[NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?

Mon Feb 4 10:17:51 AKST 2008

Right on Mark. I failed to address this in my previous post but advance
points are influenced more by who you compete against than your own ability.
Jim Hiller

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Mark Atwood
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 8:42 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing Masters?

Offlist...

You’re alive! :)  I’m staying the hell out of this thread.  I’ll get people
pissed at me.  But what good is winning a class if the only reason you won
is because the guy that’s better than you didn’t show up???  WTF??

Anyway...another story for another day.

What’s the scoop on control horns?

-Mark

On 2/4/08 11:03 AM, "Jerry Stebbins" <JAStebbins at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
After reading a bunch of the posts I have a couple questions.
1. Since Masters is the destination class for all of AMA Pattern, how can it
be "TOO difficult"??, that is what it should be!!
I can understand problems with "kinds of maneuvers" like "rollers", too
many/multiple "snaps",etc. as in FAI, that  make the plane designs need to
be more maneuver specific. Those aspects are controllable by specific
constraints written into the Sequence Process Development Documentation.
2. I recognize there are pilots that do not have the resources
(time/money/mentors), or the inclination to spend the time it takes to
"Master Masters". That is an individual circumstance that each of us has to
handle. How does making the sequences easier so more pilots can get higher
scores with less effort become a viable solution, instead of defeating the
"best of the best" status of the Masters class.
 If the AMA Membership flying Pattern (mostly NSRCA) wants to provide a
class to accommodate those circumstances, then what will be the litmus test
of "having enough of X<Y<Z<" to force them into the Masters class, or
qualify for the pre-Masters class. Try to put that into an equation that all
would deem "fair and equitable". I would suggest if that is what it takes to
eliminate the yearly trek back through all this discussion-with no
substantive changes- let a body of those concerned come up with an
analysis/study/evaluation/findings/recommendations/rules by which it can be
discussed and voted upon.
Asbestos jacket on
Jerry

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

From:  vicenterc at comcast.net

To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 9:49  PM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed  topic to killing Masters?

In conclusion, as Joe said, we need to make sure that we do  something to
"limit the creep in sequence difficulty that has been  occurring in the
Masters class".  For sure this will make easier for  Advanced pilots to move
up to Masters.  If some of the Masters pilots  want more level we need to
add another class or they need to go and fly  FAI-F3A.

--
Vicente "Vince" Bortone

--------------  Original message --------------
From: Bob Kane  <getterflash at yahoo.com>

My  sentiments are in line with Joe's . . . . . .

Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com

-----  Original Message ----
From: Joe Lachowski  <jlachow at hotmail.com>
To: NSRCA Mailing List  <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2008  1:20:19 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing  Masters?

  We've voted on this several times already in the past and the  answer is
always NO.

You will lose half the Masters  pilots.  Guarantee I'll be gone. We need to
limit the creep in sequence  difficulty that has been occuring. I don't know
about you guys, but I don't  like having the international community
dictating to us what we fly here in  the US. You want to fly FAI sequences,
go fly FAI and take your lumps. You  know we have beaten this subject to
death a number of times already. I'm  tired of it already.

As far as the so called professional  pilots willing to participate in local
contests, as a CD, if they don't  support the local level contests, you just
eliminate the class an save some  money. That should send a clear signal. I
really don't think  making  changes for getting more of the so called
professionals  involved will amount to anything. The vast majority of  top
pilots do participate in local events. Th! ere are very few  who chose not
to. I think I can count them on one hand. Heck, maybe a couple  of
fingers.<g>

Why is there such a huge Masters class?  Most Masters pilots either don't
have the skill or time to master rolling  circles and integrated rollers in
a sequence to move up to FAI. Face  it, we like to consider ourselves
perfectionists at what we do. Who wants  to go to a contest and hack through
a manuever that could potentially  be a crash experience.  Masters is a
great success as it is. Leave  it alone.

There was mention of sequence length. We can adjust  Masters if we wanted to
to shorten the sequence. By the way the current  sequence is a little long,
but the 09' sequence is definitely shorter in  time length.

From:  GAA at owt.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008  08:43:58 -0800
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] changed topic to killing  Masters?

I disagree with Master flying the FAI P  schedule. I think we should let the
membership vote on this issue and  implement what the majority want.

