[NSRCA-discussion] Natural Progression

Tue Aug 14 20:46:39 AKDT 2007

I hear both comments from people, and I do get inquiries from people thinking about starting in pattern due to my VP role.  I also hear alot that IMAC sequences in comparison are more challenging than pattern.  I can counter that pattern has more box discipline, etc but the fact is those manuvers require more stick movement than ours and that can be attractive.  My point is this: whatever system we put in place will attract some and not others.  Changes to our system will offend some (who will claim they speak for many who will be driven from pattern) and encourage others (who will claim that we've made pattern more attractive to new comers).  Beware of looking for the least common denominator.
Great to see you at your first Nats!
--Lance
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Claude Weimer 
  To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:37 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Natural Progression

  I have heard otherwise from people flying in the lower classes. I have even had young guys flying 3D tell me how boring they think Pattern is. We had a young fellow fly through the Sportsman Pattern two days before our contest and when he flew in the contest he won out of six guys. He may be a better flyer than the five guys he beat but how many don't try it because it looks boring to them? 

  Claude

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Fred Huber
  Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 6:52 PM
  To: NSRCA Mailing List
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Natural Progression

  make the lower classes too chanllenging... and you don't get new competitors.

  Don't go there... 

    ----- Original Message ----- 

    From: Claude Weimer 

    To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' 

    Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 6:20 PM

    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Natural Progression

    Tom, what are the lower classes like in Australia? Some time ago I saw schedules from another country and I thought they were more challenging that what we fly in the US. I personally think our lower classes do not challenge our newer flyers.

    Thanks, Claude. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Koenig, Tom
    Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 5:59 PM
    To: NSRCA Mailing List
    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Natural Progression

    Interesting point Dave,

    During recent times in Australia, we have undergone some 'robust' discussion, with reference to the flying  of only the P schedule at local contests.

    Until recently, we have always flown the P on Saturdays and finished with two F's on Sunday ( FAI class). But the fact remained, that at world champs, we never managed to get an Aussie into the finals. We got close ( I think Peter Goldsmith just missed the cut once). The fact remains we need to get to finals first! Its not that we cant fly the finals, infact, once there, our top pilots could easily mix it with the best. But at a worlds, the competition in the pre-lims is so tight , that you really have to be on the top of your game. Being well known, is also a major factor at these international events,and lets face it, Aussie pattern fliers don't really get much press!!

    The funny thing is, and it remains unexplainable to me, is that it appears that the top fliers just barely do 'enough' to get over the line during the pre-lims at a Worlds. It seems, the competition really only starts after the cut?? Freaks???? Possibly.....maybe I should take up R/C Submarines and not bother!!!????

    So..... our national interest is getting the team into the finals at a W/C first-this is why we have now adopted to fly only the P schedule at local contests. The aim being to improve our overall 'P' performance. ( or should I say the three P's?? <G>)

    Granted in the US you do not suffer the same problems as we do. You guys have the 'Star' fliers and an enormous depth of field. But be aware that you could possibly dilute the quality of flying for the P schedule, by doing to much F at the local level. My national pride hopes that you guys do, because then we might have a chance<VBG>

    Maybe none of this is an issue in the US?  Certainly to us mere mortals down here, the top fliers you fellows have in the US , you included :), are more or less freaks who could fly anything, anytime!!!

    As I recall, the whole intent of the F schedule was to sort out the sheep from the goats at the W/C's only-it was never intended for use at local levels( but nothing stops you from doing so)

    Good luck with it chaps...but yes, our whole National focus is to do well at the W/C. It seems the only real way to get our hands into the cookie jar!

    Tom

     -----Original Message-----
    From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave Lockhart
    Sent: Wednesday, 15 August 2007 7:59 AM
    To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Natural Progression

    Earl,

    I think we'd agree that the survey needs to be completed more frequently?  I can't remember exactly when the last one was completed - I do know it is a lot of work assembling it, compiling the results, and evaluating the results.

    For F3A - is the fallacy that needs to be debunked -

    a)  Most will never be able to competently fly F3A?

    b)  Most will never be competitive in F3A?

    I don't think they are the same thing.  I do believe that there is a substantial number of guys that do not want to fly F3A because they do not want to (or have the time to) be competent flying 2 schedules.    Competently flying 2 schedules (at the current Masters/PO7 level) is far more difficult task than being competent at one schedule - especially looking at F09 and F11 - I bring this up because there has also been a recent trend for more "F" being flown at local contests (and the last 2 years at the NATs for rounds 5 and 6 in the prelims).

    Dave

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Earl Haury
    Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:32 AM
    To: NSRCA Mailing List
    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Natural Progression

    Dave

    You make a very good point in that the NSRCA survey is a very good tool for taking the pulse of the pattern community. Certainly the majority should prevail, but it's also good to explore new ideas and rethink old ones with the goal of increasing the satisfied majority. I think that's what Tim and I've tried to input to this thread. I have no desire to dictate the direction of Masters, any changes should be generated from within. I do find a perception that F3A is somehow unattainable for most and feel that's just a self fulfilling fallacy that could stand some debunking.

    Earl

      ----- Original Message ----- 

      From: Dave Lockhart 

      To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' 

      Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:05 AM

      Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Natural Progression

      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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

      _______________________________________________
      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 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No virus found in this incoming message.
    Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
    Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.19/953 - Release Date: 8/14/2007 5:19 PM

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  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/20070815/206f511c/attachment.html 