<!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>The limits as they were considered and passed down came as
follows.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>1. 5kg for any class of any event including
gliders long before the next set.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>2. Then we put a noise limit by defining db and the size
of the box known as footprint.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>3.Then finally threw engine size and said anything
for engine but maximum size shall be two meters (retaining 1 and
2).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>It was believed that everyone would have to develop skill
to come close to this last one. BUT now we reverse things and say it must be 2m
now lets move the weight. Too difficult lets change the footprint. Why
follow lets go our own.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Critically we follow. We are not leading in
defining FAI categories. In most events we participate almost what
you would call half heartedly. A few put the effort to be there and the
rest don't know what you are talking about. All categories not just
F3A.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Sure we can go our own way but the events are bigger than
just our little corner</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Rick</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>PS Note that because of events such as the TOC there have
been groanings in other countries too.</FONT></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=rcaerobob@cox.net href="mailto:rcaerobob@cox.net">Bob Pastorello</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 7:49
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Masters 2005 Options</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>