TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

Scott, I would elaborate but you have made a point to disagree with me no matter what I say. So you choose one and go with it!

MTK

Me too...I like the word "Sportsman"....Nothing wrong with it at all, just like old times when I first entered Pattern. It WAS the entry class to Pattern in late 70's and 80's. It was moderately easy to fly but very hard to fly it well. It taught us all what it took to put the model exactly where you wanted at all times

Several years ago we toyed with the entry class name. The words "Rookie", "Basic", "Primer", a few others were kicked around but none made it. Personally, The IMAC guys got this one right with "Basic" being quite descriptive in their sport.

I think Joe is right in suggesting a change to make the current Sportsman non-TA and changing its name.

smcharg

My Feedback: (1)

Gentlemen,
Over the weekend, the NSRCA BoD voted to change the Advanced Sequence for 2013/2014. This makes it official. Please understand this does not mean we have accepted any of the proposed sequences; it merely means we have voted to change it. Although Masters is scheduled to be changed every two years, the NSRCA BoD must vote whether to change any of the other sequences, and that is what has taken place for Advanced. Please use this time to fly and comment on the proposed sequence from the Sequence Committee for not only Masters, but Advanced as well. Please see post #36 of this thread for contact information of the Sequence Committee.

Warmest Regards,
Scott

rcpattern

My Feedback: (45)

Tony,

I am curious as to why the issue with the downwind Avalanche. Avalanche's in the past have been flown downwind as it puts the snap into the wind. I do understand the issue that the front half has to be flown much tighter wind correcting in a strong head wind, but it does put the snap into the wind, which has its advantages. I think the lack of inverted exits is a far greater issue in this sequence,

Arch

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

I haven't followed every pattern ever flown, but I have never seen an avalanche put in to a schedule to be flown downwind. Keeping it round with the snap being flown upwind is a real problem. Unless you snap at a high throttle setting, the model will drop in air speed during the snap. Also, if you do an inside snap, which most advanced fliers I see do, the nose is going to drop. Combination of reducing airspeed and dropping nose works when the snap is on the downwind portion of the loop. If it's on the upwind portion it is going to make keeping the loop round much harder. The Advanced Pattern is the first time the flier is being introduced to snaps. Why complicate thing even more? I think it is a very poor choice.

Personally, I think changing the Advanced schedule this cycle is not needed. At the contests I've been to and judged I have not seen an over abundance of the current advanced pattern being flown extremely well. And I have seen very few pilots fly it in both directions. I think a change is unwarranted.

DaveL322

+1 on not changing Advanced....

So far as the downwind Avalanche....it has been used quite a bit in the past (probably during a time when Tony was taking a break from pattern)...certainly in Masters, and I think in Advanced. And the triangle snap loop in Masters has also started downwind....putting the snap into the wind has been the preference for most. Certainly there is a difference between a straight line snap and Avalanche, but I really haven't seen any problems with the downwind Avalanche.

Regards,

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

I could see using a downwind avalanche in Masters. It would add another level of difficulty to an otherwise straight forward maneuver for a Masters pilot. But I think it would be a poor choice in Advanced for exactly the same reason. If it had been in an Advanced schedule before, then it was a poor choice then. No reason to use it again for this next cycle. Sort of like doing the upwind Stall turn in intermediate. It was in the pattern before, but no reason to use it again.

MTK

At our local contests, I have seen at most 2 Advanced pilots at any given time I think.

Dave and Tony are right...What's the point of changing it?

jonlowe

My Feedback: (12)

It may be a moot point because I understand the NSRCA Board voted to change it in the last few days.

That being said, I've seen several people stay in Advanced for years, and not progress to Masters, and I've seen a couple of older Masters pilots petition and go back to Advanced. An occasional change in the sequence is not a bad thing, and make sure the pilots that fly it year after year don't get bored and drop out altogether.

smcharg

My Feedback: (1)

This is my personal opinion. I fly Advanced and am in transition to Masters. This is going to be a little bit off an "off year" for me as school, work and family with 4 children take precedence I feel that I did fairly well last year winning D6 Advanced Champion losing only 1 competition and a total of 6 rounds over 6 contests as well as finishing second at the Nats in 2011. I am not saying these things to impress anyone and certainly not trying to honk my own horn but to give a little background of me and my ability.

protectedpilot

Do you mean pilots like Matt Fredericks? He has posted here on this subject, look back in the thread. I've checked with several others in my district, with a slim majority favoring change, but most agree the loops are tough for Advanced. The Avalanche is integrated, because rudder is applied. But it is easier than an integrated loop, most guys just corner the sticks. There is no such simple way to do the loops.

Brian

smcharg

My Feedback: (1)

You mean like the email you sent me asking my opinion? I gave you the same message and you thought it was excellent input. I like the pattern that is proposed for Advanced to some extent. Could it be made better? I think it could. Does it need this or that? Sure. My point is not the individual maneuvers Brian, but the fact that this pattern does not prepare you for Masters. We discussed that as well and you agreed. You just moved up. You know the difficulties.

klhoard

My Feedback: (10)

.
I plan on camping out in Advanced for many years. . . all the cool people are over at Site 4 . . .
.

jgg215

Consider me another Advanced flyer voting for changing the Advanced pattern. While I have some issues with the proposed pattern, I agree with Scott that it is still an inadequate preparation for Masters and should be harder. And speaking of Masters,  there are many Masters that are struggling with the current pattern. Perhaps they should be considered and we should decrease the difficulty of Masters. Makes more sense than not changing the Advanced pattern because some have not learned to fly a schedule equally well from both directions. Not changing because of low turnout in some areas is even more ludicrous. Not only is it irrelevant to the need for a schedule change, in the three contests I've attended this year, Advanced was the largest class in two(6 and 11) and still had a field of eight in the third.
I fail to see why FAI and Masters pilots think they have a horse in this race. I suggest you use your expertise to make constructive suggestions about both patterns and drop resistance to changing the pattern. What could it possibly hurt to change the Advanced pattern????

