TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

I had not looked at the proposed Advanced schedule for a couple of reasons. It had never officially been sent to me to review. And I kept asking my district VP if the BOD had ever voted to approve changing the Advanced schedule and he kept telling me that they had not. As far as I know the BOD still have not voted to approve changing the Advanced schedule this cycle. Masters had to be changed according to the Guide, but Advanced would only be changed if the BOD voted to do so. I am a little surprised that a proposed Advanced Schedule has been posted prior to a BOD vote.

DaveL322

Tony is correct about the Advanced Sequence. It was not slated to be changed, but there was quite a stir about whether or not it would/should be. The Sequence Committee developed a new one so as to not be caught off guard. I've not heard any updates, but I feel quite comfortable in suggesting IF it were officially changed, there would be complaints about it being changed too frequently.....and IF it is not changed, there will be a similar number of complaints.

I want to be very clear that a number of changes were made in the Sequences during development based on feedback from multiple sources. The bulk of the feedback was positive, and continues to be positive. I certainly didn't get everything I wanted, but, I think majority rule is what the Seq Committee followed. The Seq Committee has zero expectation of making everyone happy....looks like that expectation has been met (not unlike in the past). The Seq Committee also had the expectation that there would be a measurable amount of Monday morning quarterbacking after the Sequences were announced....that expectation has also been met (not unlike in the past). It's quite rare that the Seq Committee is filled with a full slate of active members that have actually read and pay attention to the guidelines. Joe L was extremely dedicated to the Seq Committee for many years, and spent a huge amount of time improving the process and clarifying the guidelines, which, contrary to some astray thought processes, are a living document that has been continually updated for several cycles now.

I've said it many times, if someone does not like the way the Sequences are developed, then take an active part in the group and/or organize a legit survey to accurately poll the masses and see just what difficulty level each class should be at. I talk with a lot of people all over the country, and reguarly coach pilots in all classes, and from what I can see, by and large, the difficulty level of each class is pretty close to what is desired by the majority. Masters has for many years been problematic in that it is difficult to distinguish the best pilots at the NATs....I don't see this changing as the majority of local Masters flyers (which is the overwhelming majority, not the Masters NATs finalists) don't want an increase in the difficulty level of Masters and don't want another FAI class absent the FAI pilots.

Regards,

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

I have tried many times to get on the Sequence Committee. Every attempt has been met with no response. So don't try to imply that I have not tried to take an active part in this process. The only thing I was allowed to do for this cycle was to be a Beta Tester for the Masters schedule. I did my part and I got zero response from the Committee.

mjfrederick

Ok, I'm at the field, just flew through the proposed advanced pattern. My first thought was: this is pretty boring. My next thought was: the 2 loops can't be flown as described. The description of the maneuver makes the rolls not integrated into the loop. The only way I can keep the rolls at the speed I want them is to integrate them into the loop. I did that, and it looked ok for my first try, but it didn't meet the description. So then I flew it doing the rolls as fast as I could to try and meet the description. It still can't be done as described because you get a flat spot at the top, and the loops get out of round. Bottom line, that maneuver needs to go.

rcflyer4fun

Id love to see the sequences change every 2 years to keep things from getting boring...Maybe it would help keep a better balance between all the classes.

J Lachowski

My Feedback: (46)

Try it with throttle managment.

rcflyer4fun

The proposed Advanced pattern looks like a lot of fun...even the 2 loops with 1/2 rolls....Send it thru the system you have my support.

TonyF

My Feedback: (92)

By definition an axial roll at the top of the loop must be integrated with the radius of the loop, unless you can do it instantly. So we cannot use integrated rolls in Masters but it is now in the proposed Advanced pattern. Also, a downwind avalanche is a big mistake.

g_mkoch

What if they change the two stall turns for a figure M but instead of doing 3/4 up like in masters do it 1/4 up, 1/4 down and half inside loop in between. Is the same elements as the two stall turns but different directions (and it looks better ). Change the two loops with rolls for an upwind avalance. Last do a triangle loop (or square loop form corner) with rolling elements where the avalanche was.

Happy Landings

klhoard

My Feedback: (10)

.
That's what I was thinking too. . . . It would have to be a half-loop, roll, and a half-loop. If ya want to keep the loops round, then the roll has to be integrated . .
.
I'm having a hard enough time with this year's sequence, just let me know what you guys figure out.
.

