[NSRCA-discussion] Pattern Classes & Growth

[ronlock at comcast.net]

Thanks for the comments Tim. 

You provided a focus on the intent of the current set of Sportsman, Intermediate, & Advanced maneuver schedules. The maneuver selections and sequence were specifically designed to incrementally add 
difficulty and be a tool for mentoring to the next level. The concept for change is the pilots move through the classes. Not changing them each cycle is certainly not a lack of interest, or unfair treatment of the lower classes. Those schedules should be changed when F3A and likely then Masters changes that incorporate new skills. 

Or....perhaps there is a public relations/marketing reason to change them every time Masters changes? 
That's lots of work to change something that isn't broke. And not necessarily desired by all in 
those classes. But, if we think it would really help build participation in those classes.... 

Do we have statistics on how many pilots fly contests in each class and how many years in each one? 

Later, Ron Lockhart 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim" <tstebbins at gmail.com> 
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 5:33:59 PM (GMT-0500) Auto-Detected 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] K-Factor morphed into Grow Pattern 


I hope I'm not flying in the Sportsman class for the next five years. I agree that flying different maneuvers makes for a better pilot, but it appears to me that the way the system is currently set up (different classes with higher degrees of difficulty) allows for that. As I said before, changing the set of maneuvers at the entry level doesn't make much sense to me. I don't think any of us want to stay in the Sportsman class for any extended period of time. We just want to learn and move up to the next level. 


When I joined NSCRA, my intent was to get with a group of guys that had the same interests in the hobby that I do and the guys in D8 have been great; friendly, helpful and encouraging. Maybe I'm naive because I'm just starting out, but I'm getting what I want out of the NSRCA. 






On Jan 31, 2009, at 12:33 PM, davidmichael1 at comcast.net wrote: 





Just for the sake of discussion- one could make the argument that flying a different schedule every year is exactly how you obtain the skills to progress to the next level. Does practicing and competing with the exact same sequence five years in a row really make you better or prepare you to move up in class? I would suspect that a Sportsman sequence would not be all that much different from one year to the next- mostly the same kinds of manuevers and difficulty level but perhaps flown in a different location or with subtle differences like roll types or direction. 



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim" < tstebbins at gmail.com > 
To: "General pattern discussion" < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org > 
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 2:19:03 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] K-Factor morphed into Grow Pattern 


I been reading all this bantering back and forth regarding changing schedules even for the lowest classes. Being a first year Sportsman pilot, I personally see NO benefit in changing the Sportsman sequence at all unless it allows initial training of new maneuvers in higher classes. I agree with Mr. Alt's assessment. The lower classes are meant to be a means of obtaining essential skills to progress to more difficult maneuvers in the higher classes. Leave it alone so we that are just starting out can practice and focus on the basics and then have a goal of moving into the next class of flyers. Changing the sequences for the higher classes does make sense since the same guys are flying in the same class every year. 




On Jan 31, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Ed Alt wrote: 




Hi Bill: 
Got it! I've discussed the reasons why Pattern doesn't change the sequences for all classes in the same cycle and I think it comes down to this. There is a much more deeply held belief in Pattern that you have to use each class as a real training ground to build essential skills before moving up. Changing the sequences for the sale of change doesn't support that goal as well as leaving them stable for a period of time. Now it may be that they should change more frequently than they do, but I think that it's probably not correct to change too rapidly. One thing I saw happen in IMAC as the years progressed, was an ever increasing level of difficulty in the lower classes. I think it gets away from the idea of progressively building fundamental skills, but maybe that doesn't matter so much when centering and box boundaries are meaningless, and snap rolls are sprinkled all over the place to compensate for shorter sequences (keeps the K-factors up). I guess it gets back to what I was originally saying; it's just a different event in more ways than the size and appearance of the airplanes. 

Ed 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: billglaze 
To: General pattern discussion 
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 11:12 AM 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] K-Factor morphed into Grow Pattern 


Sorry, Ed: 
I put it wrongly, and I guess pretty obscurely, also. What I meant was, when you and I were on the BOD of IMAC, all classes were regarded equally; when sequences changed, they were changed across the board, with all classes receiving equal attention. Their philosophy remains the same; all classes are equally regarded, and new sequences installed annually. As far as I know that is still the bedrock of IMAC. 

