<DIV>Flying an Unknown truely does make it a 2 person flight. I would still welcome the opportunity as the challange and thrill(flying well or goofing up and trying to collect yourself to fly the next manuever) is really great. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I don't know if it really identifies the callers ability, as much as the teams ability. Another thought depends on how much time is allowed to prepare also.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>ed<BR><BR><B><I>rcaerobob@cox.net</I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Before I'd answer whether I wanted one or not, I'd like to have an understanding of what, specifically, the unknown in Masters would "reveal". If pattern is about precision piloting that could be a different thing than an ability to have a good caller....<BR><BR>Just my ignorant opinion.<BR><BR>Bob P.<BR>> <BR>> From: "Grow Pattern" <PATTERN4U@COMCAST.NET><BR>> Date: 2005/01/06 Thu AM 11:25:48 EST<BR>> To: <FLYINTEXAN@HOUSTON.RR.COM>, <BR>> <DISCUSSION@NSRCA.ORG><BR>> Subject: AMA MASTER'S unknown?<BR>> <BR>> How does this list feel about a Masters Nat's final that was different to <BR>> the regular schedule. OR, even an unknown in the final to make it more than <BR>> just three more of the same flown in the heats.<BR>> <BR>> Regards,<BR>> <BR>> Eric.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From:
<FLYINTEXAN@HOUSTON.RR.COM><BR>> To: <DISCUSSION@NSRCA.ORG><BR>> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 11:19 AM<BR>> Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: Annex proposal - development<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > Bill,<BR>> ><BR>> > I guess what I was trying to say was that I would welcome changes to a <BR>> > known sequence once in a while. Memorizing and getting the sequence to <BR>> > flow perfectly is great, but I'm not flying pattern just to memorize stick <BR>> > movements to unconsiously fly one set of manuevers. Pattern flying should <BR>> > be a way to learn how to fly all the elements precisely. By changing the <BR>> > sequence once in a while, the timing and flow may change, but the elements <BR>> > (flying a straight line, nice radius, wind correction, etc.) still apply.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > -Mark<BR>> > ----- Original Message -----<BR>> > From: Bill Glaze
<BILLGLAZE@TRIAD.RR.COM><BR>> > Date: Thursday, January 6, 2005 9:53 am<BR>> > Subject: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: Annex proposal - development<BR>> ><BR>> >> Mark:<BR>> >> I've always liked the idea of unknowns; this one looks as if it's<BR>> >> a good<BR>> >> one. Possibly if unknowns were included at more contests, the<BR>> >> concern<BR>> >> about changing the usual sequences more often would become a moot<BR>> >> point. Thoughts?<BR>> >><BR>> >> Bill Glaze<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> Mark Hunt wrote:<BR>> >><BR>> >> > Sorry to go back a bit on the discussion of changing sequences.....<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > When we held our little 402 grudge match, we decided to spice up<BR>> >> the<BR>> >> > last round by having an unknown. We left the design of the<BR>> >> sequence<BR>>
>> > up to our good friend Mr. Don Ramsey and of course, we were all<BR>> >> very<BR>> >> > nervous (yet excited) about what he might throw at us. I<BR>> >> believe the<BR>> >> > sequence was posted some time ago, but here it is again:<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > Takeoff<BR>> >> > Stall Turn w/ 1/4 up and down, exit upright (C)<BR>> >> > Immelman w/ 2/4, exit upright (T)<BR>> >> > Reverse Triangle Loop, exit upright (C)<BR>> >> > Bunt, no rolls, exit inverted (T)<BR>> >> > Square loop w/ 1/2 roll on top, exit upright (C)<BR>> >> > Humpty Bump, 1/4 up and down, exit upright (T)<BR>> >> > Top Hat w/ 1/2 rolls in verticals, exit upright (C)<BR>> >> > Figure 9, 1/2 roll up, pull over top, exit upright (T)<BR>> >> > 2/4 point roll, exit inverted (C)<BR>> >> > Figure 9 (mid start), push over top, 1/2 roll
down, exit<BR>> >> inverted (T)<BR>> >> > Double immelman, 12 roll on top, no roll out, exit upright (C)<BR>> >> > Half square with 1/2 roll up, exit upright (T)<BR>> >> > 45 deg. downline, one positive snap, exit upright (C)<BR>> >> > Landing<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > We all thought we were going to die when looking at it on<BR>> >> > paper...inverted exits???? However, after seeing it flown and<BR>> >> > actually flying it, it flowed quite nicely. By the time that<BR>> >> round<BR>> >> > was over, many of us chose to try flying it a second and third<BR>> >> time<BR>> >> > for fun....because....it was fun. The elements that need to be<BR>> >> > learned in whatever class can be applied to any sequence<BR>> >> constuction,<BR>> >> > as long as the sequence itself is still in the abilities of that<BR>> >>
