[NSRCA-discussion] Stirring up the Masters2009Sequencediscussionagain...

Mon Aug 13 13:09:57 AKDT 2007

Maybe a little history is in order. For a good number of years the AMA classes were Sportsman, Advanced, Expert, Masters - with Masters being FAI-F3A. The point system was used to define the time to "move-up", the difficulty procession was well established, and Masters was the destination class. Novice was then added as an "introductory" class to try and induce folks with an interest into trying pattern. All was well! 

Then F3A introduced the "turn-around" pattern and all blazes broke loose! How dare the world try to tell us what our beloved pattern should be (never mind the fact that the chairman of the organization that devised turn-around was one of us - the US rep). Things were in kayos for several years, lots of arguments were presented  for totally abandoning F3A, but eventually AMA patterns adopted the turn-around scheme. However, F3A became something of an orphan in the minds of many. Masters became the top AMA class for which points advancement was required, and Expert was dropped. 

Along the line it was decided that the name Novice was menial or degrading somehow, so the introductory class was renamed Sportsman and Sportsman was renamed Intermediate. And here we are, Sportsman, Intermediate, Advanced, Masters. But wait - F3A is also an AMA Precision Aerobatics Class - check the rules, AMA class 406 is an official AMA class that uses the FAI -F3A rules. 

This thread contains logical and emotional statements. We all tend to be defensive of our positions and often our view points are quite different. Remember that, even world wide, we're a pretty small group of dedicate folks doing something very important to us, but relatively unimportant to everyone else. It would seem in our best interest to work together to ensure that pattern folks with different goals and talents can enjoy pattern and pattern competitions. 

What we now have is pretty good! We in the US have a pattern class structure that allows progression with improvement of skills. The system provides for a measure of when folks should move on to the next class and it provides for those who don't progress as fast to stay in a comfortable class. The NSRCA is a forum to discuss ideas and measure preferences which then can be recommended to the AMA Contest Board for further consideration and implementation. Of course varied views provide for continuing discussion of what is or should have been. 

What could we do better? From my view, we (NSRCA) should be more active in the F3A rules process. We (USA) have a representative on the F3A Subcommittee that defines the rules and pattern sequences. We would be served by ensuring our rep understands our views. Sequence proposals would be very welcome from the US. Nope - we can't totally control what the FAI/F3A governing body does, but we can (and have been in the past) a big part of it. How does this help the "AMA" pattern? Just consistency of rules and judging parameters would help ensure accurate judging at events using contestant judging - just think, no need for judges briefings outlining the differences. Wouldn't pattern be better if we envisioned it as a world wide activity? Recognizing a need for consistent world wide rules that could (and probably should) be "adjusted" to meet the desires and needs of the AMA classes seems a better approach that an us vs. them position.

OK - I'm a F3A guy - sorry, but I pointed out of Expert into Masters 30 years ago (F3A at the time) and I'm staying. I do think that the class difficulty increments were better back then. Essentially 3 classes to prepare for Masters. Now there are only two, Intermediate & Advanced. As others have pointed out - as Masters is designed to provide the degree of difficulty desired of a "destination" class and the schedule must be changed frequently to keep it "fresh" - the gap with Advanced is often large. It's also very small or non-existent between Masters and F3A. Increasing the difficulty of Advanced appears counter productive. One way to fix this may be to look to the past - tailor Masters as a stepping stone between Advanced and F3A (yeah - I'd change the names back to Expert and Masters - but that's just me), making Masters less of a demanding class where folks could be comfortable if time and/or talent didn't endear them to move on. The F3A Prelim sequences can easily be flown by anyone competitive in Masters, sure the Final sequences are a challenge - but isn't that what this whole game is about?

So - can things be made better for the average competitor? Probably, but it takes agreement within a diverse group that may be slow to come - but that's the way the process works. Hmmm - not any different in the F3A camp, I've been arguing for a half point scoring rule for around 20 years, not giving up yet!

Earl

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: twtaylor 
  To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' 
  Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 2:47 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Stirring up the Masters2009Sequencediscussionagain...

  This is why they should have left Expert in the mix. I understand the reasoning to drop a class and all that. There is a some what of a simple solution that I'm sure will rankle a lot of feathers and that is to make FAI an AMA class and a POINT INTO

   Class. Rename Masters to Expert and soften the sequence so going from Advance to (Expert) to FAI so it has a good flow. Problem cured.

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

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of BUDDYonRC at aol.com
  Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 2:23 PM
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Stirring up the Masters 2009Sequencediscussionagain...

  Glen

  I agree and also think the advanced schedule was softened to much to be a stepping stone to masters. The present Advanced pattern was designed accommodate the move from Intermediate to Advanced.

  The current Advanced schedule will keep the interest up through Advanced but may result in loosing pilots unless they are allowed to stay in Advanced, which as it is now

  Designed is a poor stepping stone to Masters.

  A smoother transition upward almost seems like it would require another class between Advanced and Masters

  It seems like we have two types of contestants, all having a true interest and dedication to the sport but one group lacks the basic tools to progress up the ladder as it is now designed.

  My observations indicate that this is one of the reasons we are loosing members.

  People who are competitive will compete as long as there is an attainable goal when that goal becomes to big a step or they or forced to move to a class that is above their ability or one that requires more time or equipment than what is available they move on to something that will more nearly suit their circumstances and still satisfy their desire to participate and be competitive.

  We have seen this many times in our own group when people move to FAI and then move back to masters because of one of the above examples. 

  Where do those who are located in a lower class go? 

  My observation as I mentioned before is somewhere else.

   Perhaps it is time to think about this and design some options that will maintain the interest of those who fall into that group and keep them from moving on.  

  Buddy 

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

  Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

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

  _______________________________________________
  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/20070813/7ca7f743/attachment.html 