Bill Glaze 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Ed Alt 
To: General pattern discussion 
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 11:53 PM 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] K-Factor morphed into Grow Pattern 


Hi Bill: 
I wasn't aware that IMAC isn't all of the sequences annually anymore. When did that change? 

Ed 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: billglaze 
To: General pattern discussion 
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 4:10 PM 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] K-Factor morphed into Grow Pattern 


Also, Ed, you'll remember when we served together, ALL the classes were regarded equally, all receiving new sequences on a regular basis; not just the Unlimited contestants.. Bill Glaze 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Ed Alt 
To: homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com ; General pattern discussion ; jpavlick at idseng.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:12 PM 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] K-Factor morphed into Grow Pattern 


I think that a lot of the appeal of IMAC is due to the airplanes that are available. Another factor that has appeal is that sequences are different every year, and also, the unknown sequences at most every contest is popular as well. I flew nothing but IMAC from '97 through '03 and it was fun while it lasted. After a while, I couldn't live with the changes they were making and I ended up here. Both IMAC and Pattern have been great fun and great learning experiences, but I do have to say that I have learned more in Pattern overall. I also enjoy it more. 

I think maybe it boils down to a few subtle things that are just different in people. I am pretty much a purist, and what drove me away from IMAC was when they ditched the aerobatic box (except in theory), when they decided that factoring centering into scoring was unfair, and when they purposely added subjective scoring. It just grated at me and I knew I could not enjoy it any longer after they did that. Pattern isn't like that, and that's why I like it so much better. It allows me to tolerate the idiosyncrasies of glow vs. gas, allows me to put up with not being able to see a smaller model as well, but I do it because I like the way the event is structured. There are great people and good friends in both events, but I do what I do because it fits me better. We can tweak our website and restructure our publication, and it's all good stuff, but at the end of the day, you're going to do what you do because it fits you best. My $.02 FWIW. 

Ed 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: krishlan fitzsimmons 
To: General pattern discussion ; jpavlick at idseng.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 10:39 AM 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] K-Factor morphed into Grow Pattern 

Well said John.. 

On another note, didn't this start out as a "please take an online vote" email. 

On even another note, Imac is a different bird. More people may be interested in flying IMAC IMO because there is the freestyle. Foamies have made a great impact so that anyone can huck in their front yards. Kids are really into the foamies and the freestyles because they are fun, and impressive. We lack this fun type of flying in their minds. (Not to me, 3d is somewhat boring to me, except for foamies) 
As someone stated earlier, pattern doesn't have the market flooded with $400-500 arfs that almost every person at my field and other fields locally have. If we did, I know of many people at my field that would buy one. They have told me so. Every time I bring a new plane to the field, people ask me how much, and where can they get one. When I tell em how much, their face drops...Wanna grow pattern, do something like Hester. He's on the right track IMO. Look at all the ads in the larger magazines, how many pattern planes do you see in those ads? 


Chris 




--- On Thu, 1/29/09, John Pavlick < jpavlick at idseng.com > wrote: 


From: John Pavlick < jpavlick at idseng.com > 
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] K-Factor morphed into Grow Pattern 
To: "General pattern discussion" < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org > 
Date: Thursday, January 29, 2009, 7:01 AM 



Jim, 
Interesting observations. In my neck of the woods (Connecticut) there is almost NO IMAC or Pattern competition so I don't see any of this. Part of the reason for that is that it's hard to find large, open areas where you're allowed to fly model airplanes. Let alone have an organized contest. My state pretty much sucks in that regard. There sems to be plenty of room for shopping centers and "retirement communities" however. 

