[NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
J N Hiller
jnhiller at earthlink.net
Mon Feb 4 08:22:15 AKST 2008
Thank you very much Joe. I was wondering where I could find this
information. You guys have done a fantastic job developing the sequence
criteria and I am looking forward to learning the 2009 masters sequence.
The reoccurring proposal to split masters voluntarily or otherwise seams to
be driven by a judging problem associated with a large number of masters
competitors. I believe I am ready for forced advancement to masters but
others pointing-out of advanced may not be ready. I can happen quite quickly
where a single pilot is dominant (not necessarily good). This can happen
during a single two-year rules cycle and single advanced sequence seriously
restricting the variety of experience acquired prior to forced advancement
resulting in a difficult transition or dropping out.
Sorry about getting off subject but the mandatory advancement may somewhat
responsible for the large number of masters class pilots that either need to
grow into the ever increasing difficulty or drop out.
Jim Hiller
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Joe Lachowski
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 8:03 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
I was involved in the last sequence design cycle. One of the things that we
did was first to establish the design criteria to work around. I'm sure
Troy, if he is still out there, will chime in. Turns out there were
basically 3 types of maneuvers we felt were strictly FAI and not to be used
in Masters. These included rolling circles, integrated rolls in maneuver
geometry and certain snap and roll combinations. We also felt that the
maneuvers had to be performed by current generation and the previous
generation or so of aircraft. Previous generation aircraft being those that
did not have the side area of current designs and things like T-Canalizers
which aid in doing certain maneuvers etc. I may have missed one or two other
things, but that was basically it.
I hope Koop dosen't mind. I'm going to let the cat out of the hat here. A
group of us have been working on developing over the last year a very
comprehensive guide for sequence design in the future. This guide is based
upon an initial strawman that Jerry Stebbins devised. The guide provides all
the structure for designing sequences, design boundaries, considerations ,
manuever listings for each class etc. for all the classes with the
understanding that these criteria must be reviewed prior to designing new
sequences to make sure that they address the needs of the pattern community
at that time and can only be revised upon approval of the NSRCA board and
judging committee and if necessary, the membership. THis document is around
60 pages already. Except for a few areas, it is basically complete and a
current copy is in Dereks hands. It should be completely finished before the
next Sequence Committee is established.
Below is the current design criteria for Masters from this guide. It is
based on the last rules cycle criteria and has been massaged and some
additional detail added. I do not want to discuss these at this time on the
list. Don't have time to argue point for point right now. This just gives
you a flavor. These are subject to change of course:
ANNEX A4 - Masters Class Design Criteria (AMA Event #404)
Definition
Masters is the destination class in the progression of AMA Precision
Aerobatic Classes. Masters is designated as Event # 404 in the AMA Radio
Control Aerobatics Regulations. Masters is where the skills built on in
Sportsman through Advanced (401, 402, and 403) are now applied.
The primary purpose of this class is to develop and demonstrate a pilot’s
proficiency and skills to:
* Fly straight vertical lines with centered maneuvers
* Fly with required geometry and accuracy of the maneuvers
* Fly accurate angles in all maneuvers
* Properly position maneuvers (Centering, and Turnaround locations)
* Perform standard Takeoff and Landing maneuvers
* Perform combinations of difficult/complex precision maneuvers in
the box
* Fly proper entry/exit lines for all maneuvers
* Fly constant entry/exit radii for all maneuvers
* Properly position all elements within a maneuver (centering in
lines)
* Maintain constant Aircraft track parallel to the runway in all
conditions
* Perform the sequence gracefully with consistent flow and precision
Airframe Considerations
Airframes utilized will typically be current state-of-the-art F3A level
models and older top of the line designs.
Design Considerations
* Should be a stepping-stone to F3A but not on an equal footing in
terms of model requirements.
* Skill based maneuvers that a well-practiced and skilled pilot can
use to perfect the figures, not maneuvers that are airplane based like many
of the current F3A schedules.
* Should be well balanced as to cover the vast majority of skill
sets.
* Includes rolling both directions and hesitation rolls.
