<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Bill,
<br>I seem to have the same feeling about all of this that you have.By
my recollection, the survey that asked, "should the Master's schedule be
changed every 3 years?", also asked the same question relative to 401,402,403
and the answer was in the affirmative in all cases, and yet the only one
that was acted on was Master's.
<br>I, for one, think that a pretty viable case could be made to have in
place a fixed set of schedules for 401- 403, however, it does not appear
to me that the wishes of the masses were honored in all areas, unless I'm
missing something that's glaringly unapparent somewhere.
<br>BTW, Have you tried flying the current 403 schedule? That's got to
be the most unimaginative sequence that has ever been assembled, with the
Immelman, Double I, outside I, all in series. Man, you talk about going
around and around. I know that I'm probably ruffling someone's feathers
here, but that couldn't have been a colaborative effort or somebody would
have said "wait a minute, this is no good".
<br>It's not that hard to devise new refreshing, flowing schedules, with
substance. Like an Advanced schedule with a 3-leaf Clover(not hard), and
a Horizontal Hourglass, you know, something a little diffreent from the
same-ole, same-ole.I think that it was an error to have dropped that wonderful
6-sided outside and would like to see that reinstated. And Intermediate
could have 17-19 maneuvers, instead of gettin' 'em down so the big boys
can go up.
<br>I think that it's pretty easy to compose schedules that are interesting,
as well as challenging and specific to the skill levels of each class under
consideration.
<br>Piece o' Cake.
<br>G.
<p>Bill Glaze wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Eric:
<br>Somewhere in your lucid explanation there must be a reason that the
other classes did not commence with the composition of new schedules when
the Masters schedule was composed.
<br>Obviously, these other classes then could have been installed
when the Masters was. People are available that would have been more
than eager to work on the other classes parallel to the classe(s) which
were changed. Was there no opportunity for that to happen?
To someone on the outside looking in, it just seems as if part of the organization
moved ahead, while part was left to stagnate. Or so I see it.
Illuminate me.
<br>In the event, it would seem to me that now is the time to compose the
committees, which in turn can formulate the schedules for all of us, all
classes. Perhaps this is ongoing, and I just haven't been aware of
it. I hope.
<br>Respectfully,
<br>Bill Glaze
<p>Henderson,Eric wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midE738E219A3E261479F5702D7EBBD3C57946AA7@bobcat.ent.gartner.com"><span
class="177470718-23012004"><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>Bill,</font></font></font></span><span
class="177470718-23012004"><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>
It's not fair to say the vote was ignored.The vote occurred just before
the change-cycle for the AMA closed. there was absolutely no way to propose
complete schedule and ascending schedule changes in the time available.</font></font></font></span> <span
class="177470718-23012004"><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>The
lead time to make new schedules took over a year the last time we did them.
A sub-committee, split into two teams, and did approx.. four schedules
for each class. They were tested and tested, and then voted on at sub-committee
level. the winners were narrowed down and voted on at the NSRCA board level
and finally sent out in the NSRCA survey as structured groups of schedule
options for the NSRCA membership to vote on. ( We all got the same stipend
for all of the work!)</font></font></font></span> <span
class="177470718-23012004"><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>The
next window when the voted-on-change-all-schedules-change can be proposed
to the AMA is in two years time. The Annex proposal, if it passes, should
help us a lot in this process. But if we want to design what we fly, it
almost behooves us to start designing now. Tony understand this stuff.
He had the vision and was the one that commissioned the original sub-committees
long before I got the job of finishing them.</font></font></font></span> <span
class="177470718-23012004"><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>Regards,</font></font></font></span> <span
class="177470718-23012004"><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>Eric.</font></font></font></span> <span
class="177470718-23012004"></span>
<div class="OutlookMessageHeader" dir="ltr"><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1>-----Original
Message-----</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated">discussion-request@nsrca.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Bill Glaze</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>Sent:</b> Friday, January 23,
2004 1:25 PM</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated">discussion@nsrca.org</a></font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>Subject:</b> Re: Artistic Aerobatics</font></font>
<br> </div>
Interesting, that this subject should come up.
<br>I feel that a big factor, would be the very thing that is under
our noses. (admittedly, some few will object to the idea)
<br>Change the flight sequences at least every 3 years, as the questionnaire
said. Said questionnaire was ignored in this particular, in the last
rules cycle for all but (significantly) Masters. And, of course,
FAI.
<br>It would help in the boredom category. IMHO, it would help much
more than looking at pattern airplanes flop all over the sky. But
then, who am I? I haven't even done a great job of what we're flying
now.<G>
<br>In any event, Eric, I sure appreciate that you're so active in the
idea dept.
<p>Bill Glaze
<br>NSRCA 2388
<br>AMA 2221
<br>IMAC 1624
<br>N7WWS
<p>Henderson,Eric wrote:
<blockquote
cite="midE738E219A3E261479F5702D7EBBD3C5701F0C2@bobcat.ent.gartner.com"
type="cite"><style></style>
<span class="698583514-23012004"><span class="698583514-23012004"><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>As
some of you may know I ran an FAI-FG1 event a couple of years ago at the
Nat's after the finals. Quique, Troy and Chad Northeast put on a really
great show for us while we waited for the Masters and FAI results.</font></font></font></span></span> <span class="698583514-23012004"><span class="698583514-23012004"><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>I
have not heard much about this event type since then. I was wondering if
the FAI adopted it or not.</font></font></font></span></span> <span class="698583514-23012004"><span class="698583514-23012004"><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>Flying
a pattern type plane to music is very attractive. It is one of the few
times where the plane does not drown-out the music! More correctly said,
the planes have to comply with size weight and sound FAI regulations. They
do not actually have to be what we fly in a pattern contest. Some guys
use the same planes and swap-in 3-D wings and stabs. They often change
their props.</font></font></font></span></span> <span class="698583514-23012004"><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>It
is, of course, the rest-of-the-world's version of IMAC freestyle.</font></font></font></span> <span class="698583514-23012004"><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>I
have written, <i>not without a shot or two across my bows</i>, that the
delineator between precision aerobatics and scale aerobatics is that pattern
is based on practicing the routine, a lot! </font></font></font></span><span class="698583514-23012004"><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>I
see IMAC pilots practicing tailslides and Harriers and torque rolls, but
rarely the routines they fly. In particular, wannabe IMAC pilots fly the
hover stuff for most of their flights. Once in a while I "push my luck"
and I ask them why they practice most, the thing that they will do least,
in a contest. (Maybe once in a freestyle routine at the end of an event). </font></font></font></span> <span
class="698583514-23012004"><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>The
answer always is, "Because I want to get better at it and it is fun".
Are they having more fun than us? I know that watching a loud plane hover
over the runway is fun for a while but it gets old pretty quick and even
becomes annoying. A bit like when we played our </span>4<span class="698583514-23012004">5's
on repeat. We coul listen to the same song, that we had just purchased,
but our allegedly tone-deaf fathers were soon motivated to become "discus"
throwers!!!!</font></font></font></span> <span
class="698583514-23012004"><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>The
question is still out there however, "Are we boring?" and "Do we, (pattern
pilots), need be more watchable"???</font></font></font></span> <span
class="698583514-23012004"><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>Regards,
it is still winter - Eric.</font></font></font></span> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>