We're not starting that again, was: Re: adding complexity to Sportsman

[Rcmaster199 at aol.com]

I respectfully disagree. Complexity of Masters bears little  resemblence to 
that in Sportsman. The two are mutually exclusive events  and arguing the 
semantics or politics of that, is counterproductive. 
 
Sportsman complexity is fine as is. So is Masters, as is. 
 
Earlier talk suggested to add something akin to a Finals schedule  series for 
Masters Nats competition, different than the same ol' sequence, as a  means 
to spark more interest. That's a decision the Masters community may want  to 
make. If it wishes to  make the schedule more complex, great. I see  nothing 
wrong with the challenge of more complex maneuvers. If the community  wishes to 
keep the status quo, hey that's fine too. 
 
Question in my mind is why is it that at Nats Finals, one is hard pressed  to 
see spectators at the Masters site? Forget about spectators for a  moment, I 
had a heck of a time filling 3 of 5 judges chairs. I know I  personally asked 
about 2 dozen folks, and Don asked a bunch also. Every one  wants to observe 
F3A and witness history, I suppose. 
 
If the event crowns a National Champ, would the event be better  
attended/spectated if it were more entertaining/interesting? That's essentially  the 
question on the floor. 
 
MattK
 
In a message dated 1/9/2005 5:45:04 AM Eastern Standard Time,  
rcaerobob at cox.net writes:

And this issue is EXACTLY why the "progression of classes" needs to be  
managed, and (caps by intent)
 
WE MUST STOP ESCALATING THE OVERALL COMPLEXITY OF SEQUENCES TO KEEP UP  WITH 
CHANGES IN FAI !!!!!  The "trickle down" of FAI difficulty drives  Masters.  
Then that drives Advanced, then it drives Intermediate changes,  and finally 
Sportsman, where we lose potential entrants because it overwhelms  them.
 
There are people who monitor this list who I have been coaching.  If  they 
chime in, they will tell you of the difficulty in "finesse" needed to be  really 
competent NOW in Sportsman, and even moreso when they moved to  Intermediate.
    I am NOT one of those "disconnected" Masters pilot  guys.....I "know" 
what's going on in other classes, and we better address it  as a society.  Soon.
 
As a rule-proposing body, the NSRCA has the responsibility, as a society,  to 
Stop the Madness.
    Masters does NOT have to be "nearly FAI".   Obvious reason;  someone 
wants that complexity, let 'em FLY FAI.
    Advanced would not be such a huge jump from  Intermediate IF it wasn't 
the stepping stone to a less-complex Masters.
    Intermediate would not have to be so tough of a jump  from Sportsman.
 
Changing our very philosophy of the game is what it will take, men.   You may 
disagree, but you cannot deny what pitifully-small data points we have  paint 
a picture of the "graying" of the game.
    Yes - there are LOTS of reasons we don't have the  'seed pipe' we used to 
(competing RC venues, time, money, etc.), but my point  is, and HAS BEEN, 
that we do NOT HAVE TO MAKE THE GAME *HARDER* to make it  challenging for 
Masters' pilots!!!!

Bob Pastorello
NSRCA 199  AMA 46373
_rcaerobob at cox.net_ (mailto:rcaerobob at cox.net) 
_www.rcaerobats.net_ (http://www.rcaerobats.net/) 
 
 

----- Original Message ----- 
From:  _Rcmaster199 at aol.com_ (mailto:Rcmaster199 at aol.com)  
To: _discussion at nsrca.org_ (mailto:discussion at nsrca.org)  
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 1:23  AM
Subject: Re: adding interest and  complexity to Sportsman ... again and again 
and 



Sportsman needs to be maintained as the entry class to Pattern events  and 
overcomplicating it will not be a step in the right direction. I feel  same as 
Steve that it's about right in complexity. I would add that  it should remain 
unchanged for a consiiderable amount of time (pick a  period--10 years is a 
nice round number)
 
Rationale for long time period before changes (if  ever): Pilots seldom stay 
in the class more than two years so the  ones that move on, see a fresh 
schedule regardless. The ones that drop,  well, it makes little difference to them. 
It would serve virtually no  purpose to change this schedule
 
Rationale for keeping the sequence "simple": A friend  of mine has tried to 
get into pattern competition for a couple years now. He  is a very good sport 
flier, can 3D his 1/3 scale aerobats just fine and  knows some construction 
technique, engine maintenance and radio  diagnostics already.
 
But the demands of pattern planes are different and he has had to  overcome 
several issues.  After a couple of years of frustration  and perseverence, he 
has started to practice in earnest. He has  commented to me how difficult the 
"simple" Sportsman schedule is. I admire  his perseverence; most would have 
quit.
 
Point is, many Sportsmen face alot issues with  fundamentals that the other 
classes have learned to overcome.  Their learning curve is vertical already. 
Lets leave the complicated stuff  for the higher classes. The Sportsmen who move 
on, will see that soon  enough.
 
MattK 





 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050109/bee55c10/attachment-0001.html