* Includes Snaps and Spins, but not the snap-roll combos seen in
F3A.
* Centering skills and Box management for turnarounds. This includes
correction maneuvers after snaps and spins (Humpty bumps or top hat
turnarounds)
* Complex Figures, that are possible to complete but difficult to
score high marks. These being figures that have lots of elements to make
mistakes are good show of pilot preparation and skill.
* Almost equal weighting for upright or inverted entry or exits.
* Focus is on perfection of shapes and flying skills that will favor
the practiced pilot.
* The skills that are built in Sportsman through Advanced are now
applied in Masters with maybe some different looks.
* Level of difficulty up near the F3A Preliminary sequence. Sequence
should not include any of the F3A Finals maneuvers such as rolling loops,
circles or the detail and demanding snap maneuvers that are in the F3A
Finals patterns. Middle ground is equal to F3A Preliminary but less airframe
demanding to fewer skills required than the F3A Preliminary sequence.
* Emphasis is on pilot skill and practice. Not the latest model or
power requirements.
* Difficulty in judging shall be taken into account when selecting
sequence maneuvers
* Goal is for a total Sequence K-factor up in the mid 60’s to 70
* Goal is 21 to 23 figures total including Takeoff and Landing
Sequence.
Sequence Structure and Boundaries
The following criteria define the structure and boundaries to be adhered to
in designing a balanced Masters Sequence covering the vast majority of skill
sets:
* Maneuvers shall be selected from the Annex B4A and B4B Maneuver
Catalogs of the “NSRCA Procedures for AMA Precision Aerobatic Sequence
Development”. New maneuvers may be added to the Annex B Catalogs provided
they meet all criteria set forth in the “NSRCA Procedures for AMA Precision
Aerobatic Sequence Development”
* Total K-Factor Range: 65 to 70.
* Total maneuvers (including Takeoff and Landing): 21 Minimum, 23
Maximum
* The sequence shall have only one box entry and exit
* No more than one(1) of the same family of maneuvers used in the
sequence as a center maneuver. Exceptions to this requirement are stated
below.
* No more than two(2) of the same family of maneuvers used in the
sequence as turnarounds (i.e. no more than two stall turn variants or half
square loop variants). Humpty bumps shall be the exception with a maximum of
three(3) when one is being used as a cross box maneuver.
* Minimum of two(2) cross box maneuvers, but no more than three(3).
* Minimum of one(1) maneuver that incorporates a 4/8 pt roll. An 8
point roll may be substituted or included in the same sequence.
* Minimum of two(2), but no more than three(3) downwind rolling
maneuvers. These shall include a minimum of one(1) but no more than two(2)
maneuvers that incorporate reverse rolling.
* Minimum of two(2), but not more than four(4) maneuvers with a
K-factor of 5.
* Minimum of two(2), but not more than four(4) stall turns. Maximum
of two(2) turnaround stall turns. Maximum of two(2) turnaround stall turns
in conjunction with one double stall turn type center maneuver (Double stall
turns or Figure M’s).
* Minimum of 25% inverted exits/entries to inverted flight.
* Minimum of two(2) Snap Rolls, but no more than three(3) (all
center maneuvers).
* Minimum of one(1) Spin (center maneuver), but no more than two(2)
(one center and one turnaround maneuver).
_____
From: drykert2 at rochester.rr.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 08:24:47 -0500
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
Only that some assumed that master class was purely taking FAI sequences to
make up the masters class maneuvers.
Del
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Burton" < burtona at atmc.net <mailto:burtona at atmc.net> >
To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" < nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us> >
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
> Dang, I missed something. I thought we were only talking about what
maneuver
> schedule Masters Class would fly!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JShulman [mailto:jshulman at cfl.rr.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 1:40 PM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
>
> 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,
> Jason
> www.jasonshulman.com <http://www.jasonshulman.com/>
> www.shulmanaviation.com <http://www.shulmanaviation.com/>
> www.composite-arf.com <http://www.composite-arf.com/>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Joe
Lachowski
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 1:22 PM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
>
>
>
> Del, something I totally agree with you on<g>. If that is the gist of the
> question you ask of which the answer in my mind is no.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> From: drykert2 at rochester.rr.com <mailto:drykert2 at rochester.rr.com>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us>
> Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 11:59:12 -0500
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
>
>
> Is catering to the professional pilots what will draw more people into
> the NSRCA and flying pattern?
