<!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 6.00.2800.1106" 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>John, I appreciate a LOT you putting it in print. Don't think I've
seen it summarized as well or concisely...</DIV>
<DIV> There are MANY who will press that the sequences are to
be "building blocks" to some ultimate goal of complexity and par-level
competitiveness with the FAI trends. THAT I don't agree with.</DIV>
<DIV> I particuarly like the criteria about "judgeable by
available judges" - that is SO important....as Troy pointed out, the more
difficult and "new" you make maneuvers, the more "judging load" is placed on -
Guess Who? - *US*....If there's a reasonable purpose to that, I'm all for it,
but I don't read much in terms of justifiable rationale for making sequences
more difficult.</DIV>
<DIV> Anyone know the REAL answer? (this is also related to
the core question I've had - "WHY a 5kg UPPER limit??")</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Bob Pastorello<BR>NSRCA 199, AMA 46373<BR><A
href="mailto:rcaerobob@cox.net">rcaerobob@cox.net</A><BR><A
href="http://www.rcaerobats.net">www.rcaerobats.net</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=johnferrell@earthlink.net
href="mailto:johnferrell@earthlink.net">John Ferrell</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, October 23, 2002 6:09
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Masters 2005 Options</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>