[NSRCA-discussion] I'm off to a contest....

[Dave Lockhart]

..so I won't be reading 100+ emails the next couple days.  I started this
new post because I simply couldn't decide how/which email to respond to.
So, forgive the somewhat scattered approach, but some thoughts I have after
the last few days -

 

- Why is Masters the largest class?  Maybe because guys like the class?
Maybe because it is a "comfortable home" without the added pressures/demands
of F3A?  Do we want to force happy Masters into F3A (or maybe force them out
of pattern)?  I'm not sure I see too many people dropping out of pattern on
their way from Adv to Masters.  In any case, I think any changes to the
Masters pattern should be done with the greatest of care - it is the largest
single class on average at any given contest.

 

- Difficulty between classes.  So what is the jump between Advanced and
Masters is a little bit bigger than the jump from other classes - I think it
should be.  Pilots with more experience are the best suited to handle larger
jumps.  Pattern pilots by nature (meaning approach to practicing and
learning, recognizing limits) are not likely to wreck planes learning new
maneuvers for Masters, and this is (I think) even more engrained after
making several prior transitions (Int to Sport, Sport to Advanced).
Besides, maneuver complexity itself is not the only measure of difficulty
between classes.  Int is in part about learning what the box is - that is
quite a challenge for many.  Sport has more complex maneuvers, as does
Advanced.  To be competitive in Masters, you absolutely must be very skilled
with the throttle and know not only how to fly the maneuvers, but how to
present/link the maneuvers and present a seamless pattern.

 

- Differences between Masters and F3A.  Many seem to think because the # of
maneuvers, KFactor, and maneuver types are similar between Masters and F3A
(prelims), that there is very little difference between Masters and F3A.  I
don't agree.

1)  To be completive in F3A, you must fly at a higher level, and in all wind
conditions.

2)  To be completive in F3A, you must be polished at both the prelim and
finals schedules - even if the finals schedule were the same difficulty
level as the prelims (and it isn't by any stretch), this is not simply twice
the work - it is more like 4 times the work.

3)  To be completive in F3A, you need to be quite comfortable with a library
full of integrated loop/roll maneuvers - and you need to be truly
comfortable rolling both directions in complex maneuvers.

Bottom line of which is I would advocate a Masters schedule which is of
similar difficulty (# of maneuvers, KFactor, maneuver types, etc) to the F3A
prelims is indeed a step below F3A, and is indeed a good stepping stone to
F3A.

 

- Point system / Advancement.

1)  At the end of the day, how many people are really affected by the point
system?  Most advance when appropriate, if not sooner.  My opinion is that
many advance as soon as they can consistently get through a pattern - and
they move up without developing any polish - which is fine is the goal is
not perfection.  Recognize that participant levels in different classes in
different parts vary substantially, and vary with time (speaking for the US)
- no point system is going to be exactly right all the time, and if we
choose to, we can adjust it any number of ways.  And I think the only thing
that matters is that we technically have a point system on the books which
can be employed to force promotion of a clear "sandbagger".  Does anyone
want to see a pilot in Int, Sport, or Adv who is not dominant in the class
promoted to a higher level where they may never be competitive, and may be
chased out of the event?

2)  F3A is F3A, and it is a quasi AMA class as it is referenced/listed in
the AMA book.  I say quasi because the maneuver schedules are not determined
by the US for the US, and the amount of input the US has on the F3A
schedules is quite limited (how many can actually name the guy that
represents the US to FAI?).  Forced advancement from Masters (which the US
controls) to F3A (which the US has limited if any control over) is not
something I think should be pursued.

3)  The goal of a feeder system of classes to "build" the best F3A Team for
the US is a great goal.  However, not everyone has the time/desire to pursue
a spot on the US Team, and they need a "home" as well. As I noted above, I
think the current class structure does a good job of feeding F3A, and it
also has room for destination fliers in Masters.  Could a better feeder
system be in place if Masters were not a destination class?  Maybe.  But I
think pattern as a whole in the US (including F3A) would suffer if any
measurable number of current Masters pilots left the event due to changes to
improve the feeder system.  The US pattern community is perhaps unique in
the world of pattern - at the top, we have very substantial depth for
fielding an F3A Team.  We have enough pilots to have 4 very competitive
classes (including F3A) at the NATs every year.  The "feeder" system in the
US is far better than most (if not the best).

 

Regards to all

 

Dave Lockhart

DaveL322 at comcast.net

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070817/2f3fd808/attachment.html