** del klipped for reposting ** AMA MASTER'S unknown?

[Bill Glaze]

Thanks, Del.  BG

Del Rykert wrote:

> 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 <mailto:Rcmaster199 at aol.com>
>     To: discussion at nsrca.org <mailto: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/20050108/6ba346bb/attachment.html