[NSRCA-discussion] stirring the pot..;)

Mon May 18 15:15:03 AKDT 2009

Well, I'm probably going to get crucified for this email, but that's
OK..won't be the first time.

First, pattern is SUPPOSED to be competition.  And unfortunately whether we
like it or not, at some level the point is geared toward the NATS.  If guys
don't want to fly 2 FAI schedules, fine, then drop back and fly Masters.
Frankly this years Master's sequence is tougher than the P09 sequence.  The
guys who do fly FAI and do plan on attending the NATS should get the
opportunity to fly both at a local contest.   They are the guys that deserve
a chance to be as ready for the NATS as possible.  The quality of flying in
these districts flying both has GREATLY improved and the results show it at
the NATS. 

All of these recent emails have been about what people can't do, instead of
accepting it should be a challenge.  Some maneuvers are meant to be tough.
Masters should not be an easy sequence for someone who finishes 31st (just
an example)at the NATS.  Even the guys who win the NATS in the lower classes
should not be flying 9 and 9.5 on every maneuver.  This is supposed to be a
challenge.  If the sequence you are flying is too tough, then the provisions
are there to drop back and fly a lower class.  Life does get in the way
sometimes.I missed all of last year, but that doesn't mean we make sequences
so that the guy who can only fly 3 or 4 times a month should be able to fly
it well.  I've been working on this sequence committee stuff and sometimes
after reading some of the stuff, I think we should adopt the old Novice
sequence for Masters so that it is easy enough for everyone to fly.  

I've seen way too many times lower class guys that start a season having a
rough time, but with help and practice by the end of the year they are
flying it well and have learned what they are supposed to have learned and
are ready to move on and are excited about the improvements they have seen.
We need to quit making sequences and rules for the guys who have a tough
time learning something and make it challenging for the people at the top of
that given class.  There is a reason that you don't have to move out of
lower classes until you are ready and why there are provisions for people to
drop back and fly lower classes if life gets in the way or for whatever
reason.  

We keep coming up with reasons why we shouldn't have tougher sequences, but
honestly that is part of the reason IMAC grew so quickly.  People were
scared of the unknowns and tougher sequences at first, but they also
accepted them as a challenge.  And a lot of guys have continued to fly IMAC
for this reason.  Many pattern people have jumped over as well.  I don't
think I've ever heard an IMAc person come over to pattern saying IMAC was
too hard.  But I have met a  lot of IMAC guys that continue to fly IMAC
because the sequences change and they are very challenging.  There is no
rule that says if you are uncomfortable with a maneuver that you can't bail
out of it and take a zero.  There are guys complaining about maneuvers that
I doubt they have even ever tried.  I don't think Masters should be as tough
as the F sequences in FAI, but it should be a challenging class.  The lower
classes should be geared toward people learning the proper skills and
techniques to get them ready for Masters and if they choose to, to move on
to FAI.  

I didn't get to fly last year hardly at all because I was overseas, and when
I first flew this years Masters sequence it was tough and I had a lot to
learn about it, but I kept flying it and learned a lot about it.  We need to
get back to remembering that this is a competition and that the people who
fly it, fly it to get better, even if they have no aspirations of winning.
We can't keep dumbing down sequences just to make it easier for someone.
The older Novice and Sportsman sequences were much tougher than what guys
are flying today and people flew them with not nearly as good of equipment.
At the contest in Crowley this weekend, the winds were swirling on Sunday
and I'm sure, had we had 3 loops in the sequence, it would've been
interesting, but guys would've learned from it and at the next contest
would've done a better job.  That is the point, we should be challenged when
we fly.

 I think we will run off a lot more guys by making things too easy than we
ever will discourage from starting by making it too hard.  The people who
want to compete are going to compete and those that don't wont.  

Just my .02

Heading to the field,

Arch

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dave Burton
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 5:37 PM
To: 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] stirring the pot..;)

I hope flying the F schedule at local contest doesn't spread to D2. I have
zero interest in learning two FAI schedules and if it happens here I'll join
the herds of people flying Masters. Isn't it in the rules to fly F only in
the Nationals or Championship contest?

Dave Burton

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Mark Hunt
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 5:57 PM
To: pattern discussion
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] stirring the pot..;)

I have taken note that since we started flying the F pattern regularly on
Sunday at local contests (couple years now), we have been scoring it in such
a way that it is simply treated as a 6 round contest in which any
combination of the F and P sequences may be the drop rounds.  I think the
concensus originaly being that not everyone is comfortable flying the F,
allowing those that only practice the P to be able to drop both F rounds
(usually 2 F rounds on Sunday).

Hypothetically, it could be run and tabulated in such a way that in a
typical 6 round contest of 4 P's and 2 F's, you would drop one P and one F.
More of a Prelims and Finals style.

It's not any serious concern to me, but I am curious, what is the concensus
among FAI pilots now?  Just keep it the same, or consider changing?

-mark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090518/d9c8f5b8/attachment.html>