Masters 2005 Options

[Richard Hallett]

The limits as they were considered and passed down came as follows.

1.  5kg for any class of any event including gliders long before the next set.

2. Then we put a noise limit by defining db and the size of the box  known as footprint.

3.Then finally threw engine  size and said anything for engine but maximum size shall be two meters (retaining 1 and 2).

It was believed that everyone would have to develop skill to come close to this last one. BUT now we reverse things and say it must be 2m now lets move the weight.  Too difficult lets change the footprint. Why follow lets go our own.

Critically we follow.  We are not leading in defining FAI categories.  In most events we participate almost what you would call half heartedly.  A few put the effort to be there and the rest don't know what you are talking about.  All categories not just F3A.

Sure we can go our own way but the events are bigger than just our little corner

Rick

PS Note that because of events such as the TOC there have been groanings in other countries too.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bob Pastorello 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 7:49 PM
  Subject: Re: Masters 2005 Options


  John, I appreciate a LOT you putting it in print.  Don't think I've seen it summarized as well or concisely...
      There are MANY who will press that the sequences are to be "building blocks" to some ultimate goal of complexity and par-level competitiveness with the FAI trends.  THAT I don't agree with.
      I particuarly like the criteria about "judgeable by available judges" - that is SO important....as Troy pointed out, the more difficult and "new" you make maneuvers, the more "judging load" is placed on - Guess Who? - *US*....If there's a reasonable purpose to that, I'm all for it, but I don't read much in terms of justifiable rationale for making sequences more difficult.
      Anyone know the REAL answer? (this is also related to the core question I've had - "WHY a 5kg UPPER limit??")

  Bob Pastorello
  NSRCA 199, AMA 46373
  rcaerobob at cox.net
  www.rcaerobats.net


    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: John Ferrell 
    To: discussion at nsrca.org 
    Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 6:09 PM
    Subject: Re: Masters 2005 Options


    You bring up an interesting point about sequences. I have felt that we go about them all wrong. I would like to see a set of criteria for all considered sequences.

    Something like:
    They should be flyable by the current contestants. 
    They should be judgable by the available judges.
    They should not be equipment contests. 
    They should be sufficiently difficult to determine a winner. 
    They should not be airplane crashers. 
    They should not challange typical field limitations. 

    John Ferrell 
    6241 Phillippi Rd
    Julian NC 27283
    Phone: (336)685-9606  
    Dixie Competition Products
    NSRCA 479 AMA 4190  W8CCW
    "My Competition is Not My Enemy"


     
      The goal was to produce  difficult sequence that represents the skills of a top level National class and at the same time give a sequence that is tough to do with consistency but not so difficult and abstract that it will chase people away. The main goal being up here at 6000ft is to not require huge amount of power as were presented in the Sequence submitted by the NSRCA. The Reverse Avalanche and the Diamond Cuban 8 thing are just such maneuvers. These specific maneuvers although may not be an issue for you guys down lower in elevation become a problem up here...especially with older plane designs with std 120 sized motors. See many people up here are still flying Elans, Ariels, or even the 60 sized birds and with this power hungry trend are being told to upgrade their motors, and planes or get out. 

      I know this is not the intent of the sequence designers. I'm not complaining about the work and the effort that was made to give us the choices we have....Rather we are giving the pattern community a choice......



      Another big issue with the NSRCA proposal is the new maneuvers like the Reverse Avalanche.....This adds load to the judging pool. We are now going to have maneuvers never seen before. This requires some address in a judging seminar...and what about the local flyers that rarely attend a judging seminar. We felt that putting maneuvers in that had different roll combos or different starting attitudes were changes a judge could make on the fly and apply the same criteria he is already applying. Rather than subtle things like the center stall turn not being in the direction of the flight. What if the pilot makes a bad choice for direction now your going to penalize him for the spin and for the center stall turn. My question is how many pilots that have not attended a judging school realize that if you stall turn the wrong way on that maneuver its a ZERO!

      We tried to eliminate some of this confusion and stick with a sequence that was easier to judge giving the contestant judge a better feeling of confidence because the sequence has elements similar to his own sequence. Yet the difficulty of maneuvers is certainly present and will help to separate the wheat from the chaff at a National Championship event. On the other hand a new Advanced guy is not learning new thing all over again to be changed on him again in 2 years.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20021023/fc9674ac/attachment.html