<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sportsman - No box</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Intermediate - Big Box</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Advanced - Smaller Box</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Masters - Endless Box </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sounds good to ME
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </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
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=pattern4u@comcast.net href="mailto:pattern4u@comcast.net">Grow
Pattern</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, March 02, 2005 6:32
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Pattern Box Rules
(discussion)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>I have always liked the idea that John puts forward below.
Primarily because <BR>it lends itself to cultivating entry into pattern. The
next class of <BR>advancement could have partial turnarounds and then the next
one full <BR>turnaround.<BR><BR>A 401 class with more interesting center
maneuvers and no turnarounds would <BR>invite, or convert, a lot of
pattern-hesitant people that I know today.<BR><BR>On the other end of the
spectrum, I have watched many of, how should I say <BR>it, our elder
contestants get into trouble with the turnarounds in the 403 <BR>and 404
classes. They can fly very well indeed but are a bit past having <BR>bionic
vision capability for the turnarounds, or at least lining the plane <BR>up
coming out of the scored turnarounds.<BR><BR>They could fly the same center
maneuvers as a Masters pilot but opt for any <BR>type of turnaround. It could
easily be a class with a class, like sports car <BR>racing?<BR><BR>I know it
is a bit "out of the box", but when will I be able to convince the
<BR>majority that we need to make it more attractive to not just join but also
<BR>stay at the end? If we keep looking at a problem through the eyes of our
<BR>young bucks and top end pilots we miss a big chance to have an awful lot
of <BR>fun.<BR><BR>Regards,<BR><BR>Eric.<BR><BR>P.S. I think that the current
box is fine as it is. The rules are clear. The <BR>judges just don't seem to
know them very well. It may well be an education <BR>issue as opposed to a
legislation one.<BR><BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: "John Ferrell"
<<A
href="mailto:johnferrell@earthlink.net">johnferrell@earthlink.net</A>><BR>To:
<<A
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A>><BR>Sent:
Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:07 PM<BR>Subject: Re: Pattern Box Rules
(discussion)<BR><BR><BR>> Great idea!<BR>> Leave the box alone for the
Masters class & get rid of the box for the <BR>> lower classes.<BR>>
No offense intended, but the Masters Class has ruled the lower Classes too
<BR>> long, time to ratchet down the difficulty in hopes of finding a few
entry <BR>> level pilots in District 2. Y'all are welcome to the
challenge!<BR>><BR>> While we are at it, we could forget about the 60
degrees and jus use a <BR>> 3-4-5 triangle to lay out the Masters & FAI
box. Surely they would not <BR>> notice just a few degrees shorter....
:-)<BR>><BR>> John Ferrell<BR>> <A
href="http://DixieNC.US">http://DixieNC.US</A><BR>><BR>> ----- Original
Message ----- <BR>> From: "Joe Lachowski" <<A
href="mailto:jlachow@hotmail.com">jlachow@hotmail.com</A>><BR>> To:
<<A href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A>><BR>>
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 5:28 PM<BR>> Subject: Re: Pattern Box Rules
(discussion)<BR>><BR>><BR>>> The 75 degree box is just as bad as
no box at all. I flew the 75 degree <BR>>> box in a couple of IMAC
contests when they used it and thought that that <BR>>> big of a box was
a joke and presented less of a challenge. Leave the box <BR>>> alone.
