[NSRCA-discussion] stirring the pot..;)
krishlan fitzsimmons
homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com
Mon May 18 21:46:28 AKDT 2009
I wish our drive was a short 19 hour drive. That would be easy. lol
Chris
--- On Mon, 5/18/09, Chuck Hochhalter <cahochhalter at yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Chuck Hochhalter <cahochhalter at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] stirring the pot..;)
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Monday, May 18, 2009, 8:24 PM
I think that there is definitely a clear picture of how
our districts differ through this discussion. In D6, those of us in
masters are very aware of what it takes to fly FAI. We look up to our FAi
pilots for their knowledge, guidance, support, encouragement and the challenge
of flying against them in cmopetition.
I flew FAI right after p-09 came out so I WOULD NOT
POINT OUT. I had so much support from the FAI pilots encouraging and
offering suggestions. Yes, we flew F on sunday and I managed to not zero
anything.... I had some 3's but still, I understood the challenge and accepted
it.
There is not one pilot in our district that is not
flying FAI because of our contest structure... in fact, it has strengthened our
district and the number of top pilots. In D6, we have one of the largest
contingents of NATS pilots around.. even with a 19 hour drive to get
there. We support, encourage and eagerly await our districts pilots
trip to NATS and their success.
NATS is a chance to test yourself against your peers on
a different stage.... looking at D6 and their track record of developing top
pilots, I can’t condemn them for the way they run their contests, seems to
produce winners to me.
If you want to argue superior southern genetic
mutations, then of course that is another thread altogether.
Chuck Hochhalter
From: krishlan fitzsimmons
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 8:22 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] stirring the
pot..;)
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
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-----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/20090519/925f61b5/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list