class<BR>> >> > of flyer.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > I would prefer to see sequence changes occasionally, whether I<BR>> >> ever<BR>> >> > make to FAI or not.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > -Mark<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > ----- Original Message -----<BR>> >> > From: Bill Glaze <BILLGLAZE@TRIAD.RR.COM><BR>> >> > To: discussion@nsrca.org <DISCUSSION@NSRCA.ORG><BR>> >> > Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 7:10 PM<BR>> >> > Subject: [SPAM] Re: Annex proposal - development<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > gentlemen:<BR>> >> > I believe you are really on to something here; a complete<BR>> >> > organization that can, by action proof, handle it's own affairs<BR>> >> > will require much less "supervision" than if it is perceived as<BR>> >> > being inconsistent. I
don't feel that the organization has been<BR>> >> > ill-served by it's leadership; quite the opposite, in fact. I<BR>> >> > believe we've been very fortunate to have those folks whose<BR>> >> names> have been at the top of the letterhead.<BR>> >> > But, I believe it's time to take a look at what's been mentioned<BR>> >> > here in a new context; one of proving our ability to handle all<BR>> >> > things "in-house" Good thinking.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > Bill Glaze<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > rcaerobob@cox.net wrote:<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> >>I have to agree.... my thoughts have been along similar lines<BR>> >> since the last Annex effort was made. My belief- based only on<BR>> >> understanding organizations - is that the AMA leaders may be more<BR>> >> easily persuaded if they can CLEARLY see that WE (the Pattern<BR>> >>
Community - NSRCA and NON-NSRCA alike) have a structured,<BR>> >> consistent process to ferret out sequence changes, etc.<BR>> >> >><BR>> >> >>Consistent, repeatable processes are key to keeping everyone on<BR>> >> the same page, also.<BR>> >> >><BR>> >> >>I REALLY believe a LOT could be done by us defining and<BR>> >> organizing our processes a bit; providing known structure builds<BR>> >> trust and confidence in the process.<BR>> >> >><BR>> >> >>Bob Pastorello<BR>> >> >><BR>> >> >><BR>> >> >>>From: "Grow Pattern" <PATTERN4U@COMCAST.NET><BR>> >> >>>Date: 2005/01/05 Wed AM 11:16:06 EST<BR>> >> >>>To: <DISCUSSION@NSRCA.ORG><BR>> >> >>>Subject: Annex proposal - development<BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>>If we could ever get away from
the lost cause of trying to<BR>> >> wrest control<BR>> >> >>>away from the AMA, we could perhaps get to the real need to<BR>> >> have a schedule<BR>> >> >>>development system with an annex of maneuvers, a hand picked<BR>> >> team of<BR>> >> >>>schedule designers, a test process, a review process and an<BR>> >> NSRCA members<BR>> >> >>>poll.<BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>>I hate re-inventing the wheel when a clearly defined NSRCA<BR>> >> process would<BR>> >> >>>show the AMA we can do the job as the pattern society. The<BR>> >> emphasis is on a<BR>> >> >>>clearly defined process, not "This is what we did last time"<BR>> >> etc. if it is<BR>> >> >>>clearly defined then the pattern community can join in.<BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>>Annex
processes include items such as adding and subtracting<BR>> >> maneuvers,<BR>> >> >>>rating them - K-factors. Standards, or better still just<BR>> >> guidelines, for the<BR>> >> >>>mix of maneuvers in a schedule. Total K-factors are a good<BR>> >> start but we are<BR>> >> >>>primitive at best in the way we set about this stuff.<BR>> >> Especially when it is<BR>> >> >>>core to the sport!<BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>>Regards,<BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>>Eric.<BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>>----- Original Message ----- <BR>> >> >>>From: "Atwood, Mark" <ATWOODM@PARAGON-INC.COM><BR>> >> >>>To: <DISCUSSION@NSRCA.ORG><BR>> >> >>>Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 10:14 AM<BR>>
