Sequence Poll Results

[Earl Haury]

I think this "top class" issue is of little value and, at best, semantics. One could argue that, as AMA pattern class 404 is Masters and AMA pattern 406 is F3A, F3A is at the top of AMA progression. 

Mark's point that we have as much influence in F3A as any other country is not only valid - many of the F3A "innovations" have come from USA reps to the FAI CIAM F3A Subcommittee. I also assure you that a sequence provided by "us" will not only receive as much consideration as any other, but be quite welcome. 

Our pattern community worldwide is small, why on earth would we want to be only a subset? BTW - does anyone have a feel for the total number of pattern competitors worldwide, I suspect that the US may be in the minority. Sure, we should and do have preparatory classes. These may become resident classes for folks prevented from moving forward by any number of  limiting factors, but that's a fact of life - not reason to tailor these classes to that end.

One of the strongest attractions for model aviation is diversity. Likewise, excess diversity is a weakness of model aviation. We too quickly "invent" new disciplines to accommodate each and every interest with the effect of diluting our core groups. If one considers most sports, many folks participate at playground, high school, college, and pro levels with fewer at each level as the requirements take a toll. But the "top" level is clearly recognized and emulated, there may be concessions to detail, difficulty, equipment at the early levels - but the top level clearly is the goal.

I find it sad that some consider that the NSRCA should ignore F3A, rather the NSRCA should drive the US interests in F3A. The NSRCA was founded by the top F3A competitors of the time and there was no expectation that it was exclusive of F3A, unfortunately they didn't recognize the need to spell that out in the charter. Pattern is our game, anything that interests folks in pattern competition is very good,  discussion of pattern details is good, F3A is the epitome of our game, but I find it hard to criticize anything related to the enjoyment of pattern.

Earl

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bob Pastorello 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 11:00 AM
  Subject: Re: Sequence Poll Results


  Thanks, Mark and Verne.  Two sides of the core issue.  Since I raised the initial question, and Ed/Tony put out the poll....I thought perhaps I'd summarize my rationale.
      Masters is THE top class in AMA Pattern.  That is what our National Competition is about.  In my thinking, it SHOULD stand as separate, and unique/different in it's skill requirements than FAI.
      Mark, you wrote that FAI is "the" Top Class.  No, it is the class chosen for the World Championship aerobatic competitions.  Because of that, every country that wants to participate in the WC must have flyers who prepare using the same standards, same sequences, as the other countries.  I think the US provides that, and even CD's include FAI-F3A events in the typical pattern contest.

  Is there ANYONE out here who honestly believes that the FAI class is not a "professional" class of competition??  Please....look at where the money is spent, the sponsorships "pay", etc.  I am perfectly comfortable being thought of as "Amateur" if I fly AMA pattern....doesn't ruffle my feathers at all.
      At the "Professional" level of sports, there are rules that the Amateurs don't have.  Football is a good example.

  I happen to believe that our Masters' class, as the top of the AMA heap, must represent the best we have in US competition.  IF folks want to compete at the International WORLD level, professional competitions, then I'd bet they will come FROM our Masters class.  And to me, that means that they learn the "new" Professional Sequences/rules that are needed when they make that choice.

  It's not our job in the AMA Pattern classes to make a person competent at FAI.  It is our responsibility to provide interesting challenge, growth, and INVOLVEMENT opportunities for the majority of the 2% of all modelers who choose pattern in the first place.  Let's build maneuvers in sequences that provide the skill base...then let those who are "advanced" enough, learn the rest.  There's plenty of mentors out there for them to feed each other....

  Before ya'll go crazy and start typing like mad.....
      I am *NOT* saying that we exclude FAI, or discontinue or support of the World team, or any of that stuff.  That's good for the global community.
      I am saying that we should look a little closer at why we have the game in the US, and design everything we do around THAT purpose.  Whatever it is deemed to be.

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


    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Atwood, Mark 
    To: discussion at nsrca.org 
    Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 10:47 AM
    Subject: RE: Sequence Poll Results


    Verne,
     
    Just to be clear...I would not be advocating that particular detail.  My point is the more overriding philosophy that the lower levels exist to prepare for the next level.  And in my mind, FAI is clearly one of those levels...happens to be the top.  To argue that Masters is the top...and that FAI is a different "track" makes no sense to me.  If we were to truly do that...then we'll end up creating lower "FAI" classes...that would compete with the AMA classes.  
     
    Do we currently crown the Masters champ at the Nats as our National Champion??  Are they considered the best flyer at the event? 
     
    Ok...done preaching...lol...sorry.  It just doesn't make sense to me.  
     
    I do agree with you that I like having control of those sequences...and that's an advantage in my mind.  The OLD FAI pattern may not be the best way to train for the next FAI pattern...   The masters pattern of today should be preparing flyers for the P-07 or P-09 of tomorrow...

    ________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050102/c6695269/attachment.html