del klipped for reposting AMA MASTER'S unknown?

Fri Jan 7 05:26:57 AKST 2005

Amen.

  _____  

From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Del Rykert
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 4:35 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re:** del klipped for reposting ** AMA MASTER'S unknown?

I am wondering with all this talk about the masters schedule and possibility
of changes nothing has been addressed about the lower classes that have been
brought up. What is the message that is given to the fliers in other
classes. They get the scrapes and are third rate fliers?  Some issues were
brought up but I never saw any replies to  their concerns. 

    del

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Rcmaster199 at aol.com 
To: discussion at nsrca.org 
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 2:47 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 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050107/b91f5115/attachment-0001.html