Even with these restrictions, I've managed to enlighten a few people and make them aware of Precision Aerobatics. By this I mean IMAC AND Pattern. Some people just don't want to fly Pattern, whereas others simply don't want to fly IMAC. That's fine as far as I'm concerned but the point is they need to know about them. That's where I think Patttern and the NSRCA suffers the most. People simply don't know that we exist. We need to increase our visibility if we want to attract new members. We DON'T need to change anything with how we fly, how we judge, etc. At least not to attract new people. All we need to do is let them know we're here and that they can fly with us if they want to. No pressure to join. Just take your basic sport model to a contest and fly a few rounds in Sportsman. Don't buy a new radio or airplane. Don't worry about the weight or size. Just show up. If we want to grow Patttern, that's one of the things that we need to do. If printed copies of the K-Factor at local hobby shops will help with that cause (it just might), then send me a box so I can drop them off. :) 

John Pavlick 

BTW - I actually did learn about the NSRCA through the K-Factor after a club member handed me a copy that he picked up somewhere. Once I knew that Patttern was still alive in my area (I had taken a LONG hiatus) I built a new airplane, started going to contests and joined the NSRCA. 


--- On Thu, 1/29/09, Woodward, Jim (US SSA) < jim.woodward at baesystems.com > wrote: 


From: Woodward, Jim (US SSA) < jim.woodward at baesystems.com > 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electronic versus Paper K-Factor Poll 
To: "General pattern discussion" < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org > 
Date: Thursday, January 29, 2009, 2:16 PM 




JN – there is more to the comparison of IMAC/Pattern than the traceable history to the TOC or available ARF scenario. I think Jay hit on it something important other day stating something to the effect that, “… if you are not in FAI or Masters you are left on your own.” (forgive me if it wasn’t Jay or I misquoted). Pattern and IMAC are totally different in many ways and being that I’m involved in the District/Leadership of each, I’ll list a few in no particular order: 
1. Basic, Sportsman, Intermediate in IMAC: in a 50 person contest, there are 5 Unlimited, 5 Advanced, and 40 persons spread almost equally between the lower classes 
2. Sportsman, Intermediate, Advanced in Pattern: In a 20 person contest, maybe 3-4 FAI, 7-10 Masters, 8-10 spread between lower classes. 
3. R/C Clubs view holding an IMAC Contest as a money-making event. Not so sure for the pattern event. 
4. Not such a rush to move up in classes in IMAC: IMAC changes sequences yearly and has unknowns flown each contest, all classes except for Basic. IMAC classes get harder in a hurry. For instance the intermediate class will have a 90 degree rolling turn in it and numerous snaps rolls, also a spin. There is no mercy on unknowns… sometimes they are more difficult than the normal sequence, sometimes easier, sometimes just different. There is not an expectation that all pilots will reach the “destination” class. There is no destination class in IMAC. 
5. Piloting differences? I find the average IMAC pilot is a fairly high skilled R/C pilot that is learning the precision side of things. You might watch a OK sequence, but later in the evening see them throwing it down on the deck in aggressive Freestyle most of us would dare try. The Pattern guys grow-up precision and can fly a higher scoring stall turn and have better sequence-fundamentals (and positioning), but lack in some of the other R/C roundness. 
6. The IMAC ranks have a lot of guys “who used to fly pattern” in them. I’ve heard it all as to why they stopped flying pattern and here it is (believe me or not , up to you): 
a. Pattern is too political at the top 
b. Feeling of Topped out – it didn’t matter how much I practiced, I couldn’t improve my scores or beat that one guy 
c. Best flights aren’t winning rounds 
d. Didn’t fit in 
e. These are opinions range from normal pilots, to “top guys” that only fly IMAC now 
7. Flying/Positioning – I love the pattern way of flying in a box, with a centerpole – I FREAKIN-HATE the IMAC way of writing sequences with “sort of left, sort of right” maneuvers. I understand why it is done and such, but I’d take the box anyday. Flying the box in pattern is its “own-significant-difficulty” which makes the less complex maneuvers harder to do. The IMAC way lets them “load-up” each maneuver into a super-complex deal – very hard to score well I may add too. However, its all part of the pie. 
8. Winning? In pattern, a win means you flew the sequences the best. This is cool because often you can “beat” a better pilot, by flying the maneuver you need to know how to do better than the other guys. In IMAC, usually the “best” pilots wins, because it is a combination of flying the known and unknown. 
9. Planes? Pattern planes fly the best, but are harder to fly well. Pattern planes are less affected by small changes in atmospheric conditions, or good/bad engine days – IE -- you almost always have enough power in a pattern plane regardless of sequence flown. IMAC - totally different. Humidity (specifically), can DRASTICALLY affect the speed of your plane. Power requirements change hugely with sequence/class changes. For instance, unlimited need a truly unlimited power setup. Not so easy to move up without changing equipment. A 40% plane is easier to fly “wings-level”, but the judging penalties are 0.5 point per 5 degrees, instead of 1 point per 15 degrees. 
10. Organizational view on Judging – I don’t know what the NSRCA stance is on judging right now. In IMAC, there is HUGE $$$ spent on judging programs, seminars, and creating a national standard for judging. How do they do this? They fly in people from all around the country for a national-type of judge certification. These guys then go forth and carry the message. 
a. Why do they do this? Because they know that regional differences and biases, or cheating of any kind, can kill-off an organization. They put a huge leadership and organizational priority on getting judging right. – if you know me – you know I like that. 


