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

[Verne Koester]

Ed,
I don't think anyone is suggesting we make Masters easier. The real issue is how we get someone to try pattern in the first place and then how we transition them logically through the classes. There are three undisputable facts in all of this. 

Fact one is that prior to ever competing in their first pattern contest, a pilot has never competed in a pattern contest. As ridiculous as that sounds, it's very relevant. Most never will, it's always been that way, and there's not much we can do to change it. For the relatively few out there that are considering it, we have to make sure that it doesn't seem to be an insurmountable challenge. All the while we're doing that, we have to pick maneuvers that also start them on a path upwards. The various schedules we've had over the last twenty-five years have done a reasonably good job of that.

Fact two is that FAI is in fact raising the bar and it's been reported that they do so not only to differentiate the very best from the best, but to increase spectator appeal as well. The spectator appeal part concerns me most because there seems to be a definite trend toward the inclusion of 3D type maneuvers such as rolling loops and rolling circles. The question at hand is whether we continue to raise the bar in Masters to prepare one for this trend in FAI. My personal opinion is that what we're doing right now DOES prepare a Masters pilot for FAI if they so choose. If a pilot chooses to continue on in FAI, part of the learning curve will be learning some of these maneuvers when they get there. 

Fact three is that if you make Masters EQUIVALENT to FAI in difficulty with the rolling circles and rolling loops and so on, the trickle down effect is that you'll have to raise the bar in the classes that precede Masters to get those folks ready to fly Masters. Problem with that is the guy at the bottom on the outside that's never flown in a pattern contest before isn't any more ready either way because he's not even here yet. And then there's the guy in Intermediate that isn't challenged with it anymore but doesn't feel anywhere near ready to fly in Advanced because we've had to raise the bar to get him ready for Masters.

Of course, if you don't buy into the theory (not you personally, Ed) that each class should be a logical stepping stone or building block into the next level of difficulty, all of this is moot. The real challenge in all of this is developing schedules that get a pilot logically and reasonably from "A to E". The key in that is to set learning objectives at each level that take into account where someone is coming from as well as where they're going. Both sides of that last sentence are equally important. In my opinion, and it's just my opinion, we've done a pretty good job with that until we hit the transition from Intermediate to Advanced. The step is way to big and it's skewed everything around it. BTW, all this stuff about building blocks, objectives, and steps is what makes it so difficult to design new schedules for Intermediate and Advanced because the objectives for those classes shouldn't change. If we do it right, nobody should be there long enough to get bored in the first place.

Verne Koester
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ed Deaver 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 10:51 PM
  Subject: Re: adding interest and complexity to Sportsman ... again and again and


  I don't see the correlation between Sportsman and Masters diff.  

  Masters is supposed to be the 
  "King of the Hill" "Top Dog", "Big Dog"  
  of Pattern in the USA with FAI being flown also.  FAI is tougher than Masters and Masters is a good stepping stone to FAI(if a pilot wishes to go that way)   

  So, my question is what is it some people want.  If Masters were to get easier, why not just write a letter and fly Advanced.  Evolution happens, is unstoppable and unpreventable.  We can hide from it, or we can embrace and accept the challenge.  I've said this many times in different avenues.  

  I for one DO NOT want to take a step backwards and admit defeat.  There is nothing in this years Masters that is all that difficult!!!!  Challenging YES, Fun YES. Requiring effort and practice YES.  This is what my idea of Pattern is, or more comprehensively, Aerobatics.

  Nadia raised the bar for Gymnastics, Marty Hogan reinvented Racquetball, Pete Sampras set the bar for Tennis, as well as the Williams sisters.  Chip, JAson, CPLR, QQ all have raised the bar for aerobatics.  We cannot go backwards.

  JMHO

  Ed
  Bob Pastorello <rcaerobob at cox.net> wrote:
    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/20050110/9293ee5f/attachment.html