SanJoseDale

All, I was added to the sequence committee last year. Since Joe resigned form the committee, I volunteered and the BOD appointed me as the committee chairman. I will soon be positing the plans for developing and obtaining final approval for these sequences on the NSRCA list.

We will absolutly consider any input form our test pilots or any NSRCA member. Feedback should be posted to that list, the sequence committee email alias or any committee member.

Thanks,

Dale Olstinske

mjfrederick

You missed the point of what I was saying. I can make it "look" integrated with throttle management, I can actually integrate it using rudder, or I can fly the maneuver as written in the description. Here's what the description states:

10. Two loops with half rolls at top (U): Model pulls through one half (1/2) inside loop, performs a half roll, pushes through one full outside loop, performs a half roll, pulls through one half (1/2) inside loop to level horizontal flight at the same altitude of the initial flight entry.

Downgrades:

1. Loop segments not round and of equal radius.
2. Wings not level.
3. Changes in heading during loops.
6. Changes in heading (track) in loop segments or during prescribed rolls.
7. Prescribed rolls not centered at top of loops.
8. Over or under rotation of prescribed rolls. Apply "One Point per 15-Degree Rule"
9. Roll rate not constant.

OK, now I don't know what happened to #'s 4 and 5, but call me crazy, don't #'s 3 and 6 say the same thing? Seriously, though, any time we do consecutive loops in pattern they are intended to be "drawn" in the sky superimposed on top of each other. If that is not the intent of this maneuver, please tell me, because my main issue with the maneuver is that the looping segments can't be kept round. The description of the maneuver DOES NOT make the rolls follow the arc of the loop. Quite the contrary. As described the maneuver is an Immelman Turn followed immediately by an Outside Loop from the top, followed immediately by a Split-S. In what geometrically-backwards world do you people live in that has this maneuver ending up with 2 loops superimposed one on top of the other? If you can't see it, I've got a 5th grade Geometry class we could enroll you in. Either change the description to make the rolls integrated, or remove it altogether. Either way, I don't care, but the maneuver SHOULD NOT be implemented as written because its description invalidates itself.

The Advanced pattern's sole purpose is to teach skills necessary to move up and compete in Masters. I like the thought of bringing back the Double Stall Turn, but why bring it back at the same time that you're removing the Figure M from Masters? Why are you dumbing-down the pattern by having only one inverted exit? Seriously, the pattern is boring. Flying it yesterday I felt like I was flying the Sportsman (Intermediate in today's lingo) pattern from 1994.

RC_Pattern_Flyer

My Feedback: (1)

Why do talk down to people in your arguments.....

I appreciate that you don't agree with the maneuver etc etc...but if myself ord anyone else tries to discuss out you infer your opinion is more right for reasons you seem to deem self evident.

I will not get into this argument...and god help those who choose to.

Chuck Hochhalter

rcpattern

My Feedback: (45)

Matt,

I know you are a fairly proficient Advanced pilot, and maybe that is part of the reason it seems boring. I agree that the patterns now are somewhat easier than they should be, but its not the sequence committee's fault entirely. The rules by which they have to play by are rather stringent, and they probably need looked at. The planes, and equipment continue to improve, but the restrictions on the sequences have not changed. I know those guys work their butts off, as I have been a past member of the sequence committee. It is not easy. There are things in both new sequences that I think could be improved, but that will always be the case. Overall, I don't think these new sequences are an issue.

I think the bigger issue is that we need a significant change to the Sportsman pattern. Actually, not a change, but go back to a mid 1990's sequence and leave it alone forever. The idea of Sportsman is to introduce new people to pattern, and it should be done in a way that doesn't require a high end pattern plane. I see no reason to ever change the Sporstman pattern. If you can't be competitive with a .40 size sport plane, then there is something wrong with the pattern.

Arch

mjfrederick

Agreed on the Sportsman sequence.

I have no doubt that the Sequence Committee puts forth a significant amount of time and effort to develop a new sequence. I'm not discounting that.

Chuck, I apologize for the tone, and it wasn't really directed at any person in particular. My simple point is: either the rolls are integrated or they aren't. If they are, put it in the wording. If they aren't, the rules need to clearly state that, and in addition to that they should specifically state that the loops do not have to be superimposed on each other.

