[NSRCA-discussion] Natural Progression

Tue Aug 14 05:03:53 AKDT 2007

Tim,

I think you've made a lot of good points.  I think some of the answers to
your questions regarding the current/future status of Masters can be taken
from the last NSRCA survey - the direction of Masters has pretty closely
followed the survey results - in that it is distinct from F3A and the
difficulty level is slightly less than F3A (which fluctuates, granted) in
that some maneuvers are found in Masters (ie, integrated loop/roll figures).

The gap between classes will always remain a constant debate - and I think a
point that has been posted on this list many times (and seemingly gets
forgotten) is that pilots can practice for a new class by flying the new
class prior to entering a contest in that new class.  If we had 10 classes
between Sportsman and Intermediate, the gaps between the classes would be
very small.  I think the driving factor for the number of classes currently
is the current participant level will not consistently sustain more classes.
Yes, reintroduction of Expert might allow Masters to be a more difficult
class, but if pilots really wanted a more difficult class (or higher level
of competition), they have the option now of flying F3A.  I think Masters is
the largest class across the country because a lot of guys are happy with it
exactly as it is.

Regards,

Dave Lockhart

DaveL322 at comcast.net

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of twtaylor
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:15 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Natural Progression

In an effort to break apart the two subjects we've been talking about the
last few days I offer the following.

Since the dawn of man we've had a competitive side (At least that's what RVP
told me he was there after all). Some are more competitive than others and
that's fine. Since our sport has developed over the years we've made major
changes along with many minor ones. Given man's thirst for ever increasing
challenge we've come from old school pattern through what seemed like a
decade fight over going to turn around. We lost a fair amount of pilots
during that time yet the sport survived. We picked up some new pilots and
that's a good thing. Then the TOC came along to decide the best of the best.
It started with Pattern planes, and then someone decided to add a 10% bonus
for using a scale airplane. From that day forward Pattern was divided and
IMAC was born. Many of our former pattern fliers joined the IMAC ranks. I
don't pretend to know why, they just did. That diluted Pattern and no longer
did we see contests with 50+ contestants. I for one am glad we don't get 50
plus pilots anymore as that creates a nightmare contest. 

  I returned to Pattern after a decade lay off and can honestly say the
level of competition, airframes, engines, and radios has increased at an
exponential rate. I think the current fliers are more dedicated to the sport
than ever. The flying skills across the board have come up in every class by
an order of magnitude larger than I ever thought possible. I asked myself
why this was.

  After thinking for a year or more and talking with those that have been in
the trenches since going to turn around I've formed an opinion about why.
Right or wrong here it is.

  FAI drives everything we do.  Don't think so? Let me explain.

  The guys at the top of the game have nowhere to go, FAI is it. To keep
those guys interested and to separate the players from the wannabe's they
had to make the sequence progressively harder. Those that won all the time
can easily become bored and move on to something else. For a case in point,
one only needs to look at the amount of top pattern fliers that jumped ship
to IMAC.

  Let's look at our sport from top to bottom. We've made FAI so difficult to
keep the top guys happy we've out stripped the ability, or perceived
ability, of masses to fly that class. Some might say this is a good thing.
Harder keeps the numbers low and from top to bottom a better overall flier.

  Masters became the top class for guys that didn't think they could, or
just didn't want to fly FAI, yet masters flew the old FAI schedule for a
time.  So now we had to make Masters hard enough to keep those pilots happy
and interested. Seems we did the exact same thing for Masters that we did
for FAI.

  Now were on the classes that we hope will lead fliers into the upper
classes through a natural progression. Let's look back a few years and see
what we really did. We've made every class with the exception of the lowest
class harder. I don't see any real problem with that. If we look back at
what FAI flew the first year, that schedule isn't any harder than the
current Advance schedule.

  So what does that tell us? It tells me the level of flying has moved up by
leaps and bounds. I think it's a good thing.

   The question I have is this. Are we to continue to develop two distinct
top classes when they should or could be channeled into one? Are we so
afraid of what FAI flies that many master pilots are just happy to remain in
Masters and never try FAI? If so then this discussion is a moot one. Is the
jump from Advance to Masters not as hard? Does it not require the same level
of dedication to join the ranks of the cream of the crop? If you're not
willing to put forth the effort to try to crawl your way to the top, then
like me, you'll end up being just a guy out having fun.  Nothing wrong with
that either. A zero in FAI is the same as a Zero in Masters.

Tim

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070814/2756d4bd/attachment-0001.html 