[NSRCA-discussion] Exper Class??

Mon Feb 4 06:28:48 AKST 2008

HMMM. Ponder this
Masters is the largest class at just about any contest in the country.
Masters presents a large judging load. 
Many want to leave Masters as it stands.
Many Masters pilots are frustrated by the extreme depth and competitiveness of the Masters class.
A number of pilots want to fly FAI but are not ready for F sequences.
Many FAI pilots don't have the resources to prepare for 2 sequences.
Many of the top FAI pilots don't participate because we don't fly F sequences.

Adding an expert class that flies the current P could help. Sequence development and rules are already done. It would increases the judge and competitor pool while improving the level of flying and judging. Really no more work in scoring. So other than an extra set of awards, which most would gladly waive, what harm would it cause?

If my club would let me CD a contest again I would try it. Once again I agree with Jason. Should I be worried?

Anthony

From: jshulman at cfl.rr.comTo: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.orgDate: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 16:49:09 -0500Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?

Sorry Doug, that makes too much sense and follows the basis of the way pattern is supposed to be. That's unacceptable...lol.

8.2.5. There is no mandatory advancement into FAI from the Masters class. Contestants may enter their current AMA class or the FAI class at any contest but not both.

If a pilot does not like the way FAI is flown, he does not have to fly it. An Expert class seems like a logical "solution" , but I believe it has been shot down many times before. Wouldn't this be a great way to get the one's who want more of a challenge than Masters, but don't want to fly F, a class of their own? It could even be an "FAI type" of class where Masters is still the highest class to advance into but pilots can jump into and out of Expert at any time. Establish a rule, written or not, that the pattern can not have any integrated rolling loops or circles. This would allow the FAI pilots to continue to fly FAI, not just half of it. Masters and Expert pilots could judge FAI, FAI and Expert judge Masters, FAI and Masters judge Expert.

Sportsman- gets feet wet
Intermediate- likes wet feet
Advanced- ready to learn more
Masters- ready to fly more of what was learned
*Expert- the imaginary perfect in-between class 
FAI- wants to be challenged beyond what was learned

I really hope that here locally (D3) we don't do away with the F sequence. But if that is what the majority decide is best for the class, so be it. I know of 4 pilots that want to continue to fly F, and they already compete in FAI.
Regards,Jasonwww.jasonshulman.comwww.shulmanaviation.comwww.composite-arf.com 

-----Original Message-----From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Doug CronkhiteSent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 4:14 PMTo: 'NSRCA Mailing List'Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?

Actually, I think the solution is to just decide once and for all that Masters will not be the training ground for FAI and make the Masters sequence the destination difficulty. I suspect that’s actually been done several times and people just keep trying to change it.

If people want to fly FAI, then they have to just deal with the problems that go along with it. No more complaining that the jump from Masters to FAI is too hard or they don’t have the right airplane, because well.. too bad. 

Seems like this topic goes around the list AT LEAST once a year.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of vicenterc at comcast.netSent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 12:43 PMTo: NSRCA Mailing List; NSRCA Mailing ListSubject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?

Jason,

I agree.  Another solution is get the Master class the level that was 8-10 years ago.  It was between Advanced and FAI-F3A.  It was natural for pilots wining Masters to move to FAI and not like we see now more moving from F3A to Masters.  It is clear to me that the new Master schedule is equal or harder than the new P schedule.  

--Vicente "Vince" Bortone

-------------- Original message -------------- From: "JShulman" <jshulman at cfl.rr.com> 

So if FAI pilots, that are flying FAI now, want to fly FAI (P and F), and Masters pilots, that are flying Masters now, want to fly Masters, what are we really "discussing"? Are we looking for a middle class to call Masters + for the guys that want to fly P and not F or Masters? Sounds like the addition of an Expert class in AMA to give the fliers in Masters, that want a P type of sequence, a place to go? 

 Regards,Jasonwww.jasonshulman.comwww.shulmanaviation.comwww.composite-arf.com 

-------------- Original message -------------- From: "John Fuqua" <johnfuqua at embarqmail.com> 
I have been following this discussion with some relutance to jump in.  As a current Masters pilot and old time F3A flyer I to once pushed to have the Master schedule be the P schedule.  But you guys need to look at what FAI has done to the P schedule.  Here is link to the F3A rules.  http://www.fai.org/aeromodelling/documents/sc4  
FAI has reduced the total maneuvers to 19 including a non scored takeoff and landing.   AMA Master is 23 including a scored takeoff and landing.  

Going to FAI would certainly speed things up (which is what FAI intended for large contests like WC to speed up the prelims and get to the real contest).

Not sure this is what AMA/NSRCA membership wants for a destination class.

John

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Del RykertSent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 7:14 AMTo: NSRCA Mailing ListSubject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?

Hi Dave..

I never saw anyone suggesting to do away with the Masters class.. I have thought of another restriction/factor. Some of the FAI maneuvers require a specific designed plane to do them well. If you don't have such an aircraft in your stable you can be looking at a prohibitive change to switch to those type of planes or live with the self imposed handicap. Granted, some of the best can make a good showing in FAI type maneuvers but when needing the 1 point advantage in a high K-Factor maneuver it does drive the contestants to seek the best sled that works for them. 

A good friend pointed out something I had lost sight of once.  He acquired a newer designed airplane to his stable that performed the maneuvers he was flying so much easier. The design choice alone was raising his scores by almost 1 point per maneuver. With only a little bit of practice with new plane. He never appreciated the handicap he self imposed until having better equipment. Heck.. I still have coreless servos and not a digital do I own..  How far behind am I? LOL.  

    Del 

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

From: Dave Burton 

To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' 

Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 7:33 PM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?

Del, I’ve never advocated doing away with the Master’s class. I only suggested adopting the most current FAI P maneuver schedule and fly Master’s as a separate class as we do today. Masters pilots would not be required to advance to the FAI class unless they chose to do so. Seems to me like it solves several problems. It allows a CD to have more flexibility in arranging flight lines, a larger pool of knowledgeable judges, eliminates the need for NSRCA (or others) to come up with a new schedule periodically for the Masters Class. I don’t think there is any difference in the difficulty level of the P schedule and the Masters schedule today and would not require any greater skill level than Masters does today IMO. 
Dave Burton

_________________________________________________________________
Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, we give.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20080204/17ee7783/attachment.html 