[NSRCA-discussion] Stiring up the Masters 2009Sequencediscussionagain...
verne at twmi.rr.com
verne at twmi.rr.com
Mon Aug 13 08:03:55 AKDT 2007
Me too....
Verne Koester
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Kane <getterflash at yahoo.com>
Date: Monday, August 13, 2007 8:46 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Stiring up the Masters
2009Sequencediscussionagain...
To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> I'm with Joe on this one . . . .
>
> Bob Kane
> getterflash at yahoo.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Joe Lachowski <jlachow at hotmail.com>
> To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 7:10:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Stiring up the Masters
> 2009Sequencediscussionagain...
> 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.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 23:43:33 -0500
> Subject: 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 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> Messenger Café — open for fun 24/7. Hot games, cool activities
> served daily. Visit now.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
____________
> Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
> http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list