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

Mon Aug 13 21:03:22 AKDT 2007

Fred,
 Well, quitting is one option. But REAL pattern pilots don't quit - we get a 
new airplane! Hey I was in the same situation a few years ago. In my second 
contest I placed high enough to get booted out of Sportsman. I thought it 
was unfair at the time but I made the best of it. I flew the rest of the 
season with my 40-size Kaos in Sportsman, and toward the end of the season I 
picked up a used Focus. I practiced the 402 schedule quite a bit and I 
actually finished in the money at most contests. The best part was that I 
flew better! I missed the district championship that year by 2 points. So, I 
guess I was ready after all. Now I'm having a little bit of a hard time in 
Advanced (3 years after flying Sportsman) but I'll get over it. What's the 
worst thing that can happen? You don't win a contest? So what. Yeah the rule 
is a little harsh but it's not the worst thing that can happen to somebody. 
It just forces you to work a little harder. What's wrong with that?

John Pavlick
http://www.idseng.com

BTW - If your buddy needs a better plane, let me know...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Huber" <fhhuber at clearwire.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Stirring up the 
Masters2009Sequencediscussionagain...

> 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%20theater
>> &cp=42.358996~-71.056691&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=95060
>> 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 