>> >>>Subject: RE: Annex proposal<BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>>Ron,<BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>>I would argue that with all the deadlines imposed by the AMA's<BR>> >> rule cycle,<BR>> >> >>>that their 2 year cycle is effectively a 4 year one. It's<BR>> >> almost to the<BR>> >> >>>point that rules need to be submitted for the next cycle before<BR>> >> this one's<BR>> >> >>>even begun.<BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>>While I agree that changes more than once every two years is<BR>> >> not really<BR>> >> >>>needed...the annex would give us a lot more time and freedom to<BR>> >> make changes<BR>> >> >>>more rapidly. Also..it gives us much more certain control. As<BR>> >> it sits<BR>> >>
>>>now...if a sequence is submitted...there is no gaurantee it<BR>> >> will be<BR>> >> >>>accepted...putting us out another 2 years before we can try again.<BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>>-Mark<BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>>-----Original Message-----<BR>> >> >>>From: discussion-request@nsrca.org<BR>> >> >>>[discussion-request@nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte<BR>> >> >>>Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 10:02 AM<BR>> >> >>>To: discussion@nsrca.org<BR>> >> >>>Subject: Re: Annex proposal<BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>>On Jan 5, 2005, at 8:37 AM, randy10926@comcast.net wrote:<BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>><BR>> >>
>>>>maybe it's time to dust it off and re-submit it. Maybe more<BR>> >> contest>>>>board members will attend and vote. It sounds like a<BR>> >> good idea to try<BR>> >> >>>>and rework this before all the scedules are submitted.<BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>My original plan for the annex proposal was for NSRCA to have<BR>> >> control>>>over an annex containing the maneuver descriptions and<BR>> >> maneuver>>>schedules, so that we could change maneuver schedules<BR>> >> when we wanted to<BR>> >> >>>and not be limited by AMAs three-year rule change cycle. AMA<BR>> >> refused>>>to even accept that proposal and, consequently, did not<BR>> >> allow the<BR>> >> >>>contest board to vote on it. The second proposal gave AMA veto<BR>> >>
power>>>over the maneuvers and maneuver schedules. It failed<BR>> >> because a contest<BR>> >> >>>board member, who would have voted YES, forgot to vote in time.<BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>>Then AMA announced they were going to a two-year rules cycle,<BR>> >> obviating>>>one of the reasons for the annex proposal. Since it's<BR>> >> unlikely that<BR>> >> >>>we'd want to change maneuver schedules every year, AMA's rule<BR>> >> change>>>cycle change gave us a lot of what we wanted with the<BR>> >> annex system<BR>> >> >>>except control over them. Since AMA is unlikely to relinquish<BR>> >> control>>>over the maneuver schedules, submission of a new annex<BR>> >> proposal>>>wouldn't give us much we don't already have.<BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>>Ron Van Putte<BR>>
>> >>><BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>>>-------------- Original message --------------<BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>>>On Jan 5, 2005, at 6:45 AM, Joe Lachowski wrote:<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>> ><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>>>>It might have passed if it was written and ironed out before the<BR>> >> >>>>>><BR>> >> >>>>>><BR>> >> >>>> > > proposal was submitted. It probably would have had a much<BR>> >> better>>>> > > chance. The competition board would have at least<BR>> >> had something to<BR>> >>
>>>><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>>>>work with in making their decision.<BR>> >> >>>>>><BR>> >> >>>>>><BR>> >> >>>> ><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>>>That's not true. The only way AMA would have accepted an annex<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>> > proposal was if AMA had veto power over the maneuver<BR>> >> schedules. The<BR>> >> >>>> > original proposal did not have that. The second proposal<BR>> >> did give<BR>> >> >>>>AMA<BR>> >> >>>> > veto power, but didn't pass because one contest board<BR>> >> member didn't<BR>> >> >>>> > vote.<BR>> >> >>>> ><BR>>
>> >>>><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>>>Ron Van Putte<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>> ><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>> > >> From: "Del Rykert"<BR>> >> >>>> > >> Reply-To: discussion@nsrca.org<BR>> >> >>>> > >> To:<BR>> >> >>>> > >> Subject: Re: Annex proposal<BR>> >> >>>> > >> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 06:07:35 -0500<BR>> >> >>>> > >><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>>>>>It was tried to implement but shot down Terry.<BR>> >> >>>>>>><BR>> >> >>>>>>><BR>> >> >>>> >
