[NSRCA-discussion] Stirring up the Masters 2009Sequence discussionagain...
Del K. Rykert
drykert2 at rochester.rr.com
Mon Aug 13 16:31:40 AKDT 2007
I believe many don't even attempt FAI because as I found out... You need
the time to rehearse and practice the FAI complex maneuvers. For those of us
that don't have the right airframe/powerplant let alone the coach and time
commitment.. why should we try FAI. I tried it and realized I would never
be able to make the commitments required. I assume others smarter than I
also see that without needing to try it.
Del
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Romano" <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 8:56 AM
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=950607&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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