Let's bury this obsurd idea right now!!<BR>>><BR>>>>From: <A
href="mailto:vicenterc@comcast.net">vicenterc@comcast.net</A><BR>>>>Reply-To:
<A
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A><BR>>>>To:
<A href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A>, <A
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A><BR>>>>CC:
<A
href="mailto:BUDDYonRC@aol.com">BUDDYonRC@aol.com</A><BR>>>>Subject:
Re: Pattern Box Rules (discussion)<BR>>>>Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005
22:10:27 +0000<BR>>>><BR>>>>IMAC changed to 90 degree box
this
year.<BR>>>><BR>>>>Vince<BR>>>><BR>>>>--------------
Original message --------------<BR>>>><BR>>>>As a member of
the rules change committee I am trying to determine if <BR>>>>there
is interest in pursuing this matter and welcome a discussion and
<BR>>>>suggestions regarding this issue<BR>>>>I have
outlined some of the issues and suggestions pertaining to this
<BR>>>>below and welcome your
opinions.<BR>>>><BR>>>>The pattern box was added to the AMA
rules when the turnaround method of<BR>>>>Presentation and scoring
was initiated. It defines the limited scoring <BR>>>>area where all
maneuvers must be performed.<BR>>>>The purpose of the box is to
provide a uniform but somewhat flexible area <BR>>>>of presentation
that allows the pilot the opportunity to tailor his
<BR>>>>presentation to the requirements of the pattern being flown,
and allow <BR>>>>judges to score his presentation on an equitable
basis when compared to <BR>>>>the presentations of other pilots
flying the sequence.<BR>>>>The rules provide for specific score
penalties for performing any <BR>>>>maneuver either out of the box or
partially out of the box, making it all <BR>>>>important that all box
violations are downgraded the same by all judges <BR>>>>to provide
the correct score earned.<BR>>>>Over the years the failure of judges
to provide a uniform application of <BR>>>>box violations has
resulted in an unfair advantage to some pilots and a
<BR>>>>disadvantage to others.<BR>>>>In many cases box line
poles are not or cannot be provided to give the <BR>>>>pilot or judge
the visual reference necessary which becomes the primary
<BR>>>>reason among others that this condition continues to
exist.<BR>>>>In addition to the above the present box configuration
increases the <BR>>>>possibility of a midair collision when two
flight lines are used because <BR>>>>many pilots strive to utilize
the same optimum distance out in their
<BR>>>>presentation.<BR>>>>By reconfiguring the box more
area will be available for those who wish <BR>>>>to fly in closer
with out fear of box violation downgrades, this will <BR>>>>also
allow those who experience vision difficulties at greater distances
<BR>>>>the possibly to be more competitive<BR>>>> In
order to provide a method that will more nearly insure equity to all
<BR>>>> participants and simplify the task of judges, while possibly
reducing <BR>>>> the occurrences of midair collision, and also
encourage those with <BR>>>> limited eyesight at the greater
distances to participate, It has been <BR>>>> suggested that a rules
change be requested to modify the pattern box <BR>>>> layout and
redefine the box boundary infringement
penalty.<BR>>>><BR>>>>One suggestion was to revise the box
size by changing the box line from <BR>>>>Sixty (60) degrees to
Seventy-five (75) degrees. And adopt a uniform <BR>>>>system of
accessing penalties similar to the FAI rule or to the method
<BR>>>>used in IMAC<BR>>>><BR>>>>Another suggestion
which may offer solutions to more of the inherent <BR>>>>problems
experienced with the present box layout and scoring methods
<BR>>>>would be to adopt<BR>>>>A box layout and penalty
system as described in the AMA Scale Aerobatics <BR>>>>Rules Item 4.1
with modifications to suit pattern.<BR>>>><BR>>>>Buddy
Brammer<BR>>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>
=================================================<BR>>> To access the
email archives for this list, go to<BR>>> <A
href="http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/">http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/</A><BR>>>
To be removed from this list, go to <A
href="http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm">http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm</A><BR>>>
and follow the instructions.<BR>>><BR>>><BR>><BR>><BR>>
=================================================<BR>> To access the email
archives for this list, go to<BR>> <A
href="http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/">http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/</A><BR>>
To be removed from this list, go to <A
href="http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm">http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm</A><BR>>
and follow the instructions.<BR>>
<BR><BR>=================================================<BR>To access the
email archives for this list, go to<BR><A
href="http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/">http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/</A><BR>To
be removed from this list, go to <A
href="http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm">http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm</A><BR>and
follow the instructions.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>