>><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>>>>>del<BR>> >> >>>>>>><BR>> >> >>>>>>><BR>> >> >>>> > >><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>>>>>----- Original Message -----<BR>> >> >>>>>>>From: Terry Brox<BR>> >> >>>>>>><BR>> >> >>>>>>><BR>> >> >>>> > >> To: discussion@nsrca.org<BR>> >> >>>> > >> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 9:44 PM<BR>> >> >>>> > >> Subject: Annex proposal<BR>> >> >>>> > >><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>>>>>What is the real or perceived problem with
the Annex<BR>> >> system. I am<BR>> >> >>>>>>><BR>> >> >>>>>>><BR>> >> >>>> > >> not an IMAC flier, but it looks like it works well for them.<BR>> >> >>>> > >> I don't want to start a war here, but I am not sure why<BR>> >> one would<BR>> >> >>>> > >> have a problem with a system that could help alleviate the<BR>> >> >>>>problems<BR>> >> >>>> > >> associated with our current system. Lets hear both sides.<BR>> >> >>>> > >> Respectfully Terry Brox<BR>> >> >>>> > ><BR>> >> >>>> > ><BR>> >> >>>> > > =================================================<BR>> >> >>>> > > To access the email archives for this list, go to<BR>> >>
>>>><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>>>>http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/<BR>> >> >>>>>><BR>> >> >>>>>><BR>> >> >>>> > > To be removed from this list, go to<BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>>>>http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm<BR>> >> >>>>>><BR>> >> >>>>>><BR>> >> >>>> > > and follow the instructions.<BR>> >> >>>> > ><BR>> >> >>>> ><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>>>=================================================<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>> > To access the email archives for this
list, go to<BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>>>http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>> > To be removed from this list, go to<BR>> >> >>>>http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm<BR>> >> >>>> > and follow the instructions.<BR>> >> >>>> ><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>================To access the email archives for this list, go to<BR>> >> >>>http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/<BR>> >> >>>To be removed from this list, go to<BR>> >> http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm>>>and follow the instructions.<BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>>================To access the email archives
for this list, go to<BR>> >> >>>http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/<BR>> >> >>>To be removed from this list, go to<BR>> >> http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm>>>and follow the instructions.<BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>>=================================================<BR>> >> >>>To access the email archives for this list, go to<BR>> >> >>>http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/<BR>> >> >>>To be removed from this list, go to<BR>> >> http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm>>>and follow the instructions.<BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >><BR>> >> >>Bob Pastorello, El Reno, OK, USA<BR>> >> >>rcaerobob@cox.net<BR>> >> >>www.rcaerobats.net<BR>> >>
>><BR>> >> >>=================================================<BR>> >> >>To access the email archives for this list, go to<BR>> >> >>http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/<BR>> >> >>To be removed from this list, go to<BR>> >> http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm>>and follow the instructions.<BR>> >> >><BR>> >> >><BR>> >> >><BR>> >> >><BR>> >> >><BR>> >><BR>> ><BR>> > =================================================<BR>> > To access the email archives for this list, go to<BR>> > http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/<BR>> > To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm<BR>> > and follow the instructions.<BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> =================================================<BR>> To access the email archives for this list, go
to<BR>> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/<BR>> To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm<BR>> and follow the instructions.<BR>> <BR>> <BR><BR>Bob Pastorello, El Reno, OK, USA<BR>rcaerobob@cox.net<BR>www.rcaerobats.net<BR><BR>=================================================<BR>To access the email archives for this list, go to<BR>http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/<BR>To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm<BR>and follow the instructions.<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>