John Gayer

jgg215

Brian,
I assume all these pilots have tried the two loops in the new advanced pattern? I have and it is not difficult if you use the throttle appropriately. It is far less difficult than trying to stretch a slow roll over 90 or 180 degrees at the top of a loop. This seems to be your reference point for difficulty. Advanced pilots will figure it out quite quickly.
We have four multi-year advanced pilots out here in the western part of district 6 and others that compete less regularly. None of us were consulted. I am a beta tester for this pattern and would have appreciated being included in your informal survey.
JohnGayer

SanJoseDale

I thought there was a survey done on this forum last year, and a large majority of pilots supported a change for advanced.

Dale

VerneK

Unless I missed it, I haven't seen a single post in this thread expressing concern for an Intermediate pilot transitioning into Advanced. Let's see, in Intermediate, you learn how to keep a fairly basic set of maneuvers in the box. That's what Intermediate is, learning to fly in the box and at that level, it's a huge step.

Now from there, we go to Advanced where you have to learn how to do a slow roll, 4-point roll, snap, and spin. Do you really think Advanced should be more difficult, or Masters for that matter? If we don't keep the steps reasonable for pilots on their way up, nothing else will matter. You won't have enough contestants at a local contest to fill a country bar on a Tuesday afternoon. That's what the sequence building guidelines are all about. You can't ever build a new schedule simply looking forward to the next higher step. You always have to have your eye in the rear view mirror. If you don't, the next look you get will be an empty mirror.

Verne Koester

jgg215

Verne,

There are a couple of different things going on here. One is a discussion as to whether Advanced schedule shold be changed at all. The second is a discussion of the maneuvers in the proposed pattern.
I don't see how changing the pattern afffects the transistion from Intermediate and the proposed schedule appears easier to me than the old one. I suspect that someone moving up to Advanced will score better early on for the new elements such as the cuban 8 and the two loops with 1/2 rolls than they will the slow roll and the four point, which are required elements.

Your point is well-made. Both the Advanced and the Masters pilots on this thread are looking only at what they want in their pattern and not how it impacts the next lower class. However, I think the committee was looking in both directions.

John

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

Verne's point is well made. And while I did not specifically point it out in my posts, I am against the change in Advanced for the very reasons Verne has voiced. Where did anyone get the idea that each class is supposed to prepare you fully for the next class? Each class is supposed to introduce new elements to learn and more importantly, to master those elements before you make the jump to the next class. Then you are tasked to learn the more difficult elements included in that higher class.

The real mistake being made by many is thinking that Masters is not a developmental class. I think you are kidding yourself if you try to say that Masters is a final destination. What is really true is that any of the classes can become a destination class if the person participating in it cannot truly master it. And by that I mean flying it well from both directions. I personally believe that the declining attendance at the majority of our events is causing many to place higher in each of their classes then they really should thus giving them a false sense of being ready for the next higher class. I've seen pilots move from Advanced to Masters and they can't do a slow roll that maintains heading within 20 degrees. Ask them to do it in the opposite wind direction and they might crash.

And I have to say that I have never seen a survey taken either here or on any other internet forum that would hold any water as to providing accurate results.

mjfrederick

Amen.

OK, in response to the difference between an avalanche, and the 2 loop w/ 1/2 rolls question: the difference is in the description. That's why I'm harping on it. The avalanche description does not state that you perform exactly 1/2 loop before you perform the snap, and then exactly 1/2 loop after the snap. The avalanche description states "... at the top [the model] executes a complete snap roll..." This description allows that the snap only be centered at the top. You actually have to start the snap immediately before hitting the apex of the loop, and you go through the apex during the snap, coming out of the snap on the backside of the loop. It is, in fact, integrated as Brian Clemmons pointed out. The description of the proposed maneuver says you fly EXACTLY 1/2 loop, perform 1/2 roll, perform EXACTLY 1 outside loop, 1/2 roll, and EXACTLY 1/2 loop.

Oh, and Brian C, must you always add an "s" to the end of my name?

SanJoseDale

I just want to reiterate, as Scott said, that the NSRCA board did vote and decided that the advanced sequence will change for 2013. The sequence committee has no authority to make this decision, one way or another.

Dale

Portlandflyer

protectedpilot

John, this is a Board issue. I consulted a few pilots I know personally to get a feel; did not conduct a full survey here on RCU. This is one of our main problems with public opinion of the Board; us hashing issues out in public. Do you wonder why we are taking the heat we are, here? I flew the maneuver myself. I called while an Advanced pilot flew the maneuver. I formed my own opinion, then I asked a couple pilots. Geez, chill already.

Brian

protectedpilot

Sorry, Matt, I blame the spellchecker... er, the cat stepped on the keyboard, I mean, the dog ate my homework.... whatever.

Brians

Jetdesign

My Feedback: (8)

The intermediate sequence ending in a spin, rather than a stall turn, sounds like a pretty cool idea. I tried a spin for the first time the other day - it was fun

I agree with Verne - learning a snap, a spin, 4pt roll, and a slow roll as all new maneuvers in one sequence sounds like a lot.