So, there are many, many differences between the two. Personally, I gravitate towards flying the pattern plane. However, the “competitive” factors in IMAC are solid too and given the activity around my neck of the woods, you can’t pass it up. So what’s the point, I guess the point still is that the total formula is working for IMAC. The NSRCA formula is not. What can we take from the differences to tune-up our own game? And regarding the K-factor – in today’s economy it is hard to justify business decisions that don’t break even. 
Jim 






From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [ mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org ] On Behalf Of J N Hiller 
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:48 PM 
To: General pattern discussion 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electronic versus Paper K-Factor Poll 


IMAC v/s Pattern is almost an apples to oranges comparison. IMAC popularity can be traced to the TOC and the general appeal of large colorful high performance readily available aircraft but mostly visibility . Pattern flying is absent from many local clubs but large aerobatic airplanes are represented nearly everywhere. The big airplanes attract the press and interests spectators. Pattern by comparison is extremely repetitious and boring to those not directly involved. 
I didn't want to get into this here but I question how many non-pattern folks would read a free K-Factor. There is a free sample available there now. Is anybody finding it? The problem I find is "Pattern" visibility. I couldn't get Google to find the NSRCA when querying aerobatics, RC aerobatics or pattern, however IMAC showed up. It's as if some amount of prior knowledge is needed before an outsider can gain access to pattern activity. 
AMA doesn't do a very good of job explaining competition events or activity and if you don't know follow the SIG you are kind of out of luck. How dose an outsider become aware of and interested in any competition event without knowing where to look? 
As for the K-Factor, the publication is second to none. I have been receiving them since it was several folded 11 x 14 sheets from a copy machine. The content has for the most part remained about the same; mostly contest results and district news. It's more of a competition newsletter with content of interest to those involved and of questionable interest to outsiders or the mildly interested. There is little seed for growing interest in any rulebook event on the Internet. It only happens at the local level with people having fun. 
To be active competitors in either IMAC or pattern requires a fair amount of disposable income and time commitment. We draw from the same shrinking pool of people willing to commit to a weekend out of town to participate in what appears to be a very regimented activity flown near the limit of visibility for many. Bigger really is better and we (Pattern) is somewhat restricted by trying to remain compatible with FAI. 
I have probably gone on too long but I don't believe our salvation lies in a free K-Factor, not that it shouldn't be, it just won't draw many to our sport. 
Sorry Derek, forgive me for splattering this even more. 
Jim Hiller 




-----Original Message----- 
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [ mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org ] On Behalf Of Troy Newman 
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 3:44 PM 
To: General pattern discussion 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electronic versus Paper K-Factor Poll 




Jim, 


What is really amazing is locally here in AZ and Sothern California IMAC contests attract 60-70 pilots. 


IMAC membership is up near 1000 members. They have an online only newsletter. Not even a magazine. 


Why would it be horrible to emulate an organization that is successful like that. 


They can’t be doing anything right they are just IMACers 
Just something to think about. 


Troy _______________________________________________ 
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 




_______________________________________________ 
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 

_______________________________________________ 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090201/3951d6da/attachment.html>