[NSRCA-discussion] Stirring up the Masters 2009Sequencediscussionagain...
Fred Huber
fhhuber at clearwire.net
Mon Aug 13 11:16:58 AKDT 2007
There is a bit of an issue there...
We have a local clubmember... who has competed exactly ONE time in
Pattern... took first place with appx 6 others flying in Sportsman... and
will be forced to move up... or quit Pattern... next year.
(Congratulations! You Won!... here's your punshment.)
I'm not so sure the rule about taking a trophy with a few people below you
forcing moving up is really a good idea... How about just having that add
significant points toward the amount that forces moving up instead?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Watson" <gwatson11 at houston.rr.com>
To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Stirring up the Masters
2009Sequencediscussionagain...
> Is the issue that competitors are forced by the current AMA regulations to
> move up thru the classes via a point system whether a competitor feels
> ready
> or not?
>
> Just mastering a maneuver is not enough. Being able to manage positioning
> throughout an entire sequence regardless of weather conditions is a major
> task which becomes more challenging as maneuver complexity and difficultly
> increases. A good example is the Figure M. I witnessed many competitors
> during the prelims at the NATS not able to sustain proper track and
> positioning in the cross/quartering winds we experienced. They would begin
> at 150-175 meters and finish at 80 meters from being blown in. Practice
> can
> address this however as I read here in previous posts not all have the
> time
> they wish to practice.
>
> The current point system for Intermediate and Advanced is based on a 4
> year
> cumulative total although one could point out in a single year from
> attending enough well attended contests. A potential issue here in
> District
> 6 for example. Does this make someone ready for the next class?
>
> If a pattern enthusiast has limited time to enable them to be comfortable
> flying a particular class why make it mandatory to move up. If the point
> system criterion was revised in such a manner to reset each year and force
> only top consistent place finishers to move up that would provide more
> time
> for those with limit time to hone the skills necessary to be comfortable
> moving on to the next class. In addition I feel this raises the
> competitive
> bar in Intermediate and Advanced having more experience competitors within
> the ranks.
>
> Glen
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
> Romano
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 7:56 AM
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Stirring up the Masters 2009Sequence
> discussionagain...
>
> Very timely Lance. I think Joe has it right on difficulty and design.
> Masters should lead to FAI. The current window on advancement points keeps
> pilots moving to their correct level.
>
> My question is why are so few Masters pilots willing to give FAI a shot?
> The
>
> two rollers in the P are not impossible and IMHO much easier than circles.
> We have had an issue in D1 were, like many, Masters is the largest class.
> Just this weekend the NEVRC worked very hard to put on a great contest. At
> the pilots meeting Masters made up half of the contestants with one FAI
> pilot. Myself and one other Masters pilot decided to give FAI a try and
> help
>
> balance the classes. I didn't think judges could subtract that fast but I
> had a blast. Since my scores aren't much higher in Masters I may finish
> the
> year in FAI. Learned a ton about positioning and placement that wasn't
> apparent in Masters.
>
> Anthony
>
>
>
>
>>From: "Lance Van Nostrand" <patterndude at tx.rr.com>
>>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Stiring up the Masters
>>2009Sequencediscussionagain...
>>Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:37:44 -0500
>>
>>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
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more.then map the best
> route!
> http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&ss=yp.bars~yp.pizza~yp.movie%20theater
> &cp=42.358996~-71.056691&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=95060
> 7&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.17/951 - Release Date: 8/13/2007
> 10:15 AM
>
>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list