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

Mon Aug 13 03:10:38 AKDT 2007

Making Masters as difficult as you say will lose pilots altogether. There are a number of pilots already that struggle with the existing sequences.  This years Nats is a fine example. Typically it takes a 960's average to get into the finals. This year I believe it was around 937. 

We have clear cut definitions of what Masters should be. It is basically everything that is in FAI except a handful of certain maneuver types and that handful is very small. They only include rolling circles, maneuvers with integrated rolls, and certain handful of snap roll maneuvers. FAI is very airframe dependent in design. Masters should not be that. There is a reason why the Masters class is large and successful. Why would we want to change something that is working well, as it is. We change the sequences every couple of years. Some will be more difficult, others will seem easier. Level of difficulty will fluctuate up and down a little bit. There is nothing wrong with that.

I for one will drop out should certain types of maneuvers creap into Masters. I don't have the time to work on rolling maneuvers. I personally think rolling circles should be outlawed. They take up airspace and are terrible to judge. Ah, speaking of judging. Making maneuvers judgable is a criteria for designing an AMA sequence<g>. You can't expect a high level of judging skill at the local level as you might at a Nats.Hopefully forever stuggling in Masters,
Joe Lachowski

From: mjfrederick at cox.netTo: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.orgDate: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 23:43:33 -0500Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Stiring up the Masters 2009Sequencediscussionagain...

I can definitely see the quandary you are pointing out here, Lance. I've known many pilots who never had the desire to move from Masters to FAI competition. It had nothing to do with their skills, they just didn't want to fly FAI. Not sure the deciding factor for them, they just never moved "up" (or as I see it, moved on). I can definitely respect their decision.

In my opinion Masters should at least seek to keep up with the difficulty levels of the FAI Prelim sequence. That way we can have that "Elite" class that is ours alone. I look at it like the difference between soccer and football. The winner of the super bowl is probably the best football team in the world, yet you can't really say they are because no other countries play the sport (yeah, yeah, CFL and NFL Europe... they're all rejects from the NFL, that has nothing to do with my point). On the other hand, we have professional soccer teams here in the US, but nobody really cares about them until the World Cup comes around. Even then, though, we don't just send the best team, we hold try-outs to see who is the best of the best on the teams, and make one Uber-Team to go out there and try to "bring home the gold."

I only fly Intermediate right now (I really hate that name, by the way... never should have dropped the Novice class... I'd much rather be called "Sportsman") but as I move up, I'd hate to "de-value" the Masters class by making it just a stepping stone to FAI. I'll probably never be good enough to compete on the international stage, and as a result would never have the desire to move up to FAI. You can't "point out" of Masters, so why not make it as difficult as you want? Heck, make it harder than FAI P and F... That way we could have a National Champion who we could say is better than whoever the FAI decides is the "world champion." I'm all about giving our classes more value than the FAI classes... not less.

Matt

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

From: Lance Van Nostrand 
To: NSRCA Mailing List 
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Stiring up the Masters 2009Sequencediscussionagain...

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 listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_________________________________________________________________
Messenger Café — open for fun 24/7. Hot games, cool activities served daily. Visit now.
http://cafemessenger.com?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_AugWLtagline
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070813/d51987b5/attachment.html 