Artistic Aerobatics

[Verne Koester]

Bill,
The schedules are designed to be building blocks. To varying degrees of success, this has always been the case. When you're designing a set of schedules, you have to consider where somebody is coming from first and then develop maneuvers that will reasonably transition the pilot from that point to the next level of difficulty. FAI and Masters pilots have pretty much dominated the development of these schedules for the 20 years or so I've been in pattern and for good reason - experience. Somebody who's come up through the process probably has a better idea of what's needed, been to more contests and seen a wider variety of skill levels within the various classes, and has his/her own experiences to reference in what made them a better pilot than somebody relatively new to the game. This is not meant to be demeaning to anyone so please don't take it as such. When I was working my way up through the ranks, I have no doubt that FAI and Masters pilots knew way more than I what types of maneuvers I needed to see to advance than I did. The lessons they provided worked well enough for me to make me reasonably competitive in Masters today. 

The trick to all of this is to learn the lessons at each level. When you've learned what's there and start getting bored with it, move up. That's how it's designed. Others may take longer than you and others may zip through with apparent ease. That's okay. The very best schedules accommodate all of these needs. Most people won't point out before they should move up and that's all designed into the system as well. While it might be easy for one pilot to deal with a 45 down snap at the second level, it may very well drive a good many pilots out of the game. This system of developing schedules is somewhat of a patriarchal approach, but it needs to be that way. There are plenty of lessons to be learned in Intermediate as it exists and my personal opinion based on my own experience as well as what I've seen and judged is that it's just about right. I also think Advanced is a bit much for someone coming out of Intermediate, but that's a whole separate argument.

Verne Koester
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bill Glaze 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 11:16 PM
  Subject: Re: Artistic Aerobatics


  Thanks, Eric, and you're correct in that I don't understand why all the AMA classes cannot be treated under the same rules/time schedules.  Or, put another way, I am having trouble seeing how/why AMA procedures create a rift in classes.
  And, not to belabor the point, I fail to see why, if schedules had been submitted for all classes at the same time, that new schedules couldn't have been adopted in the same time frame.
  As far as the Annex goes, while it may seem to  be a panacea, (and I am all for the Annex) it seems to me that a mindset that will make equal all the schedules (and those flying them) will still be required.  To date, I have yet to see that mindset  in the words and deeds of the Masters/FAI flyers whose prominence seems to  dictate to the lower classes.  Possibly this is inevitable; I don't know.  And, maybe I'm wrong.  I would sure like to be proven so.  BTW: I'm not trying to start a class war here; just trying to improve the sport.  Possibly we can regain some of the membership that we have lost over the past few years.
  Bill Glaze

  Henderson,Eric wrote:


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Henderson,Eric 
    Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 11:21 PM
    To: 'discussion at nsrca.org'
    Subject: RE: Artistic Aerobatics


    The membership vote  from the 1999 rules survey was that the NSRCA propose to the AMA that we change them all (401-404) in one big go. So we did just that. Those routines are now running from 2002 to 2004 

    The same rules survey said change Masters (404)  every three years, So we proposed new 404 routines in the 2002 rules survey. If voted in by the AMA contest board it will gives us a new 404 for 2005 to 2007.

    The 2002 survey included every question that came to me from all sources.  The 2002 survey result asked for new schedules; in all classes be proposed in three year cycles.We have to go most of the way through 2005 to 2007 before we start work on the 2008 proposals.  

    I  know it is hard to understand, and probably harder to accept, but this is how the AMA does it. Why do you think the NSRCA has been trying to get an Annex system in place and change the control of schedules-changing. Its a long drawn out affair that completely clashes with common sense and certainly confuses most folks.

    Regards,

    Eric.


    -----Original Message-----
    From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bill Glaze
    Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 11:52 PM
    To: discussion at nsrca.org
    Subject: Re: Artistic Aerobatics


    Eric:
    Somewhere in your lucid explanation there must be a reason that the other classes did not commence with the composition of new schedules when the Masters schedule was composed.
    Obviously, these other classes then could have been  installed when the Masters was.  People are available that would have been more than eager to work on the other classes parallel to the classe(s) which were changed.  Was there no opportunity for that to happen?  To someone on the outside looking in, it just seems as if part of the organization moved ahead, while part was left to stagnate.  Or so I see it.  Illuminate me.
    In the event, it would seem to me that now is the time to compose the committees, which in turn can formulate the schedules for all of us, all classes.  Perhaps this is ongoing, and I just haven't been aware of it.  I hope.
    Respectfully, 
    Bill Glaze

    Henderson,Eric wrote:

         
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20040125/089cebb4/attachment.html