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

[Woodward, Jim]

John,

Please give us enthused readers a short bio of yourself.  Others like me
may have missed missed getting to know you over the last several years.
You write with some conviction of the topics to please detail some of
your participation, district, etc.

Thanks,
Jim W.




 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and proprietary information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient(s), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
 
-----Original Message-----

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John
Gayer
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 11:14 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] I'm off to a contest....

Dave,
Please read my comments below in red

Dave Lockhart wrote:

> ......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.
>
this is a good argument for eliminating the class advancement system 
completely. I see no more reason for forcing someone into Masters than 
for forcing someone out of Masters. Perhaps the option year I proposed 
would work here.

> - 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.
>
I agree completely. The only change I would make is to eliminate 
turnaround from Sportsman. Let them focus on geometry, centering and 
wings level before forcing them into scored turnaround manuevers. I see 
no particular problem with the Advanced to Masters transistion as the 
schedules are now.

> - 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.
>
I know Masters pilots are good flyers but how do they get the wind to 
die? Is this something I need to learn before making the jump to 
Masters? Also, flying at a higher level is always a requirement of the 
next class.

> 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.
>
True. That's why I proposed the option year. I think everyone should at 
least try competing at the next level before conceding it is not for
them.

> 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.
>
I contend that you are not a complete flyer until you can do integrated 
loop/roll manuevers. This should be a challenge, not an objection. I 
would definitely object to increasing the difficulty level of Masters. 
That slot is already taken by FAI. moving to FAI is also a two step 
process. Most will probably not have to worry about the finals schedule 
for a year or two.

> - 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?
>
much of this can be handled by an option year allowing one to go back a 
class if the water is too deep at the next level. Or by eliminating the 
point system completely for all classes. Just declare your class at the 
beginning of the year and stay with it. Next year change to whatever you

want. I only want consistancy. If Masters can stay put, than classes 
should have that option.

> 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.
>
Ron Chidgey, as I stated a while back. I still don't understand the 
relevance of this argument. Schedules are schedules. Who cares who made 
them up. The question really is whether the pattern "flows" and is it 
too difficult for my skill level?

> 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).
>
Somehow this keeps sounding like it is OK for the current top level 
Masters flyers to hang around and compete for the top spots at the NATS.

Its perfectly legal in Masters but is not OK in any lower class. Why do 
you suppose the up and coming kids bypass Masters and move directly to 
FAI from Advanced? and if the feeder system is working so well, then we 
should have the world champion and the world champion team year after 
year. After all, we probably have as many pattern flyers as the rest of 
the world put together. I believe having an FAI class where any of 15 or

more people could win the NATS and have a good shot at making the team 
would increase the competition and create a stronger team(even if the 
team members don't change).

Lastly, if the state of pattern is so good, why does the NSRCA 
membership keep dropping? It would seem we need to make some changes to 
remain a viable organization. I would love to see the membership numbers

for the last 10 years.

John

> Regards to all
>
> Dave Lockhart
>
> DaveL322 at comcast.net <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
>_______________________________________________
>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