F3A / AMA / Progression

[DaveL322 at comcast.net]

The influence of F3A on AMA is substantial and not something that will go away.  The majority of new designs and new equipment are developed/designed with an eye towards F3A (if not primarily for F3A).  How often do you see advertising for an AMA Masters plane?  How often do you see advertising for an F3A plane (whether the plane is truly F3A capable or not)?  The biggest names fly F3A - not Masters.  Unless that changes, the perception will always be F3A is "above" Masters (and given what it takes to be proficient in 2 schedules vs 1, F3A is clearly "above" at this time, IMHO).

Whether a plane becomes obsolete as one advances through the classes is largely dependant on the plane one starts with!!!  I've always advocated that Masters/F3A capable planes are not needed to be competitive in the lower level classes (whether called Pre Novice, Novice, Sportsman, etc), but the majority of pilots in those classes (that become part of the pattern group) are competitors - and trade Kaos, Tiger2, Stick, etc for a "better" plane at their first opportunity  because the belief (or perception) is that the "better" plane will provide a competitive advantage.  I've likewise advocated that the best setup for Masters/F3A is not the best setup for Sportsman/Intermediate - the manuevers are different and the trim requirements are different.

The Expert class Bob R referred to was actually Expert Turnaround.  It was the first AMA turnaround class and was developed at time when the transition from old style pattern (judging on center maneuvers only) to turnaround pattern was ocurring.  The old style was 110+ mph planes with screaming (105+ db) engines covering a huge amount of space (large footprint) and it was becoming increasingly difficult to find suitable fields for that style of flying.  Turnaround with the reduced footprint and reduced noise levels was designed to make pattern more neighbor friendly.  The Expert Turnaround class was not designed for fledgling F3A pilots, it was designed as a transition class from old style to turnaround style for all pattern pilots in the US.  At the same time, the then old style AMA Masters class was revamped to the "1990" Masters - from a customized set of maneuvers from a list to a fixed schedule - again, as transition from old style to turnaround.  Subsequently, all the AMA style classes were replaced with turnaround classes/schedules - and some competitors left the event, but others were able to stay in the event because turnaround was more neighbor friendly than the old style.

As a side note - I believe I've seen a trend in recent years such that once a pattern pilot is able to competently and consistently fly a schedule, they conclude the schedule is too easy, they have learned all that is possible from that schedule, it is time to move up, time to make the schedule harder, etc.  I've also noticed that it is rarely the Sportman, Intermediate, or Advanced pilot who gets bored with the class they are in - as Bob R said, those classes are generally transient in nature and the change comes from changing class, it does not have to come from changing the manuevers within the class.  To me, "surving" a sequence is not what pattern is about - pattern is about learning a sequence, and then working towards perfecting the sequence - striving to bring up the quality of every manuever in the sequence.  I've always learned more about piloting technique, trimming, setup, etc searching for the polish and details than just learning how to get through a maneuver or schedule.  Schedules can be very simple to fly, and very hard to perfect - I've never flown a perfect sequence - and I hope I never do - because if I do (or think I do), I'd have to find a new challenge.

Regards,
Dave

-------------- Original message -------------- 

Wow, you really want to open up a can of worms!!!

Short answer: NO.

I don't believe we should think about creating world class flyers. We should mainly be concerned about increasing participation in the US. The more people we get started in pattern, the more likely we are to find a diamond in the rough.

Way back when I was a district VP, I asked a lot of people about the Masters class. Should it be a stepping stone to FAI, or should it be a destination class.  I felt rather strongly at the time that it should be a stepping stone to FAI. Others felt strongly that it should be a destination class. (I've since changed my opinion.)

IMHO, I think Masters should be very close in difficulty to FAI. Not necessarily AS difficult, but close if not the same. There will be a lot, probably the majority, who will never fly FAI since they have no desire to compete on a world class level against many who are sponsored. For this reason I think we should treat the Masters class as the top level AMA class.

Remember the Expert class. It was the only turnaround class in AMA at one time. You could argue it was the only class that prepared anyone for FAI. What prepared anyone for Expert? Nothing -- but practice.

At the other end of the spectrum, Sportsman, I think absolutely no consideration should be given to the "prepare for FAI" question. It has absolutely nothing to do with FAI, it has to do with getting participation by US and AMA members -- nothing more. I think the sequences should be slightly challenging only from the perspective of someone who has never flown pattern. The maneuvers should not be challenging to fly, only challenging to fly well.

As one moves up through the pattern classes, equipment should not automatically become obsolete. IOW, you can pick a plane to fly Sportsman with that will also fly Masters very well. There is no such thing as a plane that is perfect for Masters that is not perfect for Sportsman. However, don't design the maneuvers for Sportsman that require anything more than a well behaved sport plane. An Ugly Stick should be just fine.

Everything in between -- ramp up accordingly. 

Masters should follow FAI somewhat, but only because it WILL be the stepping stone for those that wish to move up.

I also don't think we should make the classes more difficult every year, just different to keep everyone from being bored. Especially in the lower/middle classes -- those classes are transient in nature.

Bob Richards.


Bob Pastorello <rcaerobob at cox.net> wrote:
Dave, as always, thoughtful input....thanks!
    I, for one, (and perhaps the ONLY one) would like to know pure and simple from the majority of folks playing AMA pattern....a yes or a no to this question...

    "Should the progression of classes within AMA precision aerobatics be designed to prepare a person for the FAI class?"

I would like to have this question put to all pattern fliers, and let the answer shape the design of our sequences.  Period.
    (I know this is a good example of " be careful what you ask for ", but has it ever been asked??)

Bob Pastorello
NSRCA 199  AMA 46373
rcaerobob at cox.net
www.rcaerobats.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20041230/324cd1c0/attachment-0001.html