>
> Del
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: vicenterc at comcast.net <mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net>
> To: johnfuqua at embarqmail.com <mailto:johnfuqua at embarqmail.com> ;
NSRCA Mailing List ; 'NSRCA Mailing
> List'
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 11:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?
>
>
> I think the idea is that the destination class (if we changed to
> FAI-F3A) will fly the F-Schedule also. I see very strong advantages from
> judging point of view. Both classes Masters and FAI-F3A will know the P
> schedule really well since both are flying the same maneuvers. I expect
> that the judging level is going to be improved. Yes, the Masters pilots
> will need to learn the F-Schedule. Finally, I think more professional
> pilots will be willing to participate in local contests because we will
have
> more competition at the FAI-F3A level. I think if we do this could be fun
> that is the general agreement.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "John Fuqua" < johnfuqua at embarqmail.com
<mailto: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
<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>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Del Rykert
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 7:14 AM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: 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
>
>
>
> From: Del Rykert [mailto:drykert2 at rochester.rr.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 7:09 PM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?
>
>
>
> Hi Dave
>
>
>
> I'm not trying to imply that I have the correct answer to that
> question. Not all people that advance through the AMA classes have the
> desire or deep pockets to handle being competitive at the FAI level. Some
> Master fliers in the past have told me the time commitment is high to be
> competitive in FAI class. Higher than they can accept. That may be the
> biggest reason. Not certain. But they do enjoy the difficulty and
challenge
> of flying masters and if told they had to move to FAI or if pointed out
and
> made to move up to FAI some would choose to leave. I see it as part of the
> dues some are willing to commit to play. Some drop out after making it to
> intermediate. Others after reaching advanced. Some have stayed and still
fly
> those classes but real! ize the y don't have the time, desire, money, to
> move up and be challenging or at least make a decent showing they can
accept
> for themselves. I believe the competitive factor varies with us all and
what
> we are willing to commit to fly pattern.
>
>
>
> I'm even suspect their are other issues that escape us and why
> they are happy to fly Masters.
>
>
>
> Del
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Dave Burton
>
> To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
>
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 6:10 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?
>
>
>
> Del, what's the difference between " FAI type" schedules and
> "Masters schedules"? You are correct about previous proposals not being
> accepted. I have submitted a rules change twice for Masters to fly the P
> schedule and it was defeated both times. Won't do that again, but I never
> understood the opposition to it.
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Del Rykert
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 3:24 PM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?
>
>
>
> So it would be acceptable to you to drive some away from
pattern
> as it has been clearly stated that some Master fliers by choice do not
want
> to fly FAI type schedules. It has been voted on with surveys and
discussed
> on this list in the past to not use that approach.
>
>
>
> Del
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: vicenterc at comcast.net <mailto:vicenterc at comcast.net>
>
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
>
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 11:48 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?
>
>
>
> I believe that FAI rules states that it is required more than
> 2 days event to fly F schedule. I am sure that someone out there is going
> to be able to find if I am correct or not. Of course, we can use the AMA
> rules and the CD can override this if he announces the change with time.
>
>
>
> I agree that in Masters we should fly the current P schedule.
> This will make a natural transition when moving Masters to F3A. The rules
> should be changed to make the F3A class the final destination of AMA
> classes. In other worlds, Masters should not be the final destination as
> it is now.
>
>
>
> --
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>
>
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "Tony" < tony at radiosouthrc.com
<mailto:tony at radiosouthrc.com> >
>
> Those are the very reasons that I stopped flying FAI. The
> FAI rules state that the F patterns are for Regional, National and
> International events, and are not designed to be flown at a local contest=
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
> cussion
>
_____
Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, we
give. Learn more.
<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/20080204/9d0d29f7/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list