--Gordon

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us  [
mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us]
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us%5D>  On Behalf Of
vicenterc at comcast.net
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 8:18  AM
To: johnfuqua at embarqmail.com; NSRCA Mailing List; 'NSRCA  Mailing List'
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>

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]
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org%5D>  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 <mailto:burtona at atmc.net> <mailto:burtona at atmc.net>

To:  'NSRCA Mailing  List' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us>
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us>

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

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

Del,  Ive never advocated doing away with the Masters class. I only
suggested adopting the most current FAI P maneuver schedule and fly  Masters
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 dont  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]
<mailto:drykert2 at rochester.rr.com%5D>
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 r! eal! iz e 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 <mailto:burtona at atmc.net> <mailto:burtona at atmc.net>

To: 'NSRCA  Mailing List' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us>
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us>

Sent: Friday,  February 01, 2008 6:10 PM

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

Del,  whats 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. Wont 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%5D>  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

To: NSRCA  Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us>
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us>

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>

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.

Tony  Stillman, President

Radio  South, Inc.

139  Altama Connector, Box  322

Brunswick,  GA  31525

1-800-962-7802

www.radiosouthrc.com <http://www.radiosouthrc.com/>
<http://www.radiosouthrc.com/>

  _____

From:  nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org  [
mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org%5D>  On Behalf  Of Anthony
Romano
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008  8:36 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject:  [NSRCA-discussion] F at locals?

Another  good point Jason. The more that the F is flown and judged the
better we all get at it. I can fly Masters or the P with equal  mediocrity
but the F always just scared me off. Maybe one  of my goals for this year
will be to learn it. Now if everyone  promises no laughing I might try it.
 From comments I  have hear a lot of guys just don't want to deal with
rollers.

Anthony

  _____

From:  jshulman at cfl.rr.com
To:  nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008  19:08:38 -0500
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging by  committee?

Problem  with that is that we're finding that enough FAI guys don't  want to
fly F... so why hold 2 FAI- P classes? I  understand getting to know 1
sequence is easier to judge,  but the Masters and FAI guys should be able to
have a handle on  the other class without much work. Its probably just me,
but if FAI were to fly both P and F, then having "Masters" fly P  might be a
more Masters class this way. Then again, I may be off  in left field, or is
this right? And since now both the Team  Trials and Worlds pick the winning
teams at the end of the  contest (after F) it would make more sense to start
flying F  locally so it's not a shock come Nats time.

Regards,
Jason
www.jasonshulman.com <http://www.jasonshulman.com/>
<http://www.jasonshulman.com/>
www.shulmanaviation.com <http://www.shulmanaviation.com/>
<http://www.shulmanaviation.com/>
www.composite-arf.com <http://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%5D> On Behalf Of  Dave
Burton
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 6:53  PM
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Subject: Re:  [NSRCA-discussion] Judging by committee?

There  is  a way to solve the peer judging and several other  problems with
changing maneuver schedules for Masters  class.

Let  Masters class fly the most current FAI  P schedule as a  separate
class. This provides a way that FAI class can judge  Masters and be
completely familiar with the maneuvers and  Masters class can judge FAI and
be completely familiar with the  schedule. Then the rules committee does not
have to come up with  a new schedule periodically as it changes every other
year just  like FAI. The schedules (P & Masters) are so close in  difficulty
that flying the P schedule should not be any problem  for masters class
flyers.

OK,  Flame suit on!

From:  nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org  [
mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org%5D>  On Behalf  Of Mark
Atwood
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008  3:56 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re:  [NSRCA-discussion] Judgeing by commitee?

For  our matrix version, the A& B masters groups, we effectively  ran 2
contests.  The scorer set up a second masters only  contest for the B panel
to enter their scores.  It worked  quite well with only a little confusion.

It did a  great job of picking the top 5 guys and getting them into the  top
8.  Im pretty sure you could argue that 7-12th place  might have had some
variance...but I think thats true regardless  of the format.

-Mark

On 1/31/08 3:49 PM,  "Anthony Romano" <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>  wrote:

  I  suspected this would require super- human objectivity as well as  be a
logistical nightmare. However, everyone reall knows the  sequence. Really
like the matrix system but not sure how much  work that makes for the
scorer. Anyone have any thoughts on how  to score that
  One idea that was kicked around in  D1 was fly an extra round in Masters
to generate an extra throw  away. Each round two masters pilots judge and
don't fly rotating  through the entire class. It seems like the time
required would  work out the same because the group had two less pilots but
again lot of objectivity ( conscious and unconscious ) required  especially
as the contest end grew near.

