AMA MASTER'S unknown?

[J.Oddino]

I do remember D novice.  I remember when Dave Brown won it at the Nats.  I also remember a guy who won at a local contest at Sepulveda Basin and scored higher than all of us in D Expert.  The next year he tried D Expert once, got beat bad and we never saw him again.

It is okay to make the game tougher in the higher classes but we need to keep it simple in the lower classes.  If a new skier had to start at the top of the mountain we wouldn't see many new skiers.

Regards, Jim
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dean Pappas 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 10:05 AM
  Subject: RE: AMA MASTER'S unknown?


  Thanks Gene,
  As I mentioned before: we have, as a culture, a tendency to keep making each skill level harder or more interesting until it breaks, then we fix it and start over again. Maybe you have to have been in the event for ever to see it, but I think you have put your finger right on what Masters ought to be.

  Anybody out there remember old D-Novice?
  Dean Pappas

  Dean Pappas 
  Sr. Design Engineer 
  Kodeos Communications 
  111 Corporate Blvd. 
  South Plainfield, N.J. 07080 
  (908) 222-7817 phone 
  (908) 222-2392 fax 
  d.pappas at kodeos.com 

    -----Original Message-----
    From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of gene.maurice at comcast.net
    Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 12:49 PM
    To: discussion at nsrca.org
    Subject: Re: AMA MASTER'S unknown?


    To Whom It May Concern:

    I am a Masters flier and I DON'T want to fly FAI or FAI like sequences. For me personally, Masters is a destination. If I wanted to fly finals and unknowns, then I would fly FAI. I fly Masters and will stay in Masters because I don't want to, nor can I for that matter, effectively fly the FAI sequences. If people want more challenge than Masters affords, I would respectfully suggest that they consider flying FAI. Again, for me personally, the difficulty of the current and prior Masters sequences are all that I can handle, and even then I'm a perennial bottom feeder. Why in the world do we need two classes that are for all intents and purposes equal? 

     

    I believe there is a fair contingent of fliers who are like me: good enough to fly their current class without embarrassing themselves, not good enough to ever win, their lives only allow a minimal amount of practice, but continue to do this because IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE FUN!!!!. Why must we continually tinker with Masters. Don't get me wrong, I like the periodic change in the schedules. I don't even mind the ever increasing difficulty, even though it has made me even LESS competitive. Again, I submit, if you are not sufficiently challenged by Masters, FLY FAI!!! 

     


    --
    Gene Maurice 
    gene.maurice at comcast.net 
    Plano, TX

      -------------- Original message -------------- 

      Bob:

      I am not taking any sides here either, as I don't fly Masters.  However, If Masters is to be an ending class paralleling FAI, then perhaps either a finals sequence, or a finals and unknown are appropriate.  This puts it on the same level as FAI which is what many have told me they thought Masters should be.  This will give the same level of difficulty as FAI, but with all the associated rules and sequences totally controlled by the USA.  

      Having been USA Team Manager 4 times, I totally agree that the caller becomes an integral part of a successful pilot, especially in the unknowns.  Having a known finals sequence is less demanding on the caller, but requires the Masters pilot to learn a second, much more difficult sequence.  

      Keep in mind that this would only effect the NATS.  I would push for a rule that makes flying the finals sequence at a local contest illegal!  This is the way it is in FAI as well.  Finals and unknowns are only flown at National and International competitions.  This keeps everyone who has no interest in flying at a Nationals from having to learn anything other than the Masters pattern.  

      A poll would be interesting, but I would only allow those that have flown at the last couple of NATS to be involved, pushing the rule that any extra sequences would only be flown at the NATS finals.  

      Anyway, my $0.02...

      Tony Stillman
      Radio South
      3702 N. Pace Blvd.
      Pensacola, FL 32505
      1-800-962-7802
      www.radiosouthrc.com
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Bob Pastorello 
        To: discussion at nsrca.org 
        Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 5:39 PM
        Subject: Re: AMA MASTER'S unknown?


        I guess since I never take a position on anything, I should probably do so on this -- so -- here 'tis.

        1.  This is a genuine yes/no POLL question of the MASTERS pilots only....and needs to be carefully administered, IF the Board is interested in opening this one.
        2.  If the POLL has at least 2/3 majority, then the next question should be designed to find out how crazy we (Masters) pilots are about having our scores judged by JUDGES WHO HAVE NEVER SEEN THE SEQUENCE  and 
        3.  How crazy we are about the totally-impossible-to-fairly-administer influence of the "team".  At this level of competitions (you guys are talking about the NATS FINALS, for G---s sake!!!) I would be hard pressed to say it will be "fair" to have the outcome determined by who had the best caller (or the most effective team).  Not everyone can do that...  and finally ....
        4.  MASTERS is supposed to be the Top AMA class....as such, philosophically, I think it should be the best - the VERY best - of precision, smoothness, and gracefulness....

        AND implementing an Unknown turns all that back into "IMPRESSION" judging....

        I'm not in favor of it;  won't be; won't try to persuade others to be; and believe wholeheartedly that if a pilot is strongly committed to flying Unknowns that he go play IMAC.  Then fly "Pattern" for precision, practiced, smooth and skillfully-executed "routines".

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


          ----- Original Message ----- 
          From: Ed Deaver 
          To: discussion at nsrca.org 
          Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 3:54 PM
          Subject: Re: AMA MASTER'S unknown?


          Flying an Unknown truely does make it a 2 person flight.  I would still welcome the opportunity as the challange and thrill(flying well or goofing up and trying to collect yourself to fly the next manuever) is really great.  

          I don't know if it really identifies the callers ability, as much as the teams ability.  Another thought depends on how much time is allowed to prepare also.

          ed

          rcaerobob at cox.net wrote:
            Before I'd answer whether I wanted one or not, I'd like to have an understanding of what, specifically, the unknown in Masters would "reveal". If pattern is about precision piloting that could be a different thing than an ability to have a good caller....

            Just my ignorant opinion.

            Bob P.
            > 
            > From: "Grow Pattern" 
            > Date: 2005/01/06 Thu AM 11:25:48 EST
            > To: , 
            > 
            > Subject: AMA MASTER'S unknown?
            > 
            > How does this list feel about a Masters Nat's final that was different to 
            > the regular schedule. OR, even an unknown in the final to make it more than 
            > just three more of the same flown in the heats.
            > 
            > Regards,
            > 
            > Eric.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050107/e9bc45bd/attachment-0001.html