[NSRCA-discussion] Stirring up theMasters2009Sequencediscussionagain...

Richard Lewis humptybump at sbcglobal.net
Mon Aug 13 13:11:07 AKDT 2007 

Well said Mike...

I had typed a similar response, but chose not to send mine, as it was
considerably more strongly worded and would have likely ruffled some
feathers..VBG

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Michael
Wickizer
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 2:37 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Stirring up
theMasters2009Sequencediscussionagain...

Sportsman is the introductory class designed to let first time competitors 
try pattern on for size, rules are more relaxed as is the judging. The 
Intermediate class is the first real pattern class as evidenced by what is 
offered at the NATS.  The Intermediate class could well be called Novice as 
it once was, and does not require a great deal more skill, no snaps, no 
spins, only basic geometry.

Anybody beating 8 other pilots in Sportsman would be well served by flying 
the Intermediate pattern even if for only one contest a year.  Some pattern 
pilots have never flown in Sportsman preferring to start in Intermediate.


>From: "Fred Huber" <fhhuber at clearwire.net>
>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] Stirring up the 
>Masters2009Sequencediscussionagain...
>Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:16:46 -0500
>
>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%20theate
r
> > 
>&cp=42.358996~-71.056691&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=9506
0
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>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

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list