<DIV>Troy and the groups involved have a great deal of experience and understanding of the skill transitions involved. Maybe I continue to have too much of an emotional (left brain) attachment to the current Advanced schedule, that has caused some myopic thinking when I first flew the new schedules. </DIV>
<DIV>In my case the learning process in Pattern has been slow. Six years from Basic to Advanced. Getting the basic wings level and rudder inputs to be automatic took a long time.</DIV>
<DIV>I started to have doubts if I would ever make it to Masters or FAI. Addopting a more serious practice routine, when I came to Advanced helped a lot and I felt things really started coming together for me. I have startied practicing the Masters schedule, which has been a challenging but not an intimidating transition. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Rodney Tanner</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><B><I>Joe Lachowski <jlachow@hotmail.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">The leap is not monumental. The fact is, there are more manuevers(4) in <BR>Masters which make it look that way.<BR><BR>Terry, if the schedules are too easy for you, I challenge you to fly them in <BR>front of Dave Lockhart, Ed Alt and myself( alll on sequence committee) and <BR>score 8's or better on everything at Sayre. You have a week to practice <BR>one or both if you choose.<BR><BR>The only thing that is going to get you to Masters is practice, practice, <BR>practice.<BR><BR>Joe Lachowski<BR><BR>>From: Terry Terrenoire <AMAD2TERRY@JUNO.COM><BR>>Reply-To: discussion@nsrca.org<BR>>To: discussion@nsrca.org<BR>>Subject: Re: [SPAM] 2007 Advanced Patterns<BR>>Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 05:52:26 -0400<BR>><BR>>I could not agree more, Rodney. That is a monumental leap from Adv to<BR>>Masters. I have not looked at the KF diff from Int to Adv, but would
be<BR>>willing to bet that it is not nearly a 19 point difference.<BR>><BR>>Terry T.<BR>><BR>><BR>>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:57:53 -0700 (PDT) Rodney Tanner<BR>><RODNEY19821982@YAHOO.COM> writes:<BR>>Terry,<BR>>I have flown both the 2007 Advanced patterns and prefer option A. but<BR>>having no inverted sequences is a let down. IMHO neither is any where<BR>>near as good/challenging as the current schedule. Troy has and his team<BR>>have outlined the rational behind their selection: the new patterns are<BR>>aimed at giving a smoother transition for Intermediate pilots moving up,<BR>>rather than current Advanced pilots. So maybe we have to practice hard on<BR>>the current schedule and then make the logical move to Masters in 2007.<BR>>My concern is the huge distance that will now open up now between<BR>>Advanced and Masters. Total KF of 48 versus 67. My $0.02 worth.<BR>><BR>>Rodney T.<BR>><BR>>Terry Terrenoire
<AMAD2TERRY@JUNO.COM>wrote:<BR>>This IS published in advance, and all pilots know it, so there is no<BR>>problem, at least there was not in the 7 years I was involved. We<BR>>certainly do not need more rules!!!! Especially a national rule that<BR>>pertains to just one, 4 day event a year!<BR>><BR>>While on the subject of rules changes. A while ago I commented on the<BR>>"dumbing down" of the Advance pattern, and had just one or two comments.<BR>>How many of you Advance fliers think that it is prudent to go from 4<BR>>inverted maneuvers to NONE. How is that possibly going to prepare you for<BR>>the difficulty of Masters??? Have any of you even looked at the proposal?<BR>>How many of you have flown the 2 proposed schedules?<BR>><BR>> Sure would like to hear some comments from other Advance and Masters<BR>>pilots, pro or con!!<BR>><BR>>Terry T.<BR>><BR>>On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:05:57 -0500 "Bob Pastorello"
<RCAEROBOB@COX.NET><BR>>writes:<BR>>As a "non Nats" guy at the present - a thought - since a Rules cycle<BR>>submittal is pending, I think that ANY considerations about "penalties"<BR>>for not judging had BETTER BE BUILT INTO AMA rules.<BR>>The AMA Sanctions a national event, and I would bet dollars to donuts<BR>>that a subsequent protest for zeroed rounds would WIN - due to the fact<BR>>that there is NO AMA provision in the rules to cover the situations you<BR>>all are describing.<BR>><BR>>I'm not taking sides, nor pointing fingers/blame.<BR>><BR>>Simply suggesting that NOW is the time to try and get a rule change to<BR>>support the propositions of "enforcement". Could be important.<BR>><BR>>Bob Pastorello<BR>>www.rcaerobats.net<BR>>rcaerobob@cox.net<BR>>----- Original Message -----<BR>>From: Ron Van Putte<BR>>To: discussion@nsrca.org<BR>>Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 10:14 AM<BR>>Subject: Re: Nats Judging
Rebate-keep their best SCORE!<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>On Jul 27, 2005, at 9:48 AM, Gray E Fowler wrote:<BR>><BR>><BR>>Money does not matter, scores do. In the past, was it not work or lose<BR>>your best round? THAT keeps people on their toes.<BR>><BR>><BR>>That's done now.<BR>><BR>><BR>>I also heard that some people coming to FAI and Masters did not submit<BR>>TWO frequencies, creating matrix hassles. Same here- assign the matrix to<BR>>make sense and if the person does not have his alternate frequency as was<BR>>requested on the NATS entry form then he simply does not fly that round.<BR>>The CD needs relief, and the contestants need the MOST fair matrix that<BR>>can be had.<BR>><BR>><BR>>No argument here.<BR>><BR>>Ron Van Putte<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>Ron Van Putte <VANPUTTE@COX.NET><BR>><BR>>Sent by: discussion-request@nsrca.org<BR>><BR>><BR>>07/27/2005 09:33 AM<BR>><BR>>Please respond
to<BR>><BR>>discussion@nsrca.org<BR>><BR>><BR>>To<BR>><BR>>discussion@nsrca.org<BR>><BR>>cc<BR>><BR>>Subject<BR>><BR>>Nats Judging Rebate<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>Last week at the Nats, I had a talk with Nats event director, Dave<BR>>Guerin about judging no-shows. On the very first morning, Dave had at<BR>>least three no-shows (F3A pilots who were supposed to judge the Master<BR>>class). You can imagine the frustration of trying to reschedule pilots<BR>>to cover for them, not to mention the delay in getting the events<BR>>started. This was not an isolated case. It happened over and over<BR>>during the week. Some just forgot when they were supposed to judge.<BR>>There were even some who were scheduled to judge on the third day, who<BR>>decided to leave after two days and didn't tell anyone.<BR>><BR>>We discussed having a "$50 judging rebate". It would work like this:<BR>>In addition
to the normal entry fees, $50 would be collected. If a<BR>>pilot showed up to perform his scheduled judging session, he'd get a<BR>>$50 rebate. If a pilot didn't show up to perform his scheduled judging<BR>>session, the replacement judge would get the $50. BTW, the normal<BR>>stipend for pilots who perform extra judging sessions is $30.<BR>>Comments?<BR>><BR>>Ron Van Putte<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>>List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the<BR>>list.<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>List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the list.<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>