[NSRCA-discussion] Stirring up theMasters2009Sequencediscussionagain...

Mon Aug 13 13:17:58 AKDT 2007

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We have a winner!!!!!!!!!

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Earl Haury
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 5:08 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Stirring up
theMasters2009Sequencediscussionagain...

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 <mailto:twtaylor at ftc-i.net>  

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

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
<http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982> .

  _____  

_______________________________________________
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/20070813/9c8b007b/attachment-0001.html 