[NSRCA-discussion] Unknows

[Keith Black]

MATT: << My concern isn't with judges with routinely judge F3A and Masters 
Finals....these folks have a pretty good grasp on judging nuances in 
general, which include unknown sequences (in F3A anyway). BUT can the 
same be said for the everyday folks...>>

Matt, could the less experienced judges handle unknowns? I'm sure it would be challenging initially, but so is judging the advanced pattern when you’re an intermediate pilot. We all got thrown in the deep end and had to swim the first time we judged, so why not try it? In fact, it could be argued that practicing judging unknowns starting as an intermediate pilot would better prepare more people to be capable judges for FAI NATS. Also, unknowns beginning with advanced (or masters) would better prepared pilots to represent the USA at international contests.

Here's a parallel, the FAI guys rarely flew the finals pattern at local contests until just two years ago. In fact, at the 2006 NATS I talked to some guys that made the semi-finals that had NEVER flown through the finals pattern at all. Then (at least here in D6) FAI began flying finals on Sunday. Imagine how much more prepared they are for both NATS and for the Worlds after flying F all season long. The same goes for unknowns!

I think flying unknowns (at least Advanced and/or Masters) would be very beneficial to pattern by 1) making it more interesting, 2) better separating the best pilot, 3) improving our flying skills and 4) better grooming young pilots for international competition.

Keith



-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 10:34 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment

Unknowns are a fair idea. Most of us long timers in the sport have 
flown most maneuvers in the book and could execute an unknown sequence 
reasonably well if we had a caller who was on the ball.

The main problem I see with unknowns is judging them correctly. My 
concern isn't with judges with routinely judge F3A and Masters 
Finals....these folks have a pretty good grasp on judging nuances in 
general, which include unknown sequences (in F3A anyway). BUT can the 
same be said for the everyday folks who attend the contests to fly and 
are also tapped to judge? I'm not so sure.

MattK

-----Original Message-----
From: jtkeiser at comcast.net
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 11:19 am
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment

Well, just think Ron, now all your competitors would be doing the same 
- at least for one flight. Doesn't that seem more fair?

 

Jack

 


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Van Putte" &lt;vanputte at cox.net&gt;
To: "General pattern discussion" 
&lt;nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org&gt;
Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2009 11:16:19 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada 
Eastern
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mandatory Advancment

I'm in the Master class and I fly unknowns all the time.  Just ask my  
caller, John Fuqua, and he'll tell you that I rarely know what's next.

Ron VP

On Feb 4, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Vicente=2
0Vince Bortone wrote:
&gt; I also fly AMA pattern and IMAC when there is a contest close to  
&gt; Kansas City.  I wish that I could fly IAC.  Yes, it will be  
&gt; interesting to add unknowns to pattern.  In IMAC the class that  
&gt; does not fly unknowns is basic.  All the rest fly unknowns.
_______________________________________________
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