As the current description reads, the maneuver will drift downwind, no matter how slightly, and the bottom of the second loop will not meet the start of the first.

klhoard

My Feedback: (10)

.
+11
.

J Lachowski

My Feedback: (46)

I would like to suggest one other possibility. Leave Sportsman as a regular class in itself and introduce a new class called "Clubman" or "Novice" or whatever you might like it to be. I would make it a completely non turnaround pattern. This way any local guy could pick up any old plane with little to no practice and fly it and have fun. Make it say 10 maneuvers. We could use the last pre-turnaround Novice pattern or something pretty similar.

Ryan Smith

My Feedback: (25)

So would Sportsman be contested at the Nats then?

burtona

My Feedback: (50)

I agree with Arch and Joe except the part about adding a class. I think we have enough to handle from a contest management standpoint. Make Sportsman (or whatever it may be called) a non turnaround event that can be flown with any sport plane. Then have Intermediate the first turnaround event with a schedule that suits the skill a pilot would have when they move out of Sportsman - perhaps a box exit in the middle of the routine to get back on track.
Dave

rcpattern

My Feedback: (45)

I agree with you Dave. There is no reason to have our sportsman class currently. It doesn't teach you much, except a couple of in the box maneuvers, but it is the old stuff with more verticals. I say, get rid of it and let people enjoy the class with sport planes. I love the Turnaround stuff, but it is overwhelming at first. Let people come out and enjoy it without adding a class.

Arch

burtona

My Feedback: (50)

And by the way, if the Sequence Committee is so constrained by the sequence guidelines, maybe it's time to revisit what we want them to be. May be this is a case of less is better if it causes the committee to have so much trouble in developing sequences as the planes and equipment and pilots skill gets better.
Some more creative solutions may be better!
Dave

MTK

Avalanche is defined as a loop with a snap on top (or bottom). There is no special wording that requires the snap to be "integrated". Snap rolls are by definition fast autorotations. The geometry of these types of loops is not questioned even if the snap is a little slow

If one were to do loops with half rolls on top and decided simply to do a fast roll, I don't believe geometry will change in actuality, unless the half roll was butchered. The fast half roll requires less distance to perform than a full snap roll. I am not sure why the geometry of these types of loops is being questioned.

On the other hand, one can do a slow half roll and that one should be integrated. Pilot's choice in my view as judge

danamania

Thinking outside the box, so to speak, could the suggested novice sequence emerge as an event rather than an added class?  Something half way between the "local clubs can do this on their own" so let it go argument <span style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">(apparently they don't anymore); and the insurmountable complexity of adding a class and the downstream effects on the whole of the pattern contest (it's not possible or desirable, etc.)?  For example, can the NSRCA put together a suggested novice pattern event with sequence(s) and forms that any enthusiastic AMA club CD could run with locally to hold an AMA sanctioned event to foster precision flying? Meet them half-way with a resource packet and helpful hints, judging aids, etc. to give clubs something to implement where their pilot training programs leave off?  Just another noob suggestion from a second year Sportsman and NSRCA member.  Cheers, Dana</span>

Scott Smith

My Feedback: (4)

Tony,

Please elaborate...is it the downwind loop, upwind snap or something else entirely that would make this a mistake?

Thanks,

Scott

rcflyer4fun

I agree with Joe and Arch. We are not advocating adding a class just modifying what we have. I always hated the name Intermediate as a class name. Get rid of the name intermediate and change it back to what it was Sportsman. I never liked the class named novice either. I advocate we change the name novice or what is now sportman to Club Class. When I here Joe call it club class, I think AMA club class. It has an AMA ring to it in my ears and I think it is good for the sport. No turnaround in Club Class either. If you find it not challenging then one can move up in class. To many beginners it is challenging and it is also a level playing field at the club level that all can understand and participate in. If we do this there will be a unity between AMA and NSRCA that will promote growth in our sport. I firmly believe this.

Just My $.2
Evan

Also if you all don't like the 2 loops with 1/2 rolls in the proposed Advanced pattern then change the manuever to a triangle with 2 half rolls in opposite directions on top or 2 half rolls on top. I am just happy we get a new pattern sequence to fly! You guys are doing a great job btw!