AMA MASTER'S unknown?

[Bob Pastorello]

Matt wrote: "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."

Matt, if you'll note my original reply to GP's question, you'll see that is exactly what I suggested!!  The Masters pilots have to be polled for this;  every one of us; and that's a simple "do we/don't we" type thing.  I would hope the new administration (God help them) will understand the importance of this.
    
Bob Pastorello
NSRCA 199  AMA 46373
rcaerobob at cox.net
www.rcaerobats.net


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Rcmaster199 at aol.com 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 1:47 AM
  Subject: Re: AMA MASTER'S unknown?


  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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050107/18e6354e/attachment.html