Anthony

  _____

Date:  Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:14:15 -0500
From:  atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org;  nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]  Judgeing by commitee?

Anthony,

I have to agree  with Jim, but for different reasons.  We did this about 4
years back at our district championships with the masters class.   We had 17
pilots in masters, and only one (me) in FAI, and  another 6 or 7 in
advanced.  So getting any judging at all  would have required heavily using
the Intermediate and Sportsman  classes to judge, OR, heavily burdening the
few Advanced  guys...and sitting through 17 masters flights is a looooong
sentence.

So we did the peer judging scenario.   Given the options, it worked very
well.  But it  requires some serious juggling to even try and make it work
well.  We ! used p! e e! r judgi ng for 4 of the 6 rounds.   Two flight
lines, with a rolling panel of judges.  5  judges on each line, tossed high
and low by maneuver leaving 7  pilots not judging at any given time.  This
allowed the  person before and after each flight some time to prep and
decompress before having to jump in the chair for 5 flights and  then start
over on the second line.

Its a VERY VERY VERY  busy process, not to mention that unless you
completely randomly  resort the flight line each round, the pilot will be
judged but  the same group...or maybe more importantly NOT judged by the
same group each round.

It worked...but it was messy.   I would only do it again if we were
presented with the  same grossly offset numbers of entries.

On a  related note... A better solution was tried a few years later  when we
had similar numbers (16 masters pilots)

We  created 2 classes of masters...A and B.   we still  used FAI and
Advanced j! u! dges,! but we were also able to  sprinkle in B judges for A
and vice versa.  We did 4 rounds  for each group.  Took the top 4 from each
group and  combined them and they flew the last 2 rounds as a Finalists
group (with the other 8 judging and flying in their own group  for the
bottom 8 spots.)

 This was MUCH more  workable, and I think netted a fairer event in the long
run.

-Mark

On 1/31/08 2:46  PM, "Woodward, Jim" <jim.woodward at baesystems.com>  wrote:

Hey  Anthony,

**** Attempting a 50 words or less  approach without too much regard for
political correctness  *****

I dont think peer judging works.  I dont  think it sends the right message
about problem solving or  achieving a more accurate score per maneuver for
each pilot.    Psychology 101 would predict that it does not foster  the
right mindset or circumstances for a competitive environment  (Reality TV
shows like Survivor are based on one form or another  of peer judging).

The #1 component that must  be correct for it to work is that all
pilot/judges see and  subtract about the exact same number of points per
maneuver see  the same downgrades.  The situation doesnt compute if one
judge is off from the others or uses impression judging.  A  bunch of stuff
should probably be in place for this to! work l  ike:  ! ! large n umber of
judges, drop high score, drop  low score, etc. The highest caliber of honor,
integrity, and  judge-education is required by all competitors to make this
work.

I witnessed this as a Masters pilot  watching the FAI contest.  I watched
the flying and this  scenario VERY close. My opinion is that I would chose
not to  compete in FAI in a peer judging scenario.

Thanks,

Jim  W.

CONFIDENTIALITY  NOTICE: This  e-mail message, includ! ing any attachments,
is for the sole use  of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and  propr! iet! ar y inf ormation.  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.

  _____

From:  nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us [
mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us]
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us%5D>
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us%5D>
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us%5D>    On Behalf Of Anthony
Romano
Sent: Thursday,  January 31, 2008 1:44 PM
To:  nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us
Subject:  [NSRCA-discussion] Judgeing by commitee?

Finally got a  chance to read the current K-factor and saw a note on the
Tangerine contest. The article mentioned FAI was judged by a  commity of the
FAI pilots. Could someone please provide details.  Do you think you could
keep your objectivity? ! For tho se that  were there how did it work out?
Sound interesting because you  would finally be judged by pilots wh! o know
the FAI rules and  the sequence.
 Could this be a solution for the overs!  ized Ma sters class? Obvious
drawbacks too, but trying to  inspire some  thought.

Anthony

  _____

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>
<http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join>

  _____

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion  mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

  _____

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>
<http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join>

  _____

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion  mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

  _____

Shed  those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser! Learn more.
<http://biggestloser.msn.com/> <http://biggestloser.msn.com/>

  _____

_______________________________________________
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

Need  to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail®-get your
"fix". Check it out. <http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx>
<http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx>

-----Inline Attachment  Follows-----

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion  mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

  _____

Never miss a thing. Make  Yahoo your homepage.
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>

  _____

_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20080204/85f1738f/attachment-0001.html 