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

[Michael Wickizer]

"Why do you suppose the up and coming kids bypass Masters and move directly 
to
FAI from Advanced?"

Two kids in the last 10-15 years doesn't seem to indicate a trend to me.


>From: John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net>
>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] I'm off to a contest....
>Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:49:41 -0600
>
>Thanks Earl,
>I went by the FAI website and was surprised to see Ron's name still on the 
>committee.
>Now that you remind me, I do remember reading that Chris replaced Ron.
>John
>
>Earl Haury wrote:
>
>>John, et al
>>
>>The current US FAI F3A CIAM Subcommittee rep is is Chris Lakin (Ron 
>>Chidgey retired several years ago).
>>
>>Dave, as usual, makes good sense overall. I can even accept F3A as being a 
>>"quasi" AMA event :).
>>
>>It seems (to me) that there's a slight consensus that no advancement 
>>system is preferred, as it appears to best address the concerns of those 
>>who don't wish to be "forced" into a class outside their comfort zone (for 
>>whatever reason). Pattern certainly needs all folks who compete, 
>>regardless of their motivation. Sure solves the administration issues!
>>
>>Freedom of expression goes with a free society - the downside is that some 
>>or most may disagree and it's incumbent on the minority to support the 
>>majority in good faith. (Generally called democracy.) Too bad that some 
>>can't handle this.
>>
>>Earl
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "John Gayer" <jgghome at comcast.net>
>>To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 10:13 AM
>>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
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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