[NSRCA-discussion] Stiring up the Masters 2009 Sequencediscussionagain...

[Lance Van Nostrand]

I'm interested in what people think about this question.  This strikes at the heart of that topic: what's the difference between Masters and FAI.  I believe the many differences should be summed up as "choices".  For one example, "do I choose to learn 2 sequences or do I only have time for 1?".  Therefore, on the difficuulty question, I think Masters and FAI P should track the same target difficulty.  Jumping from Masters to FAI forces the pilot to accept a lot of new issues that AMA doesn't deal with.  But the top AMA class should allow flying the same difficulty without the rest of the baggage.  

On the other hand, if Masters is not a stepping stone class to FAI then why have it at all?  Is the baggage really that great?  In practice, pilots usually hone their skills in Masters until they have achieved some success before going to FAI, but that simply has created a division based on skill but not difficulty.  this is a tough question too, but since most contests I see have more in Masters than FAI (or at least equal numbers) I think our country supports the need for 2 classes even when the difficulty is the same (as it is now).

However, designing sequences that actually feel equivalent in difficulty is very difficult.  Just counting Kfactors is not enough.  Equivalent KF's can be found in manuvers that have only straight lines and radiuses and in rolling manuvers.  Rarely can that target be hit, so sometimes two sequences intended to be similar in difficulty will fly a bit different.  One or the other may feel more difficult but over the years with multiple sequence cycles one should be able to say they are essentially equivalent.  Our AMA sequences build skills so that when we get to Masters we have enough fundamentals to fly any sequence in the KFactor range prescribed. Remember, most countries don't have an AMA equivalent.  If you want to fly pattern, you start learning FAI P patterns.  It is fortunate we have our system so that people of all abilities can find enjoyment and those that have super skills can follow a road that ends at the level of their choosing.

Right now, Masters and FAI P07 are about the same.  Once we say Masters is a step below FAI P my guess is that most Masters pilots will feel ripped off.
Since AMA exists in this country for us alone we should do what the majority desires, however the opinion of the currently active Masters and FAI competitors is of particular interest.  Therefore it might be nice to identify your active class participation in any response you might care to make.

--Lance
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Del K. Rykert 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 10:04 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Stiring up the Masters 2009 Sequencediscussionagain...


  Is the intent/purpose to still have some progress from Masters to FAI or to have Master at a similar complex level with the intent of some staying in Masters as the top out Schedule?  For some advanced is the highest they will get. 

      Del
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Keith Black 
    To: NSRCA Mailing List 
    Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 5:18 PM
    Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Stiring up the Masters 2009 Sequence discussionagain...


    A while back Derek asked the membership if they wanted to stick with the 2009 Masters sequence that was proposed in 2005 or change to a newly designed sequence that addresses concerns some people had regarding the sequence. Apparently some pilots feel there are too many snaps or some such complaints, I'm not really sure.

    At the time I was not able to go fly the sequences and thus I had no response, however, I now have flown the sequences and have some comments.

    My first observation is that six of the eleven centered maneuvers are the same so much of the content of the patterns are identical. My second observation is that each sequence has maneuvers I think would be more "fun" or "challenging" than the other. If I had to put numbers to it I'd say there are three maneuvers in the 2005 proposed sequence that I'd miss if we went with the newly proposed schedule and six maneuvers in the new schedule that I'd miss if we went with the original 2005 proposed schedule. 

    I'd also say that IMHO both of these schedules are easier than the 2007 schedule and my initial impression was that the inverted entries have been reduced. I short, it seems that the schedules have been watered down from what we currently have. 

    I will have no complaints flying either schedule, but if I were to choose between the two I'd select the newly proposed schedule; not to placate those that object to the 2005 proposed schedule because I feel there's nothing wrong with it; but because I think the newly proposed schedule is more interesting.

    Also, I'd like to comment that I feel that the Advanced schedule for 2007 was too watered down and does not prepare pilots for the 2007 Masters schedule. I hope when designing the schedules we aren't trying to make Masters easier so the jump from Advanced is not as big. If the jump is too big then we should increase the level of the Advance pattern.

    Keith Black


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    _______________________________________________
    NSRCA-discussion mailing list
    NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
    http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070812/9a84eef9/attachment-0001.html