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

Mon May 18 17:22:03 AKDT 2009

IMO, for many, the point of flying pattern isn't to go to the nats. If this was the case, we would have about 125 pattern pilots. The point of flying pattern to many in my district varies, but not many want to go to the nats. Now this being said, I do want to go, still in Masters this year, but next year I will fly FAI. My thought is that if I want to fly 2 rounds of F at a contest, I can choose to do this, but they will be my throw away rounds. The pilot who doesn't want to practice F shouldn't be forced to fly it, or have his rounds thrown away just because the pilots who go to the nats want local contests flown how the nats are. I would assume that most FAI nats pilots don't care about the trophy anyway, so we could judge them all 6 rounds of F if they want.  As a masters pilot, I like judging the F sequence. I support it being flown, and judged at locals, however, I don't think it should be forced to be flown at a local.  Just my opinion. Think
 about this, try the system of flying both sequences at a contest, now throw in us, or imagine yourself being one of the masters guys who want to move up. Would you want to be forced to learn two sequences just to move up and fly a contest? Or be forced to take two zero rounds because you just moved up and haven't had time to learn two sequences? Many would stay in Masters I would guess. Chris          

--- On Mon, 5/18/09, Archie Stafford <astafford at swtexas.net> wrote:

From: Archie Stafford <astafford at swtexas.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] stirring the pot..;)
To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, May 18, 2009, 4:14 PM

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 

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

_______________________________________________
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/20090519/bd1631ac/attachment.html>