<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2719.2200" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY
style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none; FONT: 10pt verdana; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>You bring up an interesting point about sequences. I have
felt that we go about them all wrong. I would like to see a set of criteria for
all considered sequences.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Something like:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>They should be flyable by the current contestants.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>They should be judgable by the available
judges.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>They should not be equipment contests. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>They should be sufficiently difficult to determine a
winner. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>They should not be airplane crashers. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>They should not challange typical field limitations.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>John Ferrell <BR>6241 Phillippi Rd<BR>Julian NC 27283<BR>Phone:
(336)685-9606 <BR>Dixie Competition Products<BR>NSRCA 479 AMA 4190
W8CCW<BR>"My Competition is Not My Enemy"</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<P>The goal was to produce difficult sequence that represents the skills
of a top level National class and at the same time give a sequence that is
tough to do with consistency but not so difficult and abstract that it will
chase people away. The main goal being up here at 6000ft is to not require
huge amount of power as were presented in the Sequence submitted by the NSRCA.
The Reverse Avalanche and the Diamond Cuban 8 thing are just such maneuvers.
These specific maneuvers although may not be an issue for you guys down lower
in elevation become a problem up here...especially with older plane designs
with std 120 sized motors. See many people up here are still flying Elans,
Ariels, or even the 60 sized birds and with this power hungry trend are being
told to upgrade their motors, and planes or get out. </P>
<P>I know this is not the intent of the sequence designers. I'm not
complaining about the work and the effort that was made to give us the choices
we have....Rather we are giving the pattern community a choice......</P>
<P> </P>
<P>Another big issue with the NSRCA proposal is the new maneuvers like the
Reverse Avalanche.....This adds load to the judging pool. We are now going to
have maneuvers never seen before. This requires some address in a judging
seminar...and what about the local flyers that rarely attend a judging
seminar. We felt that putting maneuvers in that had different roll combos or
different starting attitudes were changes a judge could make on the fly and
apply the same criteria he is already applying. Rather than subtle things like
the center stall turn not being in the direction of the flight. What if the
pilot makes a bad choice for direction now your going to penalize him for the
spin and for the center stall turn. My question is how many pilots that have
not attended a judging school realize that if you stall turn the wrong way on
that maneuver its a ZERO!</P>
<P>We tried to eliminate some of this confusion and stick with a sequence that
was easier to judge giving the contestant judge a better feeling of confidence
because the sequence has elements similar to his own sequence. Yet the
difficulty of maneuvers is certainly present and will help to separate the
wheat from the chaff at a National Championship event. On the other hand a new
Advanced guy is not learning new thing all over again to be changed on him
again in 2 years.</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>