AMA MASTER'S unknown?

[Rcmaster199 at aol.com]

A couple more thoughts on the subject: 
 
First, the issue of judging Finals (knowns and unknowns  alike): Having 
judged Masters Nats and F3A Nats and Team Selection  Finals, I found it was easier 
for we judges to have a  competent caller amongst us, calling the maneuver to 
us. This was a person  separate from the pilots' caller, speaking softly as to 
not distract the pilot.  But when we didn't have a caller, it wasn't that 
bad. The demo flights before  the round started served as good refreshers as to 
what the shapes looked  like. 
 
Some of us had not seen the F knowns flown before, let alone the unknowns.  
As an F3A Finals judge, you do what you can to familiarize yourself with the  
sequence. If you're chosen to judge, you already know how (elements,  
presentation, positioning, distance, S and G, etc, not belaboring the  obvious).
 
Second, regarding Masters unknowns: Judging will be a  little trickier 
because our pool of competent judges is still rather small, and  F3A uses 10 
already. Less are needed for Masters which is a good thing.  With a demo flight, this 
shouldn't be that bad for pilots and judges alike. 
 
Finalist F3Aers can do the F sequences and unknowns sequences (of their  
choosing) and I believe Masters Finalists can also. Do they need to? NO THEY  
DON"T. 
 
But, it wasn't that long ago that Masters was not only able, they were  
REQUIRED to choose their own schedules from the Masters list of maneuvers. There  
was a maximum K Factor, and that was the only guide line. Not only that, but  
they could change their schedules from round to round if they chose. After all  
they were MASTERS PILOTS AND IT WAS THE TOP  CLASS.  The ability to choose 
was the rite of passage, and  some moved there with that mind set. Was it 
interesting? Yup, without a doubt.  This was before TA and scoring programs and the 
like. Should we retuurn to that  way of doing business? It would be much 
harder to do it  administratively, so, NO, probably not! 
 
However, I do find it strange that MASTERS pilots in general, appear to be  
saying that it would be too complicated so lets not even bother. 
 
Third, does it have to be an unknown? NO. It could just be  a Finals known 
sequence that is different than the Prelim schedule. I favor this  actually over 
an unknown. The Final sequence in my view, would be reduced in  maneuver 
number but increased in complexity. Putting snaps aside for a minute, I  see 
nothing wrong with loop-roll combinations for example. Same thing for a  rolling 
circle, (but not crazy as in the F05 schedule). One roll circles or two  roll 
circles are very pretty maneuvers and a great deal of fun to do, and don't  use 
up half the county. These maneuver types are hard to do with precision, but  
that's the whole point. They are separator maneuvers. Again, what becomes 
harder  is the administration.
 
Fourth, what problem would be solved? I'll answer it with  a question: are we 
(Masters pilots)happy with status quo? Same ol' same old is a  good thing? If 
yes, then the whole discussion is moot. If no, then  lets change it.
 
MattK
 
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 1/7/2005 12:31:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,  
Ed_Alt at hotmail.com writes:

Well, after flying Scale Aerobatics,  AKA IMAC for 7 or 8 years, from 
Sportsman through Unlimited, I guess I'm  not very excited about introducing unknowns 
into Pattern.  On the one  hand, it does add some interest.  On the other 
hand, it introduces so  many variables that it can really screw up an event and 
adversely affect the  outcome.  If the desire here is to turn Pattern into a 
contest of who can  best memorize new sequences on the fly, who won't crack 
under the  pressure and simply brain fart their way into a few zeros, then this is 
a  great idea.
 
So if we do this, the sequences have to be well  designed, there has to be a 
uniform standard to apply to construct the  sequences and there has to be a 
way to get the judges ready to properly  judge them.  They are unknowns for them 
as well.  So even if we have  a flight line full of steely eyed flyers who 
can memorize and repeat a new  sequence flawlessly, the quality of the judged 
outcome can really suffer if  you do not assure that the judges are rehearsed 
for the unknowns.   Sometimes at the IMAC Nats, the judges would be treated to a 
demo flight  before the unknowns in the finals round. Sometimes not.  BTW, 
they have a  new unknown every day after day one.  You tend to spend your nights 
 memorizing sequences and forgetting the previous days unknown.  It's part  
of the IMAC mindset, i.e., the unknowns are supposed to separate the men from  
the boys and if you can't deal with this idea, then don't come to play.   If 
you get screwed because the judges don't know what they're looking at until  
the 5th of 6th flyer gets in front of them, then so be it.
 
In general, IMAC gets things into the Scale  Aerobatics rules because "that's 
what IAC does".  Super.  Are we to  introduce unknowns because IMAC does it?  
Again, what problem are we  trying to solve and how does introducing unknowns 
solve it?
 
Regards
Ed

----- Original Message ----- 
From:  _Lance Van Nostrand_ (mailto:patterndude at comcast.net)  
To: _discussion at nsrca.org_ (mailto:discussion at nsrca.org)  
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 11:27  PM
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: AMA MASTER'S  unknown?


Picking 12 manuvers from a book of 20 the night  before the final day is a 
good way to do it.  it could be done in any  class and simply be the final two 
flights, whether prelims/finals are  employed or not.  IMAC introduces unknowns 
way below their Unlimited  class.  Its an expansion of the "box".  The only 
issue I see is  that a change of this magnitude will blow a bunch of people's 
gaskets.   I see this list today thinks its a good idea (whether it makes 
pattern more  fun, challenging, differentiating, exciting, specator friendly or 
what), but  my informal polls show that there is asignificant group that will 
strongly  oppose this.
 
--Lance

----- Original Message ----- 
From:  _Archie Stafford_ (mailto:rcpattern at comcast.net)  
To: _discussion at nsrca.org_ (mailto:discussion at nsrca.org)  
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 4:46  PM
Subject: RE: [SPAM] Re: AMA MASTER'S  unknown?



I love the idea  of an unknown.  I think it  would add to the challenge and 
also make it more fun.  In years past where when the same  schedule is flown 
after 3 years certain guys have a decided advantage over  guys who have just 
moved up from Advanced due to the extra years of flying  the sequence.  This year 
it  doesn’t make any difference with a new pattern.  I think the “unknown” 
for the  finals would level the playing field in years when the sequence has 
been  flown the previous year.  Even  if Masters is not a warm up class for FAI, 
it should still be by far the  toughest of the AMA patterns.   
I don’t think you  need to change the other classes accordingly, because 
Masters is a  destination class.  If you  never move up to FAI, it should be a 
goal and an honor to be able to fly  on Thursday at the NATS.  It  should be 
something that you can strive for in the lower classes even if  you have no 
intentions of ever flying FAI. 
Arch 
 
  
____________________________________
 
From:  discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]  On 
Behalf Of  Rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 5:10  PM
To:  discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: AMA MASTER'S  unknown?
 
 
Similar to what  Eric H wrote in his last column, would Masters pilots 
entertain the idea  of Semi-Final round on the last day of Prelims at the Nats? 
Every one  would fly the Semi-Final schedule during the last day of prelims. Then 
the  same schedule could be flown in a Finals format, or even alternate 
between  the picked sequence and the current Prelim schedule in Finals.  
 

 
The schedule  sequence could be picked by the CD or his representative from a 
list of  25-30 maneuvers as Troy N. suggests, and be given out at the Pilots  
meeting Sunday evening. It's sure to liven things up a bit Wed.  
 

 
What do Masters  pilots think?
 

 
MattK







 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050107/f3041398/attachment.html