.<br class="">Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com/" class="">www.avg.com</a><br class="">Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13342 - Release Date: 11/03/16</span></p></div></blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>_______________________________________________<br class="">NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" class="">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br class="">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>