Class Structure

Mon Jan 10 07:16:56 AKST 2005

Ditto what Del says. . . 

BTW - Have I mentioned that I think we should 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 Del Rykert
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 10:09 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Class Structure

Hi Verne. 

    I am only 1 vote but you would have my support as many I have tried to
get to consider giving pattern a try were intimidated by the box and keeping
a group of maneuvers in it. Without a coach was to over whelming for them. 

                             del 
               NSRCA - 473

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

From: Verne Koester <mailto:verne at twmi.rr.com>  

To: discussion at nsrca.org 

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 7:40 AM

Subject: Re: Class Structure

Terry,

Thanks for the comments. You're dating both of us here. That set of
schedules I proposed was when I was the D4 VP about ten years ago. The
radical concept I had then which would be viewed as even more radical now
would be to have no turnarounds in Sportsman. The idea was to have newbies
come out and do a judged set of maneuvers like loops, cubans, rolls and so
on with box exits on every pass. The whole concept was to get everyday sport
fliers that are doing this stuff anyway to come out and give it a try. The
schedules that followed were built on that first one and introduced
turnaround in phases. Anyway, I was shot down in flames. I think that today,
you wouldn't even see any smoke - it'd just go poof...........

Verne

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

From: Terry Terrenoire <mailto:amad2terry at juno.com>  

To: discussion at nsrca.org 

Cc: discussion at nsrca.org 

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 5:54 AM

Subject: Re: Class Structure

I value Vern's commentsbecause several years ago he alone came up with a
VERY good set of schedules for all AMA classes that truely did build on one
another. Sure wish we had adopted the entire program back then. 

I would love to see Vern on our rules committee. maybe he could come up with
another series for us to consider, but at least leave the avalanche in the
Advance schedule.

Terry T.

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 18:58:24 -0500 "Verne Koester" <verne at twmi.rr.com>
writes:

Georgie,
Here's a novel idea. Leave Intermediate alone and take the snaps out of 
Advanced. A pilot coming out of Intermediate into Advanced already has to 
learn Slow Rolls, 4 Point Rolls, and a longer schedule with more crosswind 
exposure maneuvers which is plenty.

The step from Advanced to Masters is minimal at best. The step from 
Intermediate to Advanced is monumental. The end result is a bunch of pilots 
in Intermediate that are getting bored with their schedule but still not 
ready for Advanced so they want to add snaps to it. Only problem is that 
someone coming out of Sportsman will likely be scared away if Intermediate 
is made any tougher.

It's no surprise to me that the number of Masters pilots at any given 
contest are far greater than the classes that precede it. Most of us who are

there came up through a balanced system of steps. We're all out of whack 
right now. Unfortunately, I seem to be one of only a handful of Masters and 
higher pilots that still remembers how hard it was to learn slow and 4 point

rolls which gets introduced at the Advanced level. Take the snaps and spins 
out of Advanced and introduce them at the Masters level, put some box exits 
back where they need to be, and you'll have a logical, balanced, and 
transitional  set of schedules that takes a pilot from Sportsman to however 
high he or she wants to go.

Verne Koester

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Kennie" <geobet at gis.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: adding interest and complexity to Sportsman ... again and again

and

> <<I'm not flying masters, I'm flying advanced, the reason is
> Masters is
> more difficult than I think I can reasonably fly at this time, so
> I'll work my way up. >>
>
> I respectfully disagree with your assessment of schedule difficulty.
> I get the feeling that you haven't taken the time to sit down and
> really study the current Master's sequence. I commend your attitude
> of working your way up!!!IMHO, I find the current Master's much less
> threatening than the Advanced sequence.
>
> Somebody mentioned "going to contests without practicing", and
> indeed I can remember, back in the 60's going to a contest myself
> having never performed the required routine and doing quite well at
> the time.However those were significantly different times and I
> myself would not desire to return to the mindset of that period.It
> was called a "Pattern Contest" and the attendance was probably a
> couple of hundred guys, but the mindset was more like a current day
> "Fun- Fly". Nobody really took it all that seriously. Somewhere
> along the line, the few individuals that did have a more serious
> approach organized and brought a more serious aspect to the sport
> realizing that the basis for guys going out and flying a routine
> that was in fact JUDGED meant that the concept must
> be"COMPETITION".  I think that this is probably the reason you still
> find the most heavily attended events to be "Fun-Fly's". When it
> gets too serious there are a lot of guys that start to feel
> threatened regarding their status within the group structure and
> when the pressure becomes, in their estimation, greater than feels
> comfortable to them, they gravitate to a different venue that
> restores the level of comfort they deem appropriate.
> The same thing seems to happen, in my judgement, with  schedule
> complexity.Some of us realize that if the schedules become more and
> more complex, at some point the difficulty factor will become
> significant enough to threaten our currently hard won achievement
> status, and indeed this is true.The decision that probably needs to
> be reasoned through is,in light of this truth, should the pursuit of
> excellence be sacrificed to satisfy the inadequacies of those of us
> who are clammoring to maintain their elevation?
> I consider myself a part of this equation and recognize my own
> inadequacies, however I  also realize that this same pursuit of
> excellence will not be enhanced by any concession to tilt the
> playing field in my favor. Noone will be served by that tack. Least
> of all ME! My flying prowess ranks somewhere between Sportsman and
> Intermediate(my assessment), and though I find a couple of the FAI
> maneuvers really tough to execute in a graceful manner, I still feel
> that there is no maneuver that I could not learn to do and given
> another 50 years of practice I might even be in a position to
> challenge Jason.
> It's about STRIVING guys. That's what COMPETITION is! And it's
> purpose is to determine the most skilled individual, with the rest
> of us rated in descending order beneath the rating of the BEST! So,
> as you can see, I'm not in favor of wussing out to make things
> easier for anybody who finds their position at the pinnacle
> precarious(and that includes ME).
> Now, all that being said, I do feel that we may have a void at the
> bottom and should probably go back again and reconsider a pre-novice
> class for the guy who has only been involved in the sport for 2
> weeks and has never practiced flying a straight line.This shouldn't
> take much additional time as the number of guys showing up to
> participate in this class will indeed be very few (which begs the
> question, how far do we have to concede in order to grow the
> ranks?).
> The Sportsman sequence I proposed a couple of days ago DOES appear
> to be too difficult for some of the respondants(but not all) and
> maybe the old Novice schedule should be made available for anybody
> showing up to try (as a pre-novice event).I also think that the
> Intermediate should introduce it's participant to the 45 downline
> snap or at least a center snap on a horizontal baseline as
> preparation for Advanced.
> Only a bunch of opinions, guys! Don't mean I'm right!
> G.
>
>
>
> =================================================
> To access the email archives for this list, go to
> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
> To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> and follow the instructions.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050110/6806e1af/attachment-0001.html