adding interest and complexity to Sportsman ... again and again and

[Keith Hoard]

Get rid of the turnarounds in Sportsman. . . . . 

 

 

 

Keith L. Hoard

Cordova, TN

khoard at midsouth.rr.com

 

 

 

  _____  

From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Tim Taylor
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 11:17 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: adding interest and complexity to Sportsman ... again and again
and

 

I agree with you Bob 100% well said.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Bob Pastorello <mailto:rcaerobob at cox.net>  

To: discussion at nsrca.org 

Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 5:37 AM

Subject: Re: adding interest and complexity to Sportsman ... again and again
and 

 

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
www.rcaerobats.net

 

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Rcmaster199 at aol.com 

To: 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 

 

 

In a message dated 1/9/2005 12:29:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
rcsteve at tcrcm.org writes:

I have to agree with John here.  I'm concerned that we keep making the
entry-level class too hard for the real newbie that we are trying to hook.

 

I flew my first contest 7 months after solo. This was back in about 1997 or
so.  The individual manuevers were no easier, but you got to go out of the
box pretty frequently and get lined back up. For someone that isn't that
skilled (people we need to bring into the entry ranks to fill the pipe),
after a couple maneuvers, they get behind the airplane and are going into
the next maneuver in trouble. Leaving the box gave us the opportunity to
calm down and get straightened out.

 

If your skills were better than that, start in Intermediate. Same message
today to those that think Sportsman is too  easy.  It should be really easy!

 

Sportsman should be constructed so that regular club sport flyers can come
taste pattern with little or no practice when the local club holds a meet
with their 4 star 40's and Tiger 60's.

 

This year, I tried to bring a couple of our yearling's into our local
contest.  They just couldn't handle the continuity of it all, and both gave
up. Oh we could be elitist and say they should have practiced more and got
better airplanes, but is that really going to seed the pipe?

 

Maybe what we need is another (non-rated?) entry class?  Fun-pattern class
or something?

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050109/234b4814/attachment-0001.html