[NSRCA-discussion] Stiring uptheMasters 2009Sequencediscussionagain...

Mon Aug 13 11:55:39 AKDT 2007

Dave

The fact Masters is a bit “less than FAI in difficulty then it should be a
stepping stone into FAI no? What we’re really doing is deciding if we make
FAI a destination class. What problems would we have making it an AMA class
besides the fact we wouldn’t control the sequences? Is it not, in fact,
already an AMA class in everything but name only?  

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Lockhart
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 2:10 PM
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Stiring uptheMasters
2009Sequencediscussionagain...

Just like to add that I think Joe’s comments pretty much mirror the results
of the last NSRCA survey – main point of which (for Masters) was that the
difficulty level should be close to, but not equal to FAI (at that time),
which does fluctuate as others have noted.  Leading to another point, there
is absolutely no reason to legislate ties any of the AMA classes, rules,
process, etc to FAI.  Yes, there is benefit to maintaining congruence
between AMA and FAI in most instances, but this can always be done
voluntarily for AMA and leave the option of not blindly following FAI (which
does not 100% share the goals/objectives of AMA).

Regards,

Dave Lockhart

DaveL322 at comcast.net

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Joe Lachowski
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 7:10 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Stiring up theMasters
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 <mailto:patterndude at tx.rr.com>  Nostrand 

To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

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 <mailto:drykert2 at rochester.rr.com>  K. Rykert 

To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

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 <mailto:tkeithblack at gmail.com>  

To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

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 <http://cafemessenger.com?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_AugWLtagline>  now.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070813/bc22